Errata Suggestion - Wizard and Rogue Weapon Proficiency


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Dubious Scholar wrote:
Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:
Dubious Scholar wrote:
Bladed Scarf was already an option for rogues, you just use Unconventional Weaponry to make it count as a simple weapon for proficiency purposes. Likewise the Elven Branched Spear (another reach finesse 2h weapon)
Yup, and feat costs balances that same as nerfed flickmace needs feat. Its called cost of opportunity. With new rules there will be no cost of using Bladed Scarf by Thiefs, especially if they will make Rogues scale martial and simple at same rate, which I don't like.
And the nerfed Flickmace is still a one-handed d6 reach weapon. Having a 2h version with finesse is perfectly in line with weapon balance.

In line with weapon balance before Rogues got martial prof as that's under what rules Bladed Scarf was released. Now it's not anymore in my opinion due to Thiefs having free access to it. We all have right to our own opinion, but I disagree with your statement.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It seems like this is a change that is about as much of a lore shift as it is about any balance concern. It seems like all the legacy lore restrictions tied to past versions of DnD got the boot.

I don’t know about anyone else that wasn’t in favor of the changes from a purely game balance perspective, but it is a much easier pill to swallow seeing that it is wrapped into a larger, necessary framework of moving the game away from DnD legacy lore. I think this change will end up making each of these classes look pretty different from their legacy peers, but that is now a necessarily good thing for the sake of protecting the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:
Jacob Jett wrote:

I can see your complaint. IMO, this will only affect optimizers, i.e., I don't think it will be that wide spread. I agree that Rogue is strong, but that has more to do with its insane amount of skill buffs which make all Rogues resemble kitchen sinks. So I would not mind if they moved from 7 + Int Mod skills to 5 + Int Mod skills and/or if the amount of skill progression via proficiency bumps/skill feats was reduced by about 33%.

As far as weapons, IMO, simply also giving Rogue something like Expert Proficiency with all simple and martial weapons that have the agile trait would provide ample incentive to choose something besides 2-handed spear, bladed scarf, etc. In my view this would not step on Fighter's toes since they have expert with all simple and martial weapons out of the gate and progress to master at a much faster rate than other classes would, should they be given expert proficiency with select weapons.

I disagree it will affect only optimizers. Once something is proven that is above every other option/combination, the news will spread on forum/reddit etc. and casual players will also start using that. Optimizers find stuff like that and build stuff like that. Later it's just common knowledge that X is best. Do you remember Flickmace? It wasn't just optimizers who were using it, the memes of human fighters being adopted by Gnomes were wide spread becasue many GMs could relate. It was the best Fighter/Champion weapon in game so at some point it becomes common knowledge in community. Sure, you can use different stuff but you know that you are deliberately making worse choice.

I can guarantee here and you can quote me later that after giving Rogues Martial proficiency you will see everywhere Bladed Scarf Thiefs as "this is what you want for best Rogue".

The only solution is if Rogues martial proficiency will be one-step behind simple weapon proficiency, otherwise it's Flickmace again but for Rogues this time.

I don't remember Flickmace. 3.5 doesn't have flickmace and since I'm still in the campaign conversion phase, flickmace isn't really applicable to me. I am not worried about this. IMO, Bladed scarf thieves are fine. So in essence, I believe we've agreed to disagree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

It seems like this is a change that is about as much of a lore shift as it is about any balance concern. It seems like all the legacy lore restrictions tied to past versions of DnD got the boot.

I don’t know about anyone else that wasn’t in favor of the changes from a purely game balance perspective, but it is a much easier pill to swallow seeing that it is wrapped into a larger, necessary framework of moving the game away from DnD legacy lore. I think this change will end up making each of these classes look pretty different from their legacy peers, but that is now a necessarily good thing for the sake of protecting the game.

I agree with getting rid of problematic legacy restrictions but I don't agree with doing it just for the sake of moving away from DnD while foresaking a delicate balance that PF2e got in first place. Also Rogues will now be too good martials for all the skills they get in addition to that. You can't have cake and eat cake in my opinion.


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

I mean as far as too good rogues, we are looking at rogues picking up advanced weapon proficiencies, which is still a pain for non fighter martials, and some ruffians running around with something like a long sword in one hand and a hatchet in the other? The swashbuckler may end up needing another balancing pass but d8 martials have a real survivability issue if trying to be played as front liners or defenders. Like sparkling targe magus still could probably get 10hp a level and still not be the 3rd best magus.

Reach weapons and guns are two things the game has added a lot of that could swing balances, but I kinda see gun usage being a new narrative/lore feature of PF2, where classes can just use them and not break the game, so good on the rogue for getting easy access options with firearms. Reach weapons also promote enemies moving around more which is something that I am good with becoming more common and pushed on both players and GMs to make happen.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In other words, I agree this will probably change game play a little, but towards things PF2 wants to be encouraging anyway. Rogues losing all their bonus damage when fighting incorporeal creatures and most oozes is a big enough problem for the class to have a lot of issues trying to pass fighters or barbarians


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Marvelous, thank you Paizo!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
In other words, I agree this will probably change game play a little, but towards things PF2 wants to be encouraging anyway. Rogues losing all their bonus damage when fighting incorporeal creatures and most oozes is a big enough problem for the class to have a lot of issues trying to pass fighters or barbarians

While I hear that a lot, the statistics are not confirming it as enough problem for Rogues to balance their huge damage bonus with martial weapons now: out of what 1500 monsters or more only 83 creatures are immune to precision damage (things like Oozes and Skeletons)and only 11 creatures are resistant but most of those are resistant to everything.

It's really insignificant amount.


Unicore wrote:
In other words, I agree this will probably change game play a little, but towards things PF2 wants to be encouraging anyway. Rogues losing all their bonus damage when fighting incorporeal creatures and most oozes is a big enough problem for the class to have a lot of issues trying to pass fighters or barbarians

Strictly speaking, Ruffians can still inflict weakness to physical damage on those targets with their debilitations upgrade. So it's only almost all their bonus damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:
Unicore wrote:
In other words, I agree this will probably change game play a little, but towards things PF2 wants to be encouraging anyway. Rogues losing all their bonus damage when fighting incorporeal creatures and most oozes is a big enough problem for the class to have a lot of issues trying to pass fighters or barbarians

While I hear that a lot, the statistics are not confirming it as enough problem for Rogues to balance their huge damage bonus with martial weapons now: out of what 1500 monsters or more only 83 creatures are immune to precision damage (things like Oozes and Skeletons)and only 11 creatures are resistant but most of those are resistant to everything.

It's really insignificant amount.

We hear about it as there is a stack of them in one particular adventure path. It seemed like a 40% of creatures had it when I was going through it. But that just may have been me.


Gortle wrote:
Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:
Unicore wrote:
In other words, I agree this will probably change game play a little, but towards things PF2 wants to be encouraging anyway. Rogues losing all their bonus damage when fighting incorporeal creatures and most oozes is a big enough problem for the class to have a lot of issues trying to pass fighters or barbarians

While I hear that a lot, the statistics are not confirming it as enough problem for Rogues to balance their huge damage bonus with martial weapons now: out of what 1500 monsters or more only 83 creatures are immune to precision damage (things like Oozes and Skeletons)and only 11 creatures are resistant but most of those are resistant to everything.

It's really insignificant amount.

We hear about it as there is a stack of them in one particular adventure path. It seemed like a 40% of creatures had it when I was going through it. But that just may have been me.

What AP was that? I am curious.


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

The thing is, oozes and incorporeal creatures in particular tend to show as solo monsters that are higher level than the party. If your primary party damage dealer relies on precision damage, you are very likely to run into at least 1 very difficult encounter, maybe many more depending on the campaign, where your party's primary means of doing damage is almost entirely negated. It can be a whole party killer. This isn't to say that Rogues or precision rangers or swashbucklers are unplayable, but you really don't want too many sources of precision damage as your damage boost mechanic in the same party. Rogue was already the best of these options as far as consistent precision damage goes, so maybe, maybe this is a change that hurts swashbucklers and investigators in terms of someone else does everything you can do better, but that really was already the case. Maybe items that interact just with their unique class mechanics is an easy enough fix without really being an errata change though. (I haven't seen the investigator played since Treasure Vault came out).


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't see how the bladed scarf upsets things too much for rogues.

It's a d6 weapon with finesse and reach. I guess trip is semi relevant, as is flail crit. But crits aren't reliable so I don't see that as a big deal, although flail crits are nice for knocking someone prone it's just not happening reliably.

The Elven Branch spear, also a martial weapon, was already a d6 reach weapon option. An elf character, half elf, or adopted character could pick up elven weapon familiarity to be proficient with the elven branched spear (as though it were a simple weapon), before this change was even implemented.

So changing the rogue to be proficient with all martial weapons really just means you don't have to be a elf or raised by elves to get a finesse reach weapon, which is overall a good thing IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

The Elven Branch spear, also a martial weapon, was already a d6 reach weapon option. An elf character, half elf, or adopted character could pick up elven weapon familiarity to be proficient with the elven branched spear (as though it were a simple weapon), before this change was even implemented.

So changing the rogue to be proficient with all martial weapons really just means you don't have to be a elf or raised by elves to get a finesse reach weapon, which is overall a good thing IMO.

A fair point, I will admit, I didn't think about this example.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

With this change rogues would now have access to:
Bladed Scarf
Dancer's Spear
Elven Branched Spear
Scorpion Whip
Thorn Whip
Whip

The first 3 are d6 weapons, the whips are d4 weapons. Of the group, I'd probably use the dancer's spear for versatile B and because it's not uncommon.

If you as a GM have a problem with the bladed scarf (which is attractive because of the trip trait) just remember it's uncommon so you can tell your players they don't have access to it.


CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
Just a quality of life thing. Like if I want my wizard to have a gun cause it is cool... why not?

With alignment going out, you could now misquote "Good Gandalf? Bad Gandalf? I'm the guy with the gun."


Worth noting that it sounds like there will be a fair amount of buffs built into the revision. They specifically cited the Alchemist, Champion, Oracle, and Witch getting errata'ed. Alchemist and witch were explicitly getting tune ups. But so are lot of spells and items. Focus points will also be easier to use. Spells getting buffed is going to raise the overall power level of the game, so I wouldn't necessarily worry about rogues suddenly becoming OP until we see the rest of the changes.

Verdant Wheel

+1


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well. Bomb-throwing rogues are now distinctly a thing. That's cool, I guess.

I'm not a super-fan of the change overall, but in context... I get it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a big win for pretty much anyone who wants to play a rogue, with fairly minor balance implications in general.

Hugely positive change, basically no downsides. Very pleased to see Paizo go this way.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two main things are that I can now play a rogue with flyssa without jumping through hoops, and I can play a rogue Red Mantis Assassin before level 8 without being human.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:
Dubious Scholar wrote:
Bladed Scarf was already an option for rogues, you just use Unconventional Weaponry to make it count as a simple weapon for proficiency purposes. Likewise the Elven Branched Spear (another reach finesse 2h weapon)
Yup, and feat costs balances that same as nerfed flickmace needs feat. Its called cost of opportunity. With new rules there will be no cost of using Bladed Scarf by Thiefs, especially if they will make Rogues scale martial and simple at same rate, which I don't like.

So wait! Charging 2 feats for a monk to get weapon specialization and still not having access to a meteor hammer is for balance, but allowing a rogue to use one ancestry feat for a bladed scarf IS balance? Yet, you feel that if rogues had access to blades scarfs they would be OP and everyone would play them that way?

Me thinks you just wish to argue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
basically no downsides.

The downside is potential generic blandness. If everyone uses the same weapon it was a bad idea.

Personally I think it will be fine. But lets see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:
AestheticDialectic wrote:
Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Opening up basic proficiencies is not a game breaker on any class. You had to deal with feat taxes for flavor purposes.
I would say for "balance" purposes. Now you will see every Rogue running around with Bladed Scarf for reach + finesse + flail crit spec + trip on it.
You have to admit though, that this is a very rogue-ish weapon

Totally not. It's way more Swashbuckler weapon or DEX Fighter, or even monk for me. I just think Rogue will jump above the balance curve, especially Thief now with Bladed Scarf, debilitations and Sneak Attack on top of reach, trip and flail spec. Before Rogues had to chose Ruffian to be able to get reach 2 handed spear, but that came at cost of not getting Thief, not getting any other traits on reach weapon, which was imo balanced considering Sneak Attack damage + their feats like Dread Striker, Gang Up, Mobility, Opportunate Backstab etc.

Now there will be no reason to not take Thief for maximum damage with Bladed Scarf. Add Mauler dedication on top for Knockdown (which now you can make on reach with Bladed Scarf and it's two handed so it ignores need of free hand and Trip to use weapon reach) and Improved Knockdown for Thief.

In my opinion this is too much on already A-tier class that can dish out so much damage.

The exact ratio varies a bit, but the rogue's damage is under what actual striker martials get; being locked to d6 weapons (with a few exceptions) and having a harder time getting modifier to damage means that most of Sneak Attack gets eaten up bringing them to the level of 2h Str-based martials before the damage bump from Rage or fighter proficiency or the like. Going thief or ruffian for full mod to damage helps, but they're still usually a bit below the likes of barbarian outside of level bands such as 5-6 when rogue gets its second die but barbarian hasn't gotten its rage damage bump yet.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread aged like fine wine


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:

Well. Bomb-throwing rogues are now distinctly a thing. That's cool, I guess.

I'm not a super-fan of the change overall, but in context... I get it.

Oh yeah, they are! I hadn't even considered that; that's even cooler than I'd first assumed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Bombs are not agile or finesse (required for thrown weapons) though, so there will still be no sneak attack with them. I don't think that will be that big a deal.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Bombs are not agile or finesse (required for thrown weapons) though, so there will still be no sneak attack with them. I don't think that will be that big a deal.

The agile or finesse limitation for thrown weapons only applies to thrown melee weapons.

Bombs are not melee weapons that are thrown. They are Martial Thrown weapons and, therefore, qualify for sneak attack, as do Boomerangs.

Rogue, Sneak Attack:

Core Rulebook pg. 178 4.0 wrote:
... If you Strike a creature that has the flat-footed condition with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon attack, or a ranged unarmed attack, you deal an extra 1d6 precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown melee weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Also I'm not personally concerned whether bombs interact with sneak attack or not; I just like the idea of an alchemical-themed rogue who uses explosives and gunpowder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
Also I'm not personally concerned whether bombs interact with sneak attack or not; I just like the idea of an alchemical-themed rogue who uses explosives and gunpowder.

I'm mostly interested because a while back we were talking about particularly strong options for dual-classed characters. Alchemist/Barbarians were a bit on the disappointing side, because the thrown weapon barbarian, while technically possible, still has some pretty serious issues, and the combo didn't quite mesh. Alchemist/Rogues, though...? Well, they had issues before, but....

At the same time, I definitely think there's a viable build out there for "Thrown weapon (and sometimes bomb) rogue", especially if you're running FA.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Opening up basic proficiencies is not a game breaker on any class. You had to deal with feat taxes for flavor purposes.
I would say for "balance" purposes. Now you will see every Rogue running around with Bladed Scarf for reach + finesse + flail crit spec + trip on it.

True ( as it was for the flickmace with paladins, and even fighters ), but you shouldn't be angry or disappointed about Paizo giving rogues martial proficiency, but rather towards too good weapons ( and too bad weapons ).

What I mean to say is that it's exactly the same if we compare bows to reload weapons.

So I wouldn't worry too much about it.

On the one hand, if you are ever going to have a rogue in one of your parties, and that specific rogue is going to take the thief racket + bladed scarf, so be it.

They'll eventually become tired of trying the same builds with the same weapons ( or aiming for damage rather than try to build more interesting characters ).

On the other hand, I wanna say that I is also important to understand that anything meant to improve the character/team survival chances is something any adventurer would consider.

So, if having a strange weapon ( like the flickmace or the bladed scarf ) would increase the character chances of survival... it's an excellent reason to go for it.

And I am not saying that one must go for it, but rather that it's understandable for both players and characters to make some considerations and, eventually, go for it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Even if we leave out all the non-mechanical reasons why people wouldn't always choose the bladed scarf - aesthetics for example - mechanics alone provide enough incentive for variety.

The bladed scarf is a two-handed weapon. Rogue is one of the classes that gets a lot out of having a free hand, both for skill actions and feats. Sabotage is hilarious when you just cut an enemy archer's bow sting XD. Also thrown weapons if you fancy those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:

Even if we leave out all the non-mechanical reasons why people wouldn't always choose the bladed scarf - aesthetics for example - mechanics alone provide enough incentive for variety.

The bladed scarf is a two-handed weapon. Rogue is one of the classes that gets a lot out of having a free hand, both for skill actions and feats. Sabotage is hilarious when you just cut an enemy archer's bow sting XD. Also thrown weapons if you fancy those.

Indeed there's no such thing as "everybody bladescarf", but it's no surprise either that bladed scarf is really good, and that giving the rogue martial weapon proficiency would lead making that weapon a way more common pick, if not "the common pick" ( but again, this doesn't mean that everybody would go for it ).


Eric Mona on the Roll for Combat Q&A already said that rogues is getting martial proficiency and wizards are getting simple.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure everyone in this thread, that was started in February, is aware.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll note that my Devise a Stratagem tables include all of the finesse, agile, and ranged options, so they are prettty close to a sneak attack options list.

Devise a Stratagem Options

I also have tables listing all of the finesse options.

Finesse Options


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

The blade scarf, also imo is a pretty good weapon for someone who wants to be stealthy(or at least go unnoticed), from my understanding that is actually the in-lore reason for the existence. A weapon that Varisians could wear or have on them without drawing attention to them, but will be there in a fight.( i could be completely wrong and that was just an idea that our mind made up, but I could have sworn I read that somewhere.)

Now this isn't saying every rogue should, or that they will pick it. But if they did, it could be fitting depending on the type of rogue. Also all you ever needed to use it before as a rogue was to take Mauler dedication, since it was a two handed weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why is it that if a single melee weapon dominates people freak out but when the shortbow does it everybody thinks it's a good thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
3-Body Problem wrote:
Why is it that if a single melee weapon dominates people freak out but when the shortbow does it everybody thinks it's a good thing?

Because bows did dominate in real life for a very long time. People are used to that notion before ever playing this game.

Bladed scarfs, on the other hand, never overtook swords in history so it strikes many people as wrong when it does in the game.

Lantern Lodge

Too late to suggest Wizards also gain proficiency in a specific martial weapon if they make their Bonded Item? Limit it to a one handed weapon for a little bit of balancing?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
3-Body Problem wrote:
Why is it that if a single melee weapon dominates people freak out but when the shortbow does it everybody thinks it's a good thing?

I don't think they do think it's a good thing. Hence why we have threads complaining about gunslingers and reload weapons.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Donald wrote:
Too late to suggest Wizards also gain proficiency in a specific martial weapon if they make their Bonded Item? Limit it to a one handed weapon for a little bit of balancing?

Other casters have simple weapons and there are zero balance issues.

But seriously guys, we won. The change is being made. This thread really serves no purpose anymore hah.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Because bows did dominate in real life for a very long time. People are used to that notion before ever playing this game.

Then by that logic crossbows and firearms should be the dominant forces as they had essentially pushed longbows off of the continent around the time plate armor was becoming common. Shorbows should be useless against anything larger than large size anyway as they won't have the power to reach anything vital.


3-Body Problem wrote:
Why is it that if a single melee weapon dominates people freak out but when the shortbow does it everybody thinks it's a good thing?

If the dominant melee weapon was a longsword the people fine with shortbows would probably say that's fine too.


Arachnofiend wrote:
3-Body Problem wrote:
Why is it that if a single melee weapon dominates people freak out but when the shortbow does it everybody thinks it's a good thing?
If the dominant melee weapon was a longsword the people fine with shortbows would probably say that's fine too.

I think swords should probably get in the bin too outside of duels and self-defense scenarios. Bring out the armor-mashing hammers, polearms, and daggers shoved in eyeslits and armpits. Then let the rare magical sword break the norm and cut through armor for a few levels before magic armor resets the status quo.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
3-Body Problem wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Because bows did dominate in real life for a very long time. People are used to that notion before ever playing this game.
Then by that logic crossbows and firearms should be the dominant forces as they had essentially pushed longbows off of the continent around the time plate armor was becoming common. Shorbows should be useless against anything larger than large size anyway as they won't have the power to reach anything vital.

I was speaking to peoples' feelings on the matter, not logic.


Ravingdork wrote:
I was speaking to peoples' feelings on the matter, not logic.

Feelings... Bah humbug.


3-Body Problem wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Because bows did dominate in real life for a very long time. People are used to that notion before ever playing this game.
Then by that logic crossbows and firearms should be the dominant forces as they had essentially pushed longbows off of the continent around the time plate armor was becoming common. Shorbows should be useless against anything larger than large size anyway as they won't have the power to reach anything vital.

This isn't entirely accurate, the longbow was used til 1644 from what I'm seeing and had been used for 300 years and plate stops being used basically at 1700 but had existed in various forms for a few hundred years prior. Making it so that there is only maybe 50-60 years where there was plate but longbows had been rendered obsolete


Just a general factoid but, speaking as an archery enthusiast, the thing about bows is that you still have to do the time consuming thing of aiming if you want to hit a target. IRL there's no way you can fire a bow as fast as you can in PF2.

That said, crossbows, firearms, and even slings offer some tangible mechanical benefits over bows that make their slow reload times (or fussy usage in the sling's case) worth it. Sadly these advantages aren't really reflected in PF2. You haven't lived until until you've seen someone who knows how to use a sling use it to explode a 2x4. You can't do that with a bow and arrow.


AestheticDialectic wrote:
3-Body Problem wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Because bows did dominate in real life for a very long time. People are used to that notion before ever playing this game.
Then by that logic crossbows and firearms should be the dominant forces as they had essentially pushed longbows off of the continent around the time plate armor was becoming common. Shorbows should be useless against anything larger than large size anyway as they won't have the power to reach anything vital.
This isn't entirely accurate, the longbow was used til 1644 from what I'm seeing and had been used for 300 years and plate stops being used basically at 1700 but had existed in various forms for a few hundred years prior. Making it so that there is only maybe 50-60 years where there was plate but longbows had been rendered obsolete

It was still used but was mostly superseded by other weapons at that stage.

151 to 200 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Errata Suggestion - Wizard and Rogue Weapon Proficiency All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.