Hey Paizo, just errata Wizards to have simple weapon proficiency already.

[Old_Man_Robot]

There really is no good reason why they don’t have it. No other class has this penalty and, at this point, with the drop of G&G, you’ve just implemented a feat tax.

It doesn’t add any flavour to the class, nor does it actually impact balance. All it does is force wizards who want to dabble in guns to waste an additional feat.

Boo to that! Boo!

[Ruzza]

This is the sort of errata I can get behind. Having piecemeal proficency worked when weapons were a static list of equipment, but with the way that we're getting new items, having to jump through hoops for basic proficency is a bit silly.

[zeonsghost]

Given the proficiency system, if they were trained in all advanced weapons it still wouldn't impact balance a ton standing your 6 HP/level, unarmored goober up there. Though it would make for a fun univeralist wizard.

That said, for the sake of ease of use and consistency, having one class for whom weapons profs work completely outside the "simple/martial/advanced/unarmed" paradigm definitely feels like an artifact and not one that has a positive impact on class balance. Giving them simple makes it easier to teach to new players, easier for record keeping, and if someone wants to make a weapon wizard its not comically hard to do.

[Arakasius]

I agree here. There are some legacy issues that I think were carried over as sacred cows from PF1 that should have just been simplified. Similarly some rules for balance in tiny small edge cases that weren’t needed.

[Squiggit]

Yeah, it really doesn't seem to add much except make it slightly harder to build something that isn't even very good (and therefore not in need of extra hurdles) to begin with.

I'd go a step further and say in general Paizo made proficiency unnecessarily expensive but that's another topic.

zeonsghost wrote:

That said, for the sake of ease of use and consistency, having one class for whom weapons profs work completely outside the "simple/martial/advanced/unarmed" paradigm definitely feels like an artifact and not one that has a positive impact on class balance.

One minor correction, it's not just wizards. Rogues and Bards have a similar issue with being proficient in only some martial weapons (and similarly, it makes it weirdly problematic for them to use certain weapon for basically no good reason).

Technically Gunslinger and Fighter too, but it's more like a special class feature for them since it's proficiency above and beyond everyone else.

[zeonsghost]

Squiggit wrote:

Yeah, it really doesn't seem to add much except make it slightly harder to build something that isn't even very good (and therefore not in need of extra hurdles) to begin with.

I'd go a step further and say in general Paizo made proficiency unnecessarily expensive but that's another topic.

zeonsghost wrote:

That said, for the sake of ease of use and consistency, having one class for whom weapons profs work completely outside the "simple/martial/advanced/unarmed" paradigm definitely feels like an artifact and not one that has a positive impact on class balance.

One minor correction, it's not just wizards. Rogues and Bards have a similar issue with being proficient in only some martial weapons (and similarly, it makes it weirdly problematic for them to use certain weapon for basically no good reason).

Technically Gunslinger and Fighter too, but it's more like a special class feature for them since it's proficiency above and beyond everyone else.

Rogue, Bard, and the like at least list Simple among their assets. I think its fine to be Simple + X (for things like favored weapon, etc). They're using a modified paradigm where wizard is just like "Club, stick, dagger, dart. Welcome to 1980"

EDIT: sorry, "Club, Stick, Dagger, and Crossbows." I guess too many wizards lost eyes between classes playing lawn darts.

[Ruzza]

zeonsghost wrote:

easier for record keeping

This was actually one of my minor pet peeves throughout all editions: just jotting down my various proficencies when I know that they didn't truly matter to my character for the most part. Being able to tick "simple weapons: trained" would be just be so much simplier.

[Golurkcanfly]

Squiggit wrote:

I'd go a step further and say in general Paizo made proficiency unnecessarily expensive but that's another topic.

coughWeapon/ArmorProficiencyFeatscough

[Deriven Firelion]

Paizo will never let wizards have simple weapon proficiency. Wizards have no time to train with anything but that list as they are too busy learning magic in a superior fashion to others to learn all simple weapons.

[zeonsghost]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Paizo will never let wizards have simple weapon proficiency. Wizards have no time to train with anything but that list as they are too busy learning magic in a superior fashion to others to learn all simple weapons.

If a druid can learn how to work a crossbow between editions, a wizard can learn to use a spear (which is different from a staff because someone sharpened one end).

[Jokey the Unfunny Comedian]

zeonsghost wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Paizo will never let wizards have simple weapon proficiency. Wizards have no time to train with anything but that list as they are too busy learning magic in a superior fashion to others to learn all simple weapons.

If a druid can learn how to work a crossbow between editions, a wizard can learn to use a spear (which is different from a staff because someone sharpened one end).

Asking a wizard to know if the pointy end gets stuck in the enemy is too hard! Only smart people could know that kind of advanced knowledge!

[aobst128]

The wizard is the caster of the casting classes. With more slots and ways to get around being an icky prepared caster than other classes, paizo thought to limit everything else that other casters can get, like health, armor and weapons. While I understand health and armor, simple weapons probably would not change the wizards balance with the rest of the casters. I guess it's enforcing the archetypal wizard. You're not supposed to be using weapons, but that can be pretty restrictive, and try telling that to Gandalf!

[NECR0G1ANT]

When I suggested errata'ing wizard's bad weapon proficiencies over a year ago, I was told it needed to be that way so there would be room for the magus class...

Also give rogues martial weapon proficiencies, please!

[Golurkcanfly]

aobst128 wrote:

The wizard is the caster of the casting classes. With more slots and ways to get around being an icky prepared caster than other classes, paizo thought to limit everything else that other casters can get, like health, armor and weapons. While I understand health and armor, simple weapons probably would not change the wizards balance with the rest of the casters. I guess it's enforcing the archetypal wizard. You're not supposed to be using weapons, but that can be pretty restrictive, and try telling that to Gandalf!

The question is why it can't use most weapons of similar (and sometimes less) complexity but still gets the tiny little handful that it does.

[Captain Morgan]

I think Paizo might be coming around on this. No post core classes have had bespoke weapons lists. Personally, I'd prefer the cleric get it's expert proficiency sorted first. The wizard list is silly but is usually sufficient for their needs. The war priest on the other hand...not so much.

[Perpdepog]

Count me as riding this errata train as well. I always thought that wizards only getting some simple weapons was odd, like they hit this sweet spot of not being *too* simple for the wizardly mind to understand, or too complicated and detracting from their studies.

I'd also like rogues to get all martial weapon prof. It makes the rogue cry that investigators are the only skill monkies who get to have fun with sword canes. You don't want to make the rogue cry, do you?

TBH not at all sure about bards though. For myself I'd probably bump them down to just simple, but just as the wizard's restrictions don't make sense, taking weapons away from the bard doesn't make a ton of sense, either.

[Amaya/Polaris]

At this point, Wizards should obviously have simple weapons. Rogues should obviously have martial weapons too. Bard is the biggest sticking point and possibly a reason why there have been no changes.

Bumping an already-overtuned full caster up to martial weapons is out of line. Reducing them to simple weapons feels rude, cuts a little further into the lingering jack-of-all-trades tropes, and won't go over well among many (though it's an incidental boost to Battle Muse). Leaving it alone, and Bard as the only class with a nonstandard proficiency list (besides Druid and metal armor, another common call for undoing, and Cleric with favored weaponry) draws questions and awkwardness that could be avoided by leaving Rogue and Wizard alone as well.

Wonder if it'll get changed, and if so, how. Personally I wouldn't mind them cutting Bard down to simple weapons, or leaving it an outlier alongside Cleric (and potentially Druid).

[Perpdepog]

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

At this point, Wizards should obviously have simple weapons. Rogues should obviously have martial weapons too. Bard is the biggest sticking point and possibly a reason why there have been no changes.

Bumping an already-overtuned full caster up to martial weapons is out of line. Reducing them to simple weapons feels rude, cuts a little further into the lingering jack-of-all-trades tropes, and won't go over well among many (though it's an incidental boost to Battle Muse). Leaving it alone, and Bard as the only class with a nonstandard proficiency list (besides Druid and metal armor, another common call for undoing, and Cleric with favored weaponry) draws questions and awkwardness that could be avoided by leaving Rogue and Wizard alone as well.

Wonder if it'll get changed, and if so, how. Personally I wouldn't mind them cutting Bard down to simple weapons, or leaving it an outlier alongside Cleric (and potentially Druid).

Actually, I just realized alchemist also has a nonstandard weapon proficiency list, being proficient with bombs but no other martial weapons. Huh.

[Blave]

Technically, Fighter and Gunslingers also have nonstandard weapon proficiency.

[The Raven Black]

For once I agree completely with a request for errata. Giving them Simple weapons is the easiest and simplest way to solve this.

[Deriven Firelion]

Buhlman will chew broken glass before he allows wizards to have simple weapons or rogues martials weapons. I don't see that change coming any time soon.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Buhlman will chew broken glass before he allows wizards to have simple weapons or rogues martials weapons. I don't see that change coming any time soon.

Then he is being stubborn for the sake of it.

The core class weapon prof spread is clearly a relic from an eariler phase of the games design (Personally I think this can be said about the Wizard is a lot of places, but my personal hill), which ended up not mattering nearly as much as they thought it would.

For classes like the rogue, bard, and alchemist, this idea was to give them something to allow play to expand into more iconic weapons - without everyone just using whatever the best weapon happened to be.

For Wizard, this is pure take, and narrowing play. Sure, you can say "thats the point", but its a dumb point because its not seen with any other caster. If they had keep this idea for all casters, and all full casters only had odd groupings of iconic weapons, then this would be fine I guess.

Instead, its a unique penalty to one class just for the hell of it.

[HumbleGamer]

Ruzza wrote:

Being able to tick "simple weapons: trained" would be just be so much simplier.

I like it ( anything which simplifies things for either players and dm is welcome ).

Though I wonder, is there a specific reasons that many players are
bothered with the fact wizard doesn't have simple weapon proficiency?

Did I miss anything ( purposes, gimmicks, unlocking stuff, etc... )?

It's been 2 years of play and haven't seen a single spellcaster ( sorcerer, wizard, druid ) using a simple weapon durin a fight ( cantrips do the job ).

Apart 1 time the sorcerer got the opportunity to strike an adiacent enemy because of the exalt paladin reaction.

[Ruzza]

I mean speaking as someone who enjoys making some oddball builds, even having access to simple weapons would open up a few more possibilities without having to jump through any more hoops. Not to mention we now have new spells that mesh well with gish characters in SoM. Relegating them to just magus seems antithetical to their inclusion. That said, wizards getting simple weapon proficiency (along with other classes being "cleaned up" in this way) would toss require the Weapon Proficiency general feat to be changed (but I know exactly zero PCs who have taken that feat).

[nick1wasd]

Captain Morgan wrote:

I think Paizo might be coming around on this. No post core classes have had bespoke weapons lists. Personally, I'd prefer the cleric get it's expert proficiency sorted first. The wizard list is silly but is usually sufficient for their needs. The war priest on the other hand...not so much.

Yeah, the playtest Investigator had a curtailed list of weapons, but the published thing is Simple & Martial... And I say Investigators have even less reason to wield a broadsword than a Rogue!

I homebrewed an Assassin's Creed hidden blade for one of my players who's a Rogue, and had to go "yeah, it counts as a Rogue weapon for the sake of proficiency" instead of "here go, new martial weapon!"

[EDIT: If they really want to silo off weapon usage, make it something like "trailed in one handed simple/martial weapons" if they don't want a rogue/wizard with a maul]

[WatersLethe]

Fully agreed. It's more headache than it's worth, and it's not worth much.

[Meredith Nerissa]

Have you no respect for the status quo? No. Absolutely unequivocally not happening! If wizards were to be given Simple Weapon Proficiency then who would we Sorcerers look down upon?

Who would we kick around the playground then?

Respect the hierarchy!

;P

[Club]

Ooh! A horse!

[Old_Man_Robot]

Ruzza wrote:

That said, wizards getting simple weapon proficiency (along with other classes being "cleaned up" in this way) would toss require the Weapon Proficiency general feat to be changed (but I know exactly zero PCs who have taken that feat).

The feat doesn't need to be changed at all actually, it would just have a clause that applies to no classes instead of only applying to a single class. The wording is just fine even if it applies to no one.

It would simply be a "just in case" condition.

Weapon Proficiency wrote:

You become trained in all simple weapons. If you were already trained in all simple weapons, you become trained in all martial weapons. If you were already trained in all martial weapons, you become trained in one advanced weapon of your choice.

Special You can select this feat more than once. Each time you do, you become trained in additional weapons as appropriate, following the above progression.

Works just fine even if the first part refers to no one.

[The Raven Black]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

Being able to tick "simple weapons: trained" would be just be so much simplier.

I like it ( anything which simplifies things for either players and dm is welcome ).

Though I wonder, is there a specific reasons that many players are
bothered with the fact wizard doesn't have simple weapon proficiency?

Did I miss anything ( purposes, gimmicks, unlocking stuff, etc... )?

It's been 2 years of play and haven't seen a single spellcaster ( sorcerer, wizard, druid ) using a simple weapon durin a fight ( cantrips do the job ).

Apart 1 time the sorcerer got the opportunity to strike an adiacent enemy because of the exalt paladin reaction.

If you want to take Marshal dedication for example, the Wizard is the only one who has to take Weapon proficiency twice to fulfill the Trained in Martial weapons prerequisite.

[Old_Man_Robot]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Though I wonder, is there a specific reasons that many players are
bothered with the fact wizard doesn't have simple weapon proficiency?

Did I miss anything ( purposes, gimmicks, unlocking stuff, etc... )?

Well the precise reason I made this post is that a whole new book of content just dropped, one of the main features of which, guns, requires an additional feat to use for 1 and exactly 1 class.

[Midnightoker]

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

At this point, Wizards should obviously have simple weapons. Rogues should obviously have martial weapons too. Bard is the biggest sticking point and possibly a reason why there have been no changes.

I honestly wouldn't be upset to see any Bard that's not a Warrior Muse drop to Simple.

Alchemists get Martials would be preferred too, especially since the Inventor gets Martial.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

While I am unsure of the errata myself, I can't say this character wouldn't appreciate having a free general feat or something to spend on not-weapon proficiency.

[thewastedwalrus]

Eh, I think bards/rogues are fine with their extra few weapons. But wizards could maybe use something a little extra in exchange for their reduced proficiencies and lackluster focus spells to bring them more in-line with other casters.

What might be the easiest thing would be to give wizards a 1st-level class feat. It'd actually be undoing an errata that removed the original printing where they did have one. And it would allow things like familiars at level 1 for non-humans non-universalists.

I think wizards are probably fine as-is with bonus spell slots, arcane thesis, and arcane bond being pretty great, but if I wanted to make them a bit stronger then I'd go with that route.

[Captain Morgan]

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Eh, I think bards/rogues are fine with their extra few weapons. But wizards could maybe use something a little extra in exchange for their reduced proficiencies and lackluster focus spells to bring them more in-line with other casters.

What might be the easiest thing would be to give wizards a 1st-level class feat. It'd actually be undoing an errata that removed the original printing where they did have one. And it would allow things like familiars at level 1 for non-humans non-universalists.

I think wizards are probably fine as-is with bonus spell slots, arcane thesis, and arcane bond being pretty great, but if I wanted to make them a bit stronger then I'd go with that route.

Bards maybe, but rogues should really just get martial. They already have built on restrictions for the weapons they can sneak attack with. A martial fire arm isn't really better than a shortbow, and short swords and rapiers are already kind of the apex for finesse weapons. (I suppose two handed finesse weapons would be an upgrade, but I'm not sure it is enough of one to justify spending feats.)

[Perpdepog]

Meredith Nerissa wrote:

Have you no respect for the status quo? No. Absolutely unequivocally not happening! If wizards were to be given Simple Weapon Proficiency then who would we Sorcerers look down upon?

Who would we kick around the playground then?

Witches?

[Squiggit]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Bards maybe, but rogues should really just get martial. They already have built on restrictions for the weapons they can sneak attack with. A martial fire arm isn't really better than a shortbow, and short swords and rapiers are already kind of the apex for finesse weapons. (I suppose two handed finesse weapons would be an upgrade, but I'm not sure it is enough of one to justify spending feats.)

This is sort of my feeling. Proficiency tiers are ostensibly meant to denote that weapons within a tier are meant to be roughly comparable to each other and it's not like their current options are intentionally undertuned or anything.

Like... look at the main gauche. It's not that strong. It's not some abhorrent anti-flavor thing, it's basically a parrying dagger. Last I checked it is actually impossible for rogues to get full proficiency with them. And to some varying extent (depending on ancestry feats and such) that'll be true of any future finesse weapons Paizo prints.

Does that really make the game better?

The same argument works for the wizard too. Gaining full proficiency with a morning star or mace costs you your dedication... for a weapon that isn't meaningfully distinct from the Club they already have. And it's not like weapon using wizards are a problem or anything, it's a very niche build being made unnecessarily more difficult.

[Temperans]

Requiring extra feats just to get back to baseline for everyone else is literally like throwing salt on the wounds. Paizo will never improve the Wizard class beyond what it currently has as seen with how weak all new classes have been. But it also appears like they wont make it so Wizard can at least use the same weapons as everyone else.

If if you said Martial and Advanced weapons were really that much stronger that Wizard specifically needed 3 feats to get... But no. Most of them just give at most +2 damage and different flavor.

[aobst128]

The existence of Hand of the apprentice, bespell weapon, and weapon storm would undoubtedly benefit from greater weapon proficiency, although the later 2 don't actually require proficiency. You just have to be holding a greatsword to throw it or cast weapon storm. It would be nice to actually be able to swing it once in a blue moon instead of it being a decoration or formality. A "weapons" wizard can certainly be a concept even if it's probably not very good. I guess they saved that for the magus.

[breithauptclan]

Just play a Rune Witch instead. You can get the weapon proficiency and an additional trained skill too. [/troll]

But on a more serious note:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Well the precise reason I made this post is that a whole new book of content just dropped, one of the main features of which, guns, requires an additional feat to use for 1 and exactly 1 class.

I think you would be better asking that the first part of the Weapon Proficiency feat was changed to give both simple and martial weapon proficiency to everyone who takes it regardless of if they have all simple weapons or not.

[Golurkcanfly]

breithauptclan wrote:

Just play a Rune Witch instead. You can get the weapon proficiency and an additional trained skill too. [/troll]

But on a more serious note:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Well the precise reason I made this post is that a whole new book of content just dropped, one of the main features of which, guns, requires an additional feat to use for 1 and exactly 1 class.

I think you would be better asking that the first part of the Weapon Proficiency feat was changed to give both simple and martial weapon proficiency to everyone who takes it regardless of if they have all simple weapons or not.

The feat has a lot more issues than that, like losing all of its utility as soon as you go up a tier instead of scaling with your class.

[Gortle]

Yes it would be nice for certain wizards if they had simple weapon proficiency. It is iconic and flavoursome for them not to have it though. Plus it is pretty easy to get around. A lot of my designs pick up something like Elven Weapon Familiarity.

Paizo have a policy of not making everything generic. There is a lot of standardisation of skills and proficiencies across the classes, but you always see exceptions. This is just one of those.

It was a design choice. House rule it if it offends you, otherwise move on.

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

As someone who built and plays a weapon swinging wizard, I don't know what all the hubbub is about. There are multiple avenues to a weapon swinging wizard. This one is a wizard (champion, cleric) that wields a bastard sword and a stiletto pen of greater healing. While he is not as impressive with the fighter or champion in his party, he still hits non-boss enemies regularly enough for it to easily be considered viable. I mean, after all, he is a wizard that has all of the things a wizard gets by default. He consistently kicks butt so I suppose my philosophy is, if it ain't broke...

[Corwin Icewolf]

I don't play many weapon wizards personally, but I'm gonna go ahead and say I'm in support of this anyway, to make the concept easier for other players.

[Old_Man_Robot]

Gortle wrote:

It was a design choice. House rule it if it offends you, otherwise move on.

This can be said of almost everything in the game. Might as well just close the forums!

But, seriously, I get that’s it’s a design choice, but it’s a design concept they are evidently abandoned pretty quickly. It also, uniquely, feat tax’s one particular class and no other in spite of similar design space.

At this point it’s just a mistake they made. Thankfully errata exist to fix such things!

[thewastedwalrus]

Disagree pretty strongly with calling it a mistake. Wizards having less proficiencies for weapons than even other casters sounds about right for the thematic base.

I think they may deserve a bit more in other places to make up for the disadvantage, but just giving them the same proficiencies as other casters sounds like a boring way to solve that.

[Golurkcanfly]

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Disagree pretty strongly with calling it a mistake. Wizards having less proficiencies for weapons than even other casters sounds about right for the thematic base.

I think they may deserve a bit more in other places to make up for the disadvantage, but just giving them the same proficiencies as other casters sounds like a boring way to solve that.

Okay, but the specific choices don't make much sense, either. What makes all Wizards trained in X weapon when Y weapon is just as simple (if not more so)?

[Alchemic_Genius]

While we give wizards the ability to use a simple rod (I mean club), can we also gice rogues martial weapons? Rogues not being able to use guns and bombs is weird; hell, I'd take a "black powder" racket that add these proficiencies

[Deriven Firelion]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

While we give wizards the ability to use a simple rod (I mean club), can we also gice rogues martial weapons? Rogues not being able to use guns and bombs is weird; hell, I'd take a "black powder" racket that add these proficiencies

Rogues not being able to use bombs and guns does seem a little weird. A gun or minibomb is very much a rogue like feature in fantasy.

[Squiggit]

thewastedwalrus wrote:

Disagree pretty strongly with calling it a mistake. Wizards having less proficiencies for weapons than even other casters sounds about right for the thematic base.

I think they may deserve a bit more in other places to make up for the disadvantage, but just giving them the same proficiencies as other casters sounds like a boring way to solve that.

How is the current implementation less boring, honestly?

That's not rhetorical by the way I can't wrap my head around why charging Wizards an extra general feat for weapon proficiency if you want to do that thing is ostensibly exciting or fun for anyone.