Bardarok's page

Any word on pathbuilder?

Pathbuilder isn't run by Paizo. But the creator said next week on his patreon.

I may be interested in doing this since play by post may be easier with work and kids. Never really worked it that way but I tired of just being gm and wanna do some roleplaying myself.

If I can get in I would like to play splinter from tmnt. A ratfolk investigator that is in his golden years who after his son's went out into the world he decided he still had another good adventure or 2 in him. Has a staff to walk with and a bow as primary weapon. Uses his years of experience to calmly and efficiently examine what's going on to solve the case he is on. Tracking down the subject of his investigations methodically.
He would be about lore skills mainly and stealth with thievery for lockpicking.

That sounds relatable there are a lot of parents and GMs on the server (myself included) who use PBP as an opportunity to have some regular Pathfinder when IRL games become difficult to schedule.

Splinter sounds cool

Bardarok wrote:

Man those How it's Played videos have been brutal, RAI always seems to be the most strict and limiting interpretation possible. Based of the very conservative sensibilities displayed there I'm not hopeful for any significant Witch buffs in the errata.

I like knowing the answers, regardless. I dislike ambiguities that keep me from making decisions.

Yeah it good to have answers and I'm thankful for the devs for sharing and engaging with he community. It's just disheartening to see them consistently rule oppiset of what I would do in a home game. Of course they have a much bigger area of concern than I do, needing to balance all of PFS as best they can.

The Recall Knowledge, Additional Knowledge Rules state:

"Sometimes a character might want to follow up on a check to Recall Knowledge, rolling another check to discover more information. After a success, further uses of Recall Knowledge can yield more information, but you should adjust the difficulty to be higher for each attempt. Once a character has attempted an incredibly hard check or failed a check, further attempts are fruitless—the character has recalled everything they know about the subject."

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=565

Now suppose a Thaumaturge is fighting a group of four enemies of the same variety, let's say Vampire Spawn. The use find Weakness on the first Spawn and the DC is a normal Level based DC. They kill that one. Now they want to Use Find Flaws on a second one is the DC another noromal DC because its a new individual or is it a hard DC now since it's another recall knowledge on the topic of Vampire Spawn?

If it's the first one than fighting groups is essentially a way to get around the increasing difficulty of Recall Knowledge checks. If it's the second Thaumoturges (and to a lesser extent mastermind rogues and others with recall knowledge based abilities) have a severe disadvantage vs groups of similar enemies as their ability becomes harder and harder to proc.

Am I missing something? I want to playtest this properly but this playtest is pointing out how unclear the recall knowledge rules are.

Temporary gadgets would be great. Gadgets replicating some spell effects would also be fun, and make Int more prominent. Right now it feels like a cool modular martial, but if that could be shifted more to "combat engineer" then I'd be happy.

I like that idea. Maybe something like make a craft check to quickly put together cover in combat (mini wall of stone like effect). Could also be used to make a bridge or like a ladder perhaps.

Remember guys, just because the fear or feature isn't used 100% of the time, doesn't mean it isn't good or useful.

I agree with this for feats. I disagree for core class defining features. I think they really should be used most of the time.

But given that reloading is a big concern right no, I wouldn't mind changing up the movement benefits for reloading benefits. For example, each Deed would give you the current quick draw benefits (including the +2 from Pistolero) and instead of giving some kind of movement (or the extra damage), it the gunslinger a special kind of reload. For Drifters this could mean Reload+Avoid Reactions, Pistolero could Reload+Recall Knowledge (sizing up your opponent in a duel) and sniper could give Reload+Aim (avoiding Unsteady).

I think that type of reload benefit is a lot better design since it gives more flavor to the class and is more commonly going to be used.

The core odd level features are martial classes in PF2 are their defining characteristics. A character might spend all of their class feats from level 2 up on an archetype but a Barbarian will always have rage, a Ranger will always have hunt target, and a Gunslinger will always have their Way and their Deeds.

Unfortunately Deeds are pretty underwhelming from levels 1-8. I understand that the Gunslinger also gets higher proficiency but comparing directly to the Fighter the Deeds are less interesting and build defining than lvl 1 AoO (and the gunslinger has less HP to boot)

I think that in the final version the level one deeds should pack a little more punch. Something that makes you think "that's a gunslinger" rather than that's an ability that is largely useless if you are already expecting trouble and have your guns drawn.

It really is just a bizarre penalty at this point.

Maybe if there was random proficiencies for other classes, then one could say it’s a legit flavour thing, but at present, it’s just a kick in the teeth.

Time to fix this Paizo!

Rogue's and Bards also have a random proficiency list. I happen to think it's also a problem for them particularly rogues since it locks them out of future published sneak attack weapons (why aren't rogues proficient with the sword cane!) It's an easy enough homebrew fix but kind of a problem for the society players.

For most classes the key ability is tied to their offensive capacity either Str/Dex for martials or the spell attack for casters.

The major exception currently is Alchemist which has some serious issues because of it.

Investigator is in a similar spot to inventor but Divise a stratagem lets them use their key ability to attack in certain situations so probably something like that. Currently the Inventor has Tamper which is close but likely not enough.

Hmmm so something like quick draw and drop until level 6 where you get reloading strike. I guess I can see that. Still dual pistol seems to have no solution other than dual weapon warrior but maybe I'll just need to play with the options a bit more. Thank you for the response.

Cyrad wrote:

There's no way for a Drifter to reload a firearm while wielding a melee weapon unless they take a feat that isn't available until 6th level. Even Sword and Pistol doesn't do so.

This effectively kills the fantasy of a sword-and-gun combatant that Way of the Drifter tries to sell.

Does it actually, though?

I'm a fan of the draw and drop model of flintlock fantasy but I worry that it's not going to work once striking runes become relavent. Pistols are cheap but runes are still expensive.

You can make a dual pistol and/or sword and pistol build work if you take the dual weapon warrior archetype. Dual weapon reload seems so essential to these builds though that it should probably just be a gunslinger class feat.

Has there been a clarification on if Agile is supposed to work with maneuvers yet? The text just says attack not attack roll but since clearly finesse was not intended to apply maybe agile isn't either.

Bardarok wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Attack Rolls 446 wrote:

Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.

It is pretty clear that a spell attack roll is not a ranged attack roll for the purposes of determining what penalties, bonuses, and ability modifiers apply to it (which is what this discussion is specifically about), even if it happens to also be a ranged spell attack.

I guess I just disagree with you then. That is not a clear statement that they are mutually exclusive.

Exactly what language would convey that to you? I'm genuinely curious.

Either a direct statement "a check can only be one of these types" or a statement defining the types without all the qualifiers of things like "three main types" indicating there are other types or the intro qualifier of high variability which again indicates that not everything is covered in the text that follows. When they write everything with a bunch of qualifiers they avoid making a definitive statement. I think based off of all the evidence that you are right but I don't think that that is clearly written in the first printing RAW.

I agree with Shroud on this. Ranged Attack Roll is a defined thing, specifically stated to be separate from Spell Attacks.

Mind, I do understand your logic Pumpkin, and WANT to agree, but I think RAW comes down on Shroud's side.

Part of the confusion on both this and the maneuver thing was weather or not you assumed that the types of checks were mutually exclusive. The text never says that a check can't be both a spell attack and a ranged attack nor does it say that check cant be an attack roll and a skill check. Based on the fact that they were all just categories of check I assumed it was like the tag system used elsewhere in the system where you can mix as appropriate. I was wrong there.

Bardarok wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

About the finesse weapons not being able to trip/whatever with dexterity: there's still a niche for Spiked Chain and such, in that you typically still want strength when using finesse weapons for damage purposes, so by using a spiked chain on a character you want to max dexterity, you can still get your +1 to accuracy (over a strength secondary), but then use that secondary strength to trip and disarm and such.

It doesn't make sense from a "I want to build a character who is the best at trips and disarms, but dumps strength" but it absolutely does from the perspective of "I want a character who maxes out their Dexterity, but can still trip or disarm reasonably well"

Spending an action to trip instead of strike was pretty hard to justify before. Doing it "reasonably well" is most likely a waste of an action.

I actually disagree. Giving -2 to AC against all attacks (including allies that can't normally flank like casters and archers) and forcing them to spend an action to stand up are all great benefits. It gets even better if you have someone with Attack of Opportunity or Stand Still in the party, giving them an easy MAPless attack.

Those are all good effects but they only happen if you actually succeed in tripping and are highly dependent upon initiative order. If you are more likely to hit than trip you are better off striking, this just shifts the balance to be more situations where you are better off striking.

About the finesse weapons not being able to trip/whatever with dexterity: there's still a niche for Spiked Chain and such, in that you typically still want strength when using finesse weapons for damage purposes, so by using a spiked chain on a character you want to max dexterity, you can still get your +1 to accuracy (over a strength secondary), but then use that secondary strength to trip and disarm and such.

It doesn't make sense from a "I want to build a character who is the best at trips and disarms, but dumps strength" but it absolutely does from the perspective of "I want a character who maxes out their Dexterity, but can still trip or disarm reasonably well"

Spending an action to trip instead of strike was pretty hard to justify before. Doing it "reasonably well" is most likely a waste of an action.

Bardarok wrote:

It's not just that section though. There are multiple places where MAP for maneuvers is mentioned or referenced. None of these other things were errataed which makes this a new rules conflict.

The text on p. 447 sidebar Striding and Striking says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

Honestly, this is the only compelling one to me, because it references page 446, which is the more confusing out of the two MAP explanations. I wish it had mentioned page 278, which makes it clearer.

The rest are either listing things with the attack trait (and even having multiple reminders that things like Grapple are a skill check), or saying something specific about how that feat interacts with it all.

If MAP doesn't apply to maneuvers than the mixed maneuver feat and the agile maneuvers feat do literally nothing.

Maybe it's because the way my brain works, I see two different labels, I don't assume they're related even if they have a word in common, but both me, and both of the groups I'm in, never had trouble with "attack trait" and "attack roll" being two different things. Things with the attack trait affect MAP, full stop. The section talking about MAP on page 446 of the CRB is specifically within the context of attack rolls, since it's under the much more bolded "ATTACK ROLLS" heading.

It's not just that section though. There are multiple places where MAP for maneuvers is mentioned or referenced. None of these other things were errataed which makes this a new rules conflict.

The text on p. 447 sidebar Striding and Striking says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

Knockdown Fighter Feat [2 actions]
"You make an attack to knock a foe off balance, then follow up immediately with a sweep to topple them. Make a melee Strike. If it hits and deals damage, you can attempt an Athletics check to Trip the creature you hit. If you’re wielding a two-handed melee weapon, you can ignore Trip’s requirement that you have a hand free. Both attacks count toward your multiple attack penalty, but the penalty doesn’t increase until after you’ve made both of them."

Mixed Maneuvers Monk Feat [2 actions]
You combine two different maneuvers together into a single flowing whole. Choose any two of Grapple, Shove, and Trip. Attempt both of the attacks you chose against the same or different creatures, but don’t apply the multiple attack penalty until after resolving both attacks.

Agile Maneuvers Swashbuckler Feat (From the APG obviously not the CRB)
Your easily maneuver against your foes. Your Grapple, Shove, and Trip actions have a lower multiple attack penalty: –4 instead of –5 if they're the second attack on your turn, or –8 instead of –10 if they're the third or subsequent attack on your turn.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

LarsC wrote:

I'm a little new to the game and to Paizo overall - do you think we can expect any clarification from somebody on the team in this thread or in a blog post shortly, or are we going to be confused about these questions about finesse maneuvers, etc... until the next official round of errata?

Next round, they really don't like talking to us outside of these official posts on their own platform.

Apparently, a designer made a check on these streams, and about 50% of the answers on these streams were wrong. That's why they don't answer these questions "off the cuff" anymore.

There are enough inconsistencies that I'm not sure if a lot of theese questions have a right answer. This might be an instance of one designer disagreeing with others 50% of the time.

Bardarok wrote:

There are multiple feats which only make sense if maneuvers have MAP. Knockdown, Mixed Maneuver, Agile Maneuvers. Plus the sidebar on p. 447 says:

"Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

As written this seems like just a straight nerf to maneuvers which no longer benefit from finesse, inspire courage, or bless since those call out attack rolls specifically but still suffer from MAP. I don't know if that was the intent though maneuvers were already hard to justify vs a Strike.

I can't imagine any GM is actually going to accept that MAP no longer applies to maneuvers. It's definitely an oversight between the main MAP entry and the errata, but the intent is obvious.

I guess that's true the intent is to nerf maneuvers and finesse/maneuver weapons. I just don't get the reasoning behind that since they weren't particularly good in the first place.

There are multiple feats which only make sense if maneuvers have MAP. Knockdown, Mixed Maneuver, Agile Maneuvers. Plus the sidebar on p. 447 says:

"Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

As written this seems like just a straight nerf to maneuvers which no longer benefit from finesse, inspire courage, or bless since those call out attack rolls specifically but still suffer from MAP. I don't know if that was the intent though maneuvers were already hard to justify vs a Strike.

Midnightoker wrote:

Frames Janco wrote:

So Grapple not being an attack roll anymore means that it does not suffer MAP on the roll, but would increase it for the next action?

If that’s how it reads maneuvers just became god tier third actions and feats like combat grab were nerfed a lot by proxy so I have to assume that’s not the case.

I’m noticing that the side bar on page 447 still specifically mentions that the grapple action and things like it still have MAP affect their rolls.

In that sidebar specifically, the use of the terms “strike” and “attack roll” really seem inconsistent to me now. I’m not sure what was intended by the clarification about non-strike attack actions and attack rolls was, but I think where we are now is significantly less clear than where we were before this errata.

The fact that agile Maneuvers is a thing also suggests they should suffer MAP. Unless that is going to get changed in the first APG errata.

I like the only high level spellcasting as a way to make a limited spellcaster. I think 3/3 would be better than 2/2 (or maybe 2/2/2) but I think it's a good concept overall

I think striking spell is a little clunky in execution. It feels like it is trying to be both spell combat and spellstrike in one feature.

Might be better to split it something like spell combat that lets you cast an attack spell without suffering from or incurring MAP and maybe something else more similar to eldritch shot.

The witch needs a lesson that grants the Baleful Polymorph spell so that occult witches can turn people into frogs.

I was talking with ClanPsi on a different site and reached the conclusion that I think the different styles should add alternate key ability options just like the rogue rwckets. Braggart and Fencer would add a Cha option, gymnast would add Str as an option.

Additionally I think there really needs to be a style/option where you can get pinache from disarming. I mean it's the ability on the iconic swashbuckling weapon the rapier.

Looks really good. So far I was looking forward to the witch most and my first impression is very positive. Very excited to build some witches!

Due to a bunch of good but big life changes right around the time PF2 was released I didn't actually get a chance to play the final product untill yesterday.

I ran Torment and Legacy (expanded a bit to make it three acts instead of two) yesterday with a group of PF1 and DnD 5e players and we had a blast. So even though I'm super late to the party I just want to say good job Dev team! The game is good and I'm excited to launch a new campaign using the system once I finish converting my Homebrew world.

Being grappled is only a minor inconvenience instead of completely shutting down spellcasters.

I dunno if I'd call a 20% chance to lose any spell with somatic, material, or focus components a minor inconvenience for a caster. Not a complete shutdown either though.

Edit: too many dang o's

Some thoughts:

A. If you meet the str requirement for the armor the Armor check penalty goes away completely and the speed penalty is reduced by 5ft (so no penalty for medium and -5ft for heavy). Anyone who is going to be wearing heavy armor will be able to meet those easy to hit Str requierments.

B. Heavy armor gives more total AC with max dex +item bonus equalling 6 instead of 5.

C. Armor specialization for fighters and champions only applies to medium/heavy armor.

D. Dex lost initiative so it's much less painful to leave it at 10 now

Both p. 31

Good news you can make a character like that.

Bad news what Paizo means by ranger has changed.

In DnD 3 - PF1 a ranger was a martial class that had nature/survival abilities and some magic.

In PF2 the ranger got dissasmbled. A lot of the hunter type abilities got moved into survival skill feats accessable to anyone who invests in it and the magic got moved into druid multiclass archetype (read feat tree)

The PF2 ranger still has some built in survival abilities but their primary role is a character that excels at targeting a single enemy at a time. They are great vs big boss monsters.

So IMO to recreate a PF1 ranger who had no such single target focus abilities you probably want to play a fighter. To recreate the nature abilities focus on survival skill (starting with the Hunter background) and to gain some utility spells start taking druid archetype feats starting at level 2.

Heavy armor still has a 5ft movement penalty even if you hit the str requirement. So it's +1 AC for -5ft of movement not a bad trade but not one that every character will want to make.

Also if your dex is 18 or higher then bulwark from full plate is a penalty since it replaces your dex mod with a static +3 on reflex saves.

Yah I dislexified it. It's 535 I edited my post above. Sorry.

From p. 535 under section heading Heald or Worn:

"An item that needs to be worn to function lists “worn” as its usage. This is followed by another word if the character is limited to only one of that type of item. For instance, a character can wear any number of rings, so the entry for a ring would list only “worn.” However, if the Usage entry were “worn cloak,” then a character couldn’t wear another cloak on top of that one."

Martial who MCAs caster works pretty well since the caster MCA grant everything you need to be a caster, spells and proficiencies

Caster who MCAs martial doesn't work as well since you can't get both weapons and armor from the same archetype. It works fine if you just want armor (champion) or just want weapons (fighter) but it's slow to realize your concept if you want both.

A war-wizard or war-sorcorrer class archetype that granted some armor/weapon proficiency (still maxing at expert) would fix this with the martial archetypes still being useful for to pick up combat tricks and bonus HP. Or at least a non-religious way to get to heavy armor expert. I expect some of theese options will appear in the players guide next year.

Thanks for the summary captain!

I think witch should be occult with bonus off list spells from patron but variable prepared based on patron would work as well. Though if they were prepared Divine/primal would they be Wis based instead of Int?

I really think this "Ivory Tower" framing is b#!~~%$+, AFAIK that terms refers to disconnected elitist academia. I don't see anybody here making appeal to authority, constraining communications to chosen few, using un-necessary jargon etc.

This whole forum is the ivory tower. A brand new player wouldn't understand most of the jargon in this thread.

<_> no you should have con and Wis over dex, you need init, going first is really important for wizards/casters, you can use the action before anyone has moved to aoe blast before your allies and enemies start to mingle, you can use it to buff before any allies have gone(so they're buffed on first turn) or protect them from enemy actions.

dex should be 16, con 20 and wis 18 at level 20.

like really, con is more important that dex, you need to overcome your lower fort save and HP applies to all attacks while dex is only ac and reflex.

Build however you want it doesn't change the fact that light armor profocincy isn't worth it after level 13 no matter what stats your wizard has.

It doesn't have to be best, and there's a lot more variables that play, so this might always seem skewed, especially as more content arrives. We can agree to disagree, but my point still is and was that if you're not interested in a dex build, say any caster who can safely attack each turn with cantrips or spells, they have the option to pump Con for survival and any combination of wis, cha or int(bard, cleric, wizard and sorcerers got pretty potent spells and rarely need to actually attack with melee or ranged). The armor check penalty on a caster only affects str/dex skills, but if you're going for neither, you can pump up utility stuff, more perception and better medicine/nature/diplomacy/lores.

Even if you spend every boost on Con, Int, Wis, and Cha you still need to spend two general feats to net a benefit beyond level 13.

I honestly don't care about the ivory tower label

That is abundantly clear

1:1 cost wise, I think Toughness will win over any general feat tbh.

The armor proficiency feat looses out to no feat at all for the wizard and is at best an even trade for the barbarian. That's not a good sign.

If we use mithral, the fullplate has 0 movement penalty.

Sure but if you are being fair you need to let the medium armor barbarian spend that extra cash somewhere else.

Would the unarmored wizard have enough stats to boost Dex, Int and Con?

Yes you get to boost four stats every five levels, so actually probably both are boosting Con every time.

Lvl 1
Str 10 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha 10

Lvl 5
Str 10 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 19 Wis 14 Cha 10

Now beyond that the unarmored wizard can try and boost dex further to get higher AC
lvl 10
Str 10 Dex 19 Con 16 Int 20 Wis 16 Cha 10

lvl 15
Str 10 Dex 20 Con 18 Int 21 Wis 16 Cha 10

Or they can boost Cha or Str if that float their boat. The wizard who went with light armor doesn't can't increase their AC with dex anymore so they can take their pick between Str and Cha. Bully for them.

Serum wrote:

If the proficiency feats were meant to be gating for archetypes, then they should have been released with the archetypes.

not if they didn't plan to release any other feats in the book. a general feats section with 2 feats in it, makes for poor formatting.

That does seem like the best possible argument for their inclusion in their current form.

Based on 13th since that's where "It's invalidated" keeps coming up, using highest armor or it's class:

Medium Armor Barbarian, min-stats 12 dex, 16str(4 boosts), 1 General feat for +13HP(toughness), +1 Reflex from dex
Base AC 10: +4 Breastplate, +1 Dex(max for breastplate), +4 Proficiency = 19AC

Heavy Armor Barbarian, min-stats 18dex, 10str(4 boosts), Cost 1 General feat, +3 Reflex vs aoe from fullpate
Base AC 10: +6 Fullplate, +0 Dex, +2 Proficiency = 17AC

So at level 13 the barbarian who spent the feat on armor proficiency has:

+2 Reflex saves vs damage effects (which is most of them)
-1 on other reflex saves which is pretty rare

+2 to to Int, Wis, or Cha (Both barbs will start with Str 18 and Con 16, after that they have two 12s and two 10s so whatever isn't in dex must go to a mental stat)

-1 AC
-5 ft movement speed
and since we assumed the alternative was toughness -13 HP

At 19th level this increases to -4 AC and -19 HP over the other option. It doesn't seem like a good trade to me.

Unarmored Wizard, min-stats 18dex, 10str(4 boosts), 1 General feat for +13HP(toughness), +4 Reflex from dex
Base AC 10: +4Dex, +4 Proficiency = +18AC

Light Armor Wizard, min-stats 18dex, 10str(4 boosts), 1 Genereal feat, +4 Reflex from Dex
Base AC 10: +2 Leather Armor, +4 Dex, +2 Proficiency = +17AC

(you had a small typo in that leather armor has +1 not +2 ac but the total is right

So at level 13 choosing light armor nets you -1 AC and -13 HP assuming the other option was toughness.

Again looking like choosing the armor proficiency feat gives you a bad result

At 15th, the Unarmored Wizard will be able to reach +19AC total if he spends 4 ability points on 18-20dex. The Light Armored Wizard and Breastplate/Fullplate Barbarian has the option to pump Con to 20 for +1HP per level because their dex is capped. Or Wisdom for perception and initiative, etc.

Full-plate barbarian actually can't pump Con since both barbs will likely start with Str 18 Con 16 and boost both every time as I mentioned above.

The wizard can boost con and manage to catch up in HP with the toughness wizard and still be 2 points behind in AC.

Or the unarmored wizard can boost Con themselves still be ahead in HP and continue having a higher AC.

Clarification: My goal has never been "Armor is better" or "Don't take dex". My stance is that General Feats are the weakest option to get armor and they don't become invalidate if you decide not to max dex. They're a path to 12-10 dex builds which open up other builds.

Now armor proficiency feat is best if you want to dump dex. That's probably true though with how important dex is for AC and reflex saves and the four boost system it seems relatively painless to get dex 10 at least 18 for mages.

Squiggit wrote:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

If I build for heavy armor

What about light armor? What about another class entirely? What about weapons? You seem really fixated on this one specific example rather than the broader topics being discussed.

Quote:

Which means by the definition used around here, it's a trap feat.

You seem to like putting words in people's mouths, too.

I am? Guess Bardarok didn't say "Feats that are a good idea at low levels but end up making the character objectively worse at high levels are traps for new players who lack system mastery to avoid the issue." and taking Skilled Training for a skill like Medicine, which functions (barely) at level 1-7, but can't even cure poison on a natural 20 past that evades the "works at low level but not high level" definition.

Trained medicine at high levels works great for fist aid though which is always useful so it is probably a pretty good use for skill training. A better example would be stealth since it's real hard to sneak past a leveled opponent with just trained at higher levels. Of course do to the text of Follow the Expert I think they aimed for a point where just +lvl would have a chance of success in which case lvl+2 would be good but I haven't thoroughly looked at the numbers.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

'Ivory Tower Game Design' is the idea that trap options should exist, thus punishing people who are less familiar with the rules and rewarding those who are more familiar. It is a terrible idea.

*sigh* i don't know if people have responded to this, but not really, maybe as a strawman.

it's more like the system should have better or worse options, not trap options. Generally i prefer ivory tower because without it, i kinda just disconnect from my character a lot quicker. it's like ikea I think, where because I spent less making it, i'm not as invested.

objectivity worse options are trap options. Changing the word you use doesn't change what they are. And yes that is an advantage to ivory tower game design; People who know the system well can get a lot of enjoyment out of flexing their system mastery and being good at a thing. It's just really hostile to new players or players who aren't interested in investing enough time to achieve system mastery, and have you seen the size of the CRB? It's a lot of time.

Skills are exactly the same, they use the same proficiency mechanic, they give same bonuses, their DC rises with levels. You start with trained, you get some to expert then a few to master and even less to legendary. Rogue is best with skill proficiencies, fighter is best with weapon proficiencies, champion is best with armor proficiencies. There's a really whimsical take on what's invalidated, what's trap, what's same. Three things follow the same proficiency rules and two are treated differently than the third, but also one is treated differently than the other because ancestral feats add a curveball.

Again my problem is not that rogues are best with skills, fighters best with weapons etc. My problem is that a character of any class who uses the general feat to expand there options is better off using their class approved options.

But if it helps, name a class or two and I'll give it a whirl focusing on armor via general feats then we can compare them to your dex version? With exception of monk since I've no experience with them. I've admittted that dex is better at the progression, but my stance should have been clear that the medium/heavy armor builds depend on getting to that point. The armor isn't invalidated because your dex bard gets +1AC if my medium armored bard is built for melee because I never planned to benefit from that proficiency in the first place. It's kind of like saying a bastard sword a fighter is trained in is invalidated because there's longswords with expert at that level. You didn't build around longsword so it's state has no impact on your lower proficiency build. Otherwise why have any trained advanced weapons if you also have expert martials at same level?

Bastard swords are martial but you probably shouldn't use advanced weapons that don't scale with your total proficiency either, use the ancestry feat or fighter feat to make it count as martial. The extra traits really aren't worth 2 to hit. And yes I think the general feats for those are also a trap option and I have no idea why they included being trained in them when you are expert in martial weapons.

I didn't bring up dex but I'll assume you mean someone using the paizo approved armor weapons and correspondingly trying to max their dex to match that AC.

Let's combare

1. A medium armor barbarian vs one who uses the general feat to use heavy armor

2. an unarmored wizard vs one who uses the general feat to use light armor

For both cases mine will take toughness instead of the armor proficiency feat.

EDIT: Assume human for stats and assume that other than toughens vs armor proficiency they took all the same feats

Bardarok wrote:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

What if their purpose is to be the weakest option out of all current option when it comes to gaining extra proficiencies in weapon, armor or skills?

Since they cost the weakest feat (sans skill feats) out of all three feat options.

Then that was a bad decision by the devs. New players will pick those feats and experienced players wont because there are better ways to accomplish the same thing. It's textbook ivory tower game design.

New players will do a lot of mistakes, probably forget that weapon finesse is a passive weapon trait now, or how sweeping works. I don't think we should change things based on the worst case scenario people might do.

Personally I'll be using general feat proficiencies where they fit. I'll find ways to deal being 1AC behind. Or I can pick up champion and be one AC ahead a 20DEX. Options are a good thing.

I don't think we should for example remove Skilled Training because a new player wouldn't realize he can't max all his skills with exception of playing Rogue.
It's still a nice option if you want diversity. Grabbing Trained Medicine helps a little, even if you'll never increase it.

You keep falling back to the best case scenario for general feats: Wizards/Sorcerers/Cloistered Clerics picking up heavy armor and even then you admit it's probably not worth it since even you say the class feats work better because they scale to expert.

Skills aren't the same since trained in medicine never becomes completely invalidated by a class feature the same way trained in a weapon or armor does.

What if their purpose is to be the weakest option out of all current option when it comes to gaining extra proficiencies in weapon, armor or skills?

Since they cost the weakest feat (sans skill feats) out of all three feat options.

Then that was a bad decision by the devs. New players will pick those feats and experienced players wont because there are better ways to accomplish the same thing. It's textbook ivory tower game design.

I mean, the thing we should realize is that there are a great number of wholly appropriate character concepts which one cannot yet reproduce in PF2 (e.g. a cleric of any god not in the core 20, any kind of tiefling, a witch, etc.). This is kind of why I want to quibble with the title of this thread, since this isn't the final version of PF2, it's the first version of PF2.

By highlighting the things that we want to play but can't yet we can figure out what new things we need to add. So the issue is less "I can't play a wizard who is an accomplished fencer and that's unacceptable" it's "I want to play a wizard who is an accomplished fencer, and the current tools don't let me achieve my vision of my character."

I just think that "change the current tools" is not as good a solution as "add more and different tools" particularly when we haven't seen a single "direct supplement to the core rules" book yet. I don't know what that general feat for trained proficiency is for really, since it seems like a bad feat, but I cannot see the whole picture.

I think you are right that future books will make this a non-issue however I think it is still reasonable to be disappointed that there are trap options in the core and to ask for an errata to fix them. They might not be traps in the future if their 'real' purpose is to be prerequisites for future archetypes or there is another feat which enables further scaling or something like that. But the core is always the default and the first book people will start with it.

Well not really, class feats for multiclassing are available to everyone, those two specific ancestry feats(which are more valuable than general feats) are limited to human ancestry, or others by paying a tax via Adopted. Haflings pay a lesser cost since their ancestry feat grants both adopted and an ancestry feat.

Yes really. Every ancestry has a weapon familiarity -> weapon expertise. You only need to get adopted ancestry if you don't want the weapons that your ancestry provides.

These are alternatives and options, there's more than one path to the goal.

It's still a hierarchy of cost = reward:
> Class = Martial, Simple expert. Trained Advanced.
> Ancestry = One weapon, limited by an ancestry trait, gained a level later.
> General = All weapons of a class in a 1-2-3 progression, no scaling.

Class feats are worth more so they give the best option.
Ancestry is niche in who has it, or costs a general feat via adopted.
General feat is a jack of all trades but master of none.

Right class feats are give the most. Ancestry is almost always a better option because most people don't actually need expert in more than one weapon and it scales better for classes that get master proficiecy. The general feat is a trap option.