Release after Dark Archive


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 224 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I sort of wonder what Paizo's plan was with Wisdom when making this edition.

Like it was widely considered to be one of the best stats in PF1... so they decided to tie initiative to it and have it cannibalize half the knowledge skills too. Seems weird.


I still don’t understand why there are Wisdom-based knowledge skills at all, honestly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
I still don’t understand why there are Wisdom-based knowledge skills at all, honestly.

Probably so that clerics and druids could use their main skill with their main stat for things that need it, like rituals. Weird when it comes to oracles or any pick a list caster though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder how late in the pre-public playtest design period that tht alternative stat system (seen in the GMG) got vetoed. Since it really is a better system.

Specifically: Will moves to Cha, Fort and HP move to Str, Con ceases to exist, Dex is split into two stats- one for AC/Reflex and foot skills (e.g. stealth, acrobatics) and one for finesse/ranged and hand skills (e.g. thievery) which adds to damage when >Strength.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Salamileg wrote:
keftiu wrote:
I still don’t understand why there are Wisdom-based knowledge skills at all, honestly.
Probably so that clerics and druids could use their main skill with their main stat for things that need it, like rituals. Weird when it comes to oracles or any pick a list caster though.
keftiu wrote:
I still don’t understand why there are Wisdom-based knowledge skills at all, honestly.

Weirdly, this is probably the one thing I like about 5e that isn’t in PF2 in some form or another. I love how you can throw any stat at any tool or skill, at the DM’s whim.

I know it’s technically possible in PF2, but hardly encouraged or assumed.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder how late in the pre-public playtest design period that tht alternative stat system (seen in the GMG) got vetoed. Since it really is a better system.

Specifically: Will moves to Cha, Fort and HP move to Str, Con ceases to exist, Dex is split into two stats- one for AC/Reflex and foot skills (e.g. stealth, acrobatics) and one for finesse/ranged and hand skills (e.g. thievery) which adds to damage when >Strength.

I'll have to take a second look at that. Since everyone wants to level con normally, I like the idea of everyone ending a campaign completely jacked with 18-20 strength.


On a closer look, I don't like it that much. It makes melee dex and some mad classes better, but something like a bomber is kinda screwed by it.

Scarab Sages

Wisdom is the best ability score by far, for reasons other people have outlined. I also dislike the Alternative Scores variant rule.

My solution would be to let Will saves key of INT, WIS, or CHA. If stupified can affect all three, any of the three should affect will saves.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

IMO, the key attributes should be Strength, Dexterity, Agility, Endurance, Intelligence, Aura, and Will. :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m got into the hobby with 4e, where each “non-AC defense” (the three traditional d20 saves) was drawn from the better of two Ability Score modifiers; Fortitude was Strength or Constitution, Reflex was Dexterity or Intelligence, and Will was Wisdom or Charisma. Made everybody a little less MAD.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone keeps talking about how strong wisdom is but no one has said anything about how adding another Wis class/sub-class is going to break the game or why they should be avoided. The potential of breaking the game is not a valid reason. Any poorly designed class can break the game regardless of stat. Listing all the things Wis does just shows why everyone wants wisdom but gives no explanation for why Wis classes/sub-classes are the systems kryptonite.

We have 2 Wis classes already. They work fine and the system is still balanced. People just aren't complaining about them being OP. That alone shows Wis can be used and the system can survive.

It's not like I'm asking something unreasonable either. I see plenty of posts about Inquisitor and Shaman. I just want Paizo to work past whatever issue they have with Wis classes/sub-classes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Calling it an "issue they need to work past" feels like a reach to me and kind of inconsistent with how they've described their class design process.

They just haven't published any wisdom based classes in a bit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, the perception of "Paizo just WON'T make new Wis-based casters" is entirely community-driven. Paizo has gone on record that they're now trying to be thematic for their rulebooks now, so for now they just haven't found the place for such a new class.

Liberty's Edge

Zabraxis wrote:

Everyone keeps talking about how strong wisdom is but no one has said anything about how adding another Wis class/sub-class is going to break the game or why they should be avoided. The potential of breaking the game is not a valid reason. Any poorly designed class can break the game regardless of stat. Listing all the things Wis does just shows why everyone wants wisdom but gives no explanation for why Wis classes/sub-classes are the systems kryptonite.

We have 2 Wis classes already. They work fine and the system is still balanced. People just aren't complaining about them being OP. That alone shows Wis can be used and the system can survive.

It's not like I'm asking something unreasonable either. I see plenty of posts about Inquisitor and Shaman. I just want Paizo to work past whatever issue they have with Wis classes/sub-classes.

The Raven Black wrote:

WIS is already so good that it makes any WIS-based class already powerful. To balance this, the rest of the class would have to be subpar compared to non-WIS based classes.

I think they want to avoid this.

Note that this holds especially true for future classes, since Paizo clearly target new classes slightly below the CRB classes' power.


Is there any reason for a Wis-based class that is not primarily a caster?

We have several partial or non-casters based on Int or Cha, but we don't have one based on Wis yet. That's the thing that's hard to balance, but there's no reason they couldn't do it.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

It occurs to me that Paizo has said that they didn't want to have as many classes in 2nd edition as there were in first. And yet folks keep clamoring for more classes. We're up to what, 22 now? And there were, iirc, 44 in 1st ed. So we're halfway there already. I dunno. I do remember a bit of mind-freeze trying to put a character together in first, given the mind-boggling number of options at any given point in the process. It's not quite as bad in 2e, so far.

Liberty's Edge

Except for archetypes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I will not be satisfied until we get 6,000 classes. That's my limit.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Is there any reason for a Wis-based class that is not primarily a caster?

We have several partial or non-casters based on Int or Cha, but we don't have one based on Wis yet. That's the thing that's hard to balance, but there's no reason they couldn't do it.

I certainly would like to see at least one, maybe 2.

I can't decide if I'd rather see a Medium as a bound caster or a mental martial like the Thaum or Inventor. But whichever it winds up being, I could see the Inquisitor being the other to give the two pretty firm mechanical differentiation while still playing in the same "Divine-themed mostly martial" box that their themes each suggest.

Liberty's Edge

If we aim for a WIS-martial, we need to find a way to boost their attacks (and damage or AC) through WIS because they will not have STR/DEX 18.

And that is knowing that, from max WIS alone, they will already often find clues (Perception and Survival), act first (Initiative), heal (Medicine) and RK about most monsters the party meets (Nature and Religion).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, yes of course. Both Thaums and Inventors have damage boosts built in (in fact, most martial classes do), so I would see no reason to assume these classes would be excluded.

It would be perfectly fine to simply not have that boost be as high as it otherwise might, given their ability carry max wisdom and near max Dex and Str, with all the benefits that would entail.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

WIS is already so good that it makes any WIS-based class already powerful. To balance this, the rest of the class would have to be subpar compared to non-WIS based classes.

I think they want to avoid this.

To be honest, I'm not sure Paizo actually considers this much when designing classes.

Like it's hard to make any 1:1 comparisons, but... for instance we have two prepared primal casters, one of them Wisdom and the other Intelligence based, but despite one relying on an ostensibly better stat, the Druid also generally has a better chassis overall (more hp, a faster save/perception progression, better armor, a better starting focus spell, a better mechanic for preparing spells).

Again, it's just one example and there are other factors in play, but it doesn't feel like the innate value of Wisdom is actually a consideration here.

The Raven Black wrote:
If we aim for a WIS-martial, we need to find a way to boost their attacks (and damage or AC) through WIS because they will not have STR/DEX 18.

Paizo seems okay with that being a problem characters have to deal with though too, judging by the Inventor and the playtest Thaumaturge (and even the Investigator can only get their to-hit bonus once per round).


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Is there any reason for a Wis-based class that is not primarily a caster?

We have several partial or non-casters based on Int or Cha, but we don't have one based on Wis yet. That's the thing that's hard to balance, but there's no reason they couldn't do it.

To continue this thought, Primal concepts seem almost too easy to come up, so I'll leave that be for now. I can think of 5 or 6 either old PF1 classes or new classes I've proposed off the top of my head that would be best expressed as "Wis martial". There's just so much overlap with Primal's themes of animal/plant transmutation, elemental power, and survivalism and both "martial" and "things that wisdom does".

But for something that doesn't touch magic at all, why not take another look at Medicine? I'm not sure there's much left after alchemists and investigators have both taken a go at "mundane healers, but deadly", but perhaps there's still concepts that haven't yet been fully explored.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:

To continue this thought, Primal concepts seem almost too easy to come up, so I'll leave that be for now. I can think of 5 or 6 either old PF1 classes or new classes I've proposed off the top of my head that would be best expressed as "Wis martial". There's just so much overlap with Primal's themes of animal/plant transmutation, elemental power, and survivalism and both "martial" and "things that wisdom does".

But for something that doesn't touch magic at all, why not take another look at Medicine? I'm not sure there's much left after alchemists and investigators have both taken a go at "mundane healers, but deadly", but perhaps there's still concepts that haven't yet been fully explored.

I'd really love to see a wisdom-martial class. Sanityfaerie's pitch for a more utility-focused Shifter focused on bodily augmentations got me pretty dreamy. Think if anyone's going to do something interesting with medicine, it would probably be the Shaman devs occasionally tease about. Might be interesting if they could opt to use medicine in battle to give allies temporary hit points and buffs (instead of hit points), more powerful the more an ally is injured, maybe even temporarily rousing dying allies this way.

On a different note, we've got about a week before the store updates again with December releases. If there's going to be another rulebook this year, we'll probably know about it very soon! Any last minute bets about what it might be?

201 to 224 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Release after Dark Archive All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.