Wait wait wait, they can swap out class feats?I am hoping fighters get some thing like a flexible skill feat that can be switched out every morning.They get this for Class Feats. I'm skeptical of it for Skill Feats.
They get an additional class feat at level 9 (I think) as class feature. They can switch out this one feat every day. They gain one more variable feat at I think level 17. This also puts them in the position of having the most class feats of all calsses. Check the Gauntlet blog. I think it was mentioned there.
It might be the case that low level characters wont even be able to consider casting them, after all, none of the revealed pregens seemed to have any indication of possessing ritual books or being prepared to cast rituals.
Rituals are mostly for downtime mode. Since ther pregens were probably not meant to ever have any downtime, I wouldn't read too much into their lack of rituals.
EDIT: Found the bit about fighter-feats. It's level 9 and 15, not 9 and 17.
The fighter's 9th-level Flexibility feat grants a different feat each day, and that increases to two flexible feats with Improved Flexibility at 15th level.
Incidentally, that might make character-builds that spend class feats on other stuff like multiclassing or archetypes less painful for a fighter.
Ah, so is this a Fighter-thing only?They get an additional class feat at level 9 (I think) as class feature. They can switch out this one feat every day. They gain one more variable feat at I think level 17. This also puts them in the position of having the most class feats of all calsses. Check the Gauntlet blog. I think it was mentioned there.Wait wait wait, they can swap out class feats?I am hoping fighters get some thing like a flexible skill feat that can be switched out every morning.They get this for Class Feats. I'm skeptical of it for Skill Feats.
Well, there's retraining rules for downtime in the rulebook. But the daily switch is fighter-only as far as we know, yes.
Combined with a (half-)elf's ability to switch out a trained skill every day, you can actually make your fighter quite adept at facing any expected challenge for the day. Not quite as much as a wizard switching spells, but it's something.
Wait wait wait, they can swap out class feats?I am hoping fighters get some thing like a flexible skill feat that can be switched out every morning.They get this for Class Feats. I'm skeptical of it for Skill Feats.They get an additional class feat at level 9 (I think) as class feature. They can switch out this one feat every day. They gain one more variable feat at I think level 17. This also puts them in the position of having the most class feats of all calsses. Check the Gauntlet blog. I think it was mentioned there.
It might be the case that low level characters wont even be able to consider casting them, after all, none of the revealed pregens seemed to have any indication of possessing ritual books or being prepared to cast rituals.Rituals are mostly for downtime mode. Since ther pregens were probably not meant to ever have any downtime, I wouldn't read too much into their lack of rituals.
EDIT: Found the bit about fighter-feats. It's level 9 and 15, not 9 and 17.
The fighter's 9th-level Flexibility feat grants a different feat each day, and that increases to two flexible feats with Improved Flexibility at 15th level.Incidentally, that might make character-builds that spend class feats on other stuff like multiclassing or archetypes less painful for a fighter.
Oh, thanks for the link! It has been a long time since I looked at that blog.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder 1st Edition spells are time-tested for power and were found to be totally unbalanced.
I fixed that for you.
I doubt Paizo will make the spells weaker.
What play test previews have you been reading? They are absolutely making spells weaker. And more power to Paizo for doing so.
Ah, thanks for the info, I like the half-elf ability, and I want fighters to be supreme in combat and have their own goodies, but I have never been a fan of swapping out known feats/manoeuvres.
I personally don't think it's a big deal. You'll test out a few different feats at first and after that you'll hardly switch anymore. Just like a Wizard or Cleric has largely the same spell selection every day unless he knows he will really need something completely different.
The Pathfinder 1st Edition spells are time-tested for power and were found to be totally unbalanced.
I fixed that for you.
What play test previews have you been reading? They are absolutely making spells weaker. And more power to Paizo for doing so.I doubt Paizo will make the spells weaker.
That's not true - they were pretty balanced in AD&D1st and 2nd edition. The linear fighter/quadratic wizard was a 3e forward issue - as the ability to disrupt a spell and the risk of casting went out the window, and the magic item shop let casters make scrolls and wands for all the utility spells they'd used to have to keep prepped, or not have on hand.
To be quite honest, it's like they looked at why spells weren't 'omg the wizard stomps the game after level 8' from the early versions of the game and tried really hard to come up a meld of rules that keep feats, and more interesting class choices/abilities for the melee - while also moving back into the first edition way of handling magic items and spells.
I don't know if you ever made it to high level with a 1st edition wizard you were pretty well unbeatable but as a fighter you hit more and get more attacks. Like for a wizard you needed the figther to keep you alive long enough to become a god.
I fixed that for you.The Pathfinder 1st Edition spells are time-tested for power and were found to be totally unbalanced.
That's not true - they were pretty balanced in AD&D1st and 2nd edition. The linear fighter/quadratic wizard was a 3e forward issue - as the ability to disrupt a spell and the risk of casting went out the window, and the magic item shop let casters make scrolls and wands for all the utility spells they'd used to have to keep prepped, or not have on hand.
To be quite honest, it's like they looked at why spells weren't 'omg the wizard stomps the game after level 8' from the early versions of the game and tried really hard to come up a meld of rules that keep feats, and more interesting class choices/abilities for the melee - while also moving back into the first edition way of handling magic items and spells.
In one AD&D campaign the party, which had player characters from 1st to 6th level, went into the city's sewers to investigate mysterious events. A drow wizard stepped out of a doorway and cast fireball, trusting his spell resistance to protect him from his own spell. A fireball on an open field expands to a half-sphere of 20-foot radius, but the narrow corridors of the sewer tunnels forced this fireball to reach farther to expand to full volume. My 4th-level druid, 80 feet away around 2 corners, died instantly. He never knew what killed him.
I don't think of AD&D spells as balanced.
I do agree that the linear fighter/quadratic wizard dispute stems from D&D 3rd Edition. The AD&D rules about different classes progressing at different rates made the classes hard to compare, and it was a general assumption that the wizard being ridiculously weak at low levels was the price he paid for being ridiculously strong at high levels.
What play test previews have you been reading? They are absolutely making spells weaker. And more power to Paizo for doing so.I doubt Paizo will make the spells weaker.
The druid preview revealed no spells.
The bard preview revealed the powerful Allegro cantrip, which can be acquired via a 14th-level feat. It essentially transfers an action from the bard to an ally, since casting it takes an action. The PF2 Allegro is a 2nd-level spell that acts as a personal haste spell. They are different spells at different levels, so I can't compare.
The sorcerer preview revealed no spells.
The wizard preview revealed Magic Missile and Fhantasmal Killer.
Magic Missile is more powerful at low levels, because it can create 3 missiles at 1st level rather than waiting until 5th level, but creating more missiles than 3 requires casting it as a 3rd-level spell. They seem equivalent in the long run.
PF1 Phantasmal Killer requires a Will save and a Fort save, where failing the will save gives 3d6 damage, and failing both savess gives death. PF2 Phantasmal Killer requires a Will save to avoid 8d6 damage, but requires a Fort save to avoid death only on a critical failure of the Will save. The PF2 version comes out a little ahead in that it makes the target frightened, too.
The cleric preview revealed no spells. The Eminent Domains preview revealed no spells. It revealed several powers, but since powers don't have a spell level, they are hard to compare to spells.
The All about Spells preview revealed Heal, Vampiric Exsanguination, and Regenerate.
1st-level Heal with a one-action casting is equivalent to Cure Minor Wounds. With two-action casting, it can be cast at 30-foot range and with three-action casting it is Channel Energy, so it is superior to Cure Light Wounds.
6th-level Vampiric Exsanguination deals 10d6 negative damage in a 30-foot cone and gives temporary hit points to the caster. Compare that to 6th-level PF2 Banshee Blast dealing 1d4 typeless damage per level in a 30-foot cone that might panic creatures. The two spells match damage at caster level 14. They seem about the same power. On the other hand, PF1 Cone of Cold does 1d6 cold damage per caster level in a 60-foot cone, so it is better than both PF1 Banshee Blast and PF2 Vampiric Exsanguination, unless the targets are protected from cold. Is that a difference between PF1 and PF2 or between Evocation and Necromancy?
7th-level PF2 Regenerate gives Regeneration 15 for one minute and can regrow organs and reattached severed limbs. The PF2 version cures 4d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +35), rids the subject of exhaustion and fatigue, eliminates all nonlethal damage the subject has taken, and can regrow organs and limbs. Tha preview said, "Regenerate was always necessary to restore lost limbs or organs (a rare situation to come up in the game), but the way it worked made it fairly ineffective for use in combat. This version is much more attractive during a fight, particularly if your foe lacks access to acid and fire!"
Those are the playtest previews that I have been reading. I don't see weaker spells.
I'm interested in an answer to this question, too. I'm worried for them removing spells from classes, because of the inherit flexibility spells offer.
For other, noncasting classes to compete, they need buildable and swappable options that offer a plethora of abilities.
I can't remember where I've seen them, but IIRC, Mark Seifter has a discussion in the Wizard (?) blog about several spells. One of the things is that spells no longer scale damage with CL. This means that your 2nd level spell starts to lose utility faster than in P1, so the spell may be stronger at the level you get it, but is less useful a few levels down the road than in P1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We really don't know enough about rituals yet to know how they will impact the game over all, but I hope they are not just down time activities. I hope they include a lot of the kinds of exploration type spells that rarely got used and that they seem more use prior to and during exploration mode.
Personally , I would like to see things like overland flight and teleportation outside of dimensional door moved to rituals and lets spells focus on quicker, spontaneous effects with shorter durations. While some spell powers might have effects that last in the hours range, it doesn't seem like many spells from the spell list will.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My impressions from reading the blog and hearing the designers talk about it is that they can't help themselves. On one level, you can see there's an attempt to address/remove some aspect of what makes casters overpowered, but then they go back and add something in to fix it in a different context. The Critical Failure mechanic applied to saves is a perfect example, imo. Instead of spells just failing to work, they've gone back and still tried to give the caster a free handout.
When every single save or die DC goes up by 10, I think you have to consider that casters have been hit pretty hard. The fact that they get to do things on turns where their target saves is a boost to actual playability, but it's still a pretty big hit.
Then there's the fact that single-stat dependency and the number of DC boosters have also been cut, letting you have less out of the world DCs.
And then there's the fact that spells no longer scale with level, and quite a few buffs have been shown to require an action to maintain.
My impressions from reading the blog...When every single save or die DC goes up by 10, I think you have to consider that casters have been hit pretty hard. The fact that they get to do things on turns where their target saves is a boost to actual playability, but it's still a pretty big hit.
Then there's the fact that single-stat dependency and the number of DC boosters have also been cut, letting you have less out of the world DCs.
And then there's the fact that spells no longer scale with level, and quite a few buffs have been shown to require an action to maintain.
Where was single-stat dependency cut? Spell DCs and spell points are still based on the same stat. Clerics heal's are based on Cha but that's not a change. Druids get bonus wild shape with Str boosts now but before their wild shaped form was based on their own Strength so I don't see that as a big change.
Also spell DCs scale with character level not spell level so that is a boost.
Overall though there does appear to be a slight spell-caster combat power nerf which might change the balance.
My impressions from reading the blog...When every single save or die DC goes up by 10, I think you have to consider that casters have been hit pretty hard. The fact that they get to do things on turns where their target saves is a boost to actual playability, but it's still a pretty big hit.
Then there's the fact that single-stat dependency and the number of DC boosters have also been cut, letting you have less out of the world DCs.
And then there's the fact that spells no longer scale with level, and quite a few buffs have been shown to require an action to maintain.
Where was single-stat dependency cut? Spell DCs and spell points are still based on the same stat. Clerics heal's are based on Cha but that's not a change. Druids get bonus wild shape with Str boosts now but before their wild shaped form was based on their own Strength so I don't see that as a big change.
Also spell DCs scale with character level not spell level so that is a boost.
Overall though there does appear to be a slight spell-caster combat power nerf which might change the balance.
Dex to hit, main stat, bonus stat for Druid and Cleric seems to space it out a little at least?
The attack roll of offensive spells seems like it will matter more now than in the past. SAD is not really a thing in PF2 since you can only max out at 18 and get lots of attribute bonuses that can't go to your primary stat, but offensive casters will probably need pretty decent DEX if not STR, depending on how many spells are ranged touch vs touch. I don't know how much this will off-set things, but targeting touch AC will not be as easy as it was in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overall though there does appear to be a slight spell-caster combat power nerf which might change the balance.Emphasis mine.
So a "slight" combat power nerf is going to change the balance for classes that pretty much dominate past level 10?
Not directed at Bardarok, but let me clarify, the problem isn't casters are putting out more damage, its that they can:
1) single target damage; Ranged and melee, including Touch attacks;
2) AoE damage;
3) Single target control
4) AoE control;
5) Single buffs, self and others;
6) Group buffs
7) Skill boosts or obviate the need for skills (yes, I know the latter has been changed);
8) Heal;
9) leverage save or suck mechanics;
How many of those things is P2 going to completely take away? How many of those things with the P2 fighter get to do?
The problem isn't that they were good or great at something, the problem is that they had access to all of it. Is that changing?
From the casters side we know that number 7 and number 9 have clearly been nerfed a bunch. It's unknown how 3 and 4 will shake out you don't get the absolute domination on a normal failure but sometimes you get a bit of something even if they succeed. 1 and 2 seem to be slightly weaker and 5, 6, 8 seem the same.
From the martials side we have seen examples of 1 (including targeting TAC) and 3 to debuff. No real AoE or buffs, healing through skills is better.
Overall I never found casters to be particularly overpowered in combat. I think a big issue is that prepared casters can switch out all their stuff every day so that as a GM you always need a time constraint to prevent them from just waiting around a day to pick the spell to make the problem go away. Generally this was a cleric problem but I think the skill boost alone might be enough to fix this issues (though I think classes with spells should start off with one fewer skill to balance the out of combat utility of spells).
Martials and Casters don't have the same abilities and don't play the same in combat. I think that is ultimately good otherwise you get the homogenization that many fond objectionable in 4e. Casters get buffs and debuffs, and better control, and AoE damage. Martials get much better single target DPR as well as some buffs and control themselves. Different.
Hey N N 959, thank you for posting this list. I've got a few thoughts on some of this, more "mental exploration" of how things could be addressed. I invite anyone to join in this exercise, if they're of a mind to!
Overall though there does appear to be a slight spell-caster combat power nerf which might change the balance.Emphasis mine.
So a "slight" combat power nerf is going to change the balance for classes that pretty much dominate past level 10?
Not directed at Bardarok, but let me clarify, the problem isn't casters are putting out more damage, its that they can:
1) single target damage; Ranged and melee, including Touch attacks;
2) AoE damage;
3) Single target control
Martials should have single target damage and control through the introduction of martial maneuvers. I'm hoping the latter get both a streamline and an upgrade. Any martial class should gain a "martial maneuvers" feat which lets them attempt any maneuver untrained!
Specialist feats allow you to do more things with maneuvers on a critical success, and make critical failures worse.
Area effects may could be accomplished through abilities similar to the old rage powers, such as pounding the ground to produce difficult terrain. The paladin's weapon spirit might be able to produce an effect. I am having trouble coming up with ways they could gain more versatile AoE effects, but it's a start?
The barbarian with a "pound the ground" ability will be locked into that ability, but would be able to use it a multiple times per day, like the sorcerer.
We might want to think of martial flexibility in terms of the sorcerer, rather than the wizard.
4) AoE control;
Maneuvers is the only answer that I have here. There seem to be some class options (paladin litinies if they're let to work on more than one creature, some barbarian feats/"powers", maybe some fighter shield tricks or a weapon sweep?)
5) Single buffs, self and others;
6) Group buffs
A skald template would be a pretty awesome thematic "buff-style" barbarian. Paladin aura options via feats would be good for this. I can see the issue where they've less flexibility than the cleric, though--though arguably the cleric, historically at least, easily played the role of a buffer class.
We're also not sure of the role that buffs play in PF2. Bard's our good look at them. Maybe it's time to pull that out into discussion.
7) Skill boosts or obviate the need for skills (yes, I know the latter has been changed);
8) Heal;
These seem to have been moved towards the new skill system. We'll have to see how it plays. I like that casty spells now add bonuses to skills. That's a good change.
9) leverage save or suck mechanics;
Not sure how this will play out. I'm reminded of the old crit feats that I'd rarely seen taken. Maybe we'll see things like that that are more common, that are a combo of weapon prof/skill plus the individual weapon.
I suspect if that's the case, then the fighter may be, oddly enough! great at inducing SoS debuffs on enemies.
How many of those things is P2 going to completely take away? How many of those things with the P2 fighter get to do?
The problem isn't that they were good or great at something, the problem is that they had access to all of it. Is that changing?
Yeah. XD I'm curious how it will all turn out, myself. I agree with your list, though breaking it down gives me some hope--or at least the beginnings of "here are some ways we might start addressing these issues in the playtest." It feels /good/ to have ideas for how to move forward, that may fit the new mechanics, you know?
What do you think?
As I posted below, I don't see any effort by Paizo to remove agency from full casters, instead it looks as if Paizo is trying to give more agency to everyone else (and more for casters too). As you've highlighted, Paizo is going out of its way to try and invent a whole bunch of mechanics to bridge this gap. This alone says something the inherent nature of the gap. It would be so much simpler to simply give full casters a narrow focus e.g. two schools, the others are off limits. So clearly they'd rather give agency than take it away.
So what does the massive cut to skill-replacement spells (knock, pass without trace, discern lies, etc) mean to you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what does the massive cut to skill-replacement spells (knock, pass without trace, discern lies, etc) mean to you?As I posted below, I don't see any effort by Paizo to remove agency from full casters, instead it looks as if Paizo is trying to give more agency to everyone else (and more for casters too). As you've highlighted, Paizo is going out of its way to try and invent a whole bunch of mechanics to bridge this gap. This alone says something the inherent nature of the gap. It would be so much simpler to simply give full casters a narrow focus e.g. two schools, the others are off limits. So clearly they'd rather give agency than take it away.
It means casters still have agency. It means they can still affect outcomes in the skills department. It means that they can still use specifically chosen familiar or companions or summoned creatures and boost them far beyond what someone else can do. Despite the cuts, will non-castesr be able to provide those boosts on top of all the other things full casters can do?
Here's what kind of galls me. Paizo didn't create the paradigm of full-caster-gets-it-all, they inherited it. And despite the fact that they acknowledge its a problem, they've seemingly doubled down on it by pushing that paradigm on non-casters. Why not admit that no class or group of classes should have this much agency? WotC got it wrong with the full caster. Everyone seems to admit that. But Paizo seems unwilling to actually strike at the core issue.: Let's not cure the disease, let's just give it to everyone.
I think it was Jason B that talked about one of the problems that multi-classing has on the game. If I'm not mistaken, his point was that when everyone can do everything, no one knows what they should do. It would seem that he sees the problem created by unfettered multi-classing but is blind to the exact same problem caused by increasing player agency, and not reducing it for those who have far too
...
Uh...yes, they can still affect outcomes in the skills department, but spellcasting proficency is always going to be lower than anyone who actually invested in the skill (significantly less if they have any item backing them up). Not to mention that spellcasters aren't going to have the equivalent skill feats that actually grant all the power, since they don't have the actual training.
Similarly, animal companions (and likely familiars) are trained in very specific skills, and don't get skill feats.
And skill feats are where all the power actually lies there - proficiency is a small numbers boost and a partial gateway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those are the playtest previews that I have been reading. I don't see weaker spells.
There has been a bunch of other stuff revealed.
Maintaining buffs
Check out the pre-gen character sheet for the Cleric for Bless.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5411-Pathfinder-2-Character-Sheet- 2-Kyra-Human-Cleric
It requires concentration now to maintain. I believe this costs 1 action per round. I think a lot of buffs work this way. So it looks like there is no more fire and forget buff stacking. Going by the bard cantrips, buffs also seems to affect fewer people.
Less stacking
Additionally, there are far fewer things that stack. The Twitch banquet presentation on the Druid showed that polymorph type spell set your stats to particular levels, rather than added bonus. There are far fewer categories of buffs as well.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v5y7&page=1?Druid-and-other-PaizoCon-banqu et-information
Flatter bonuses
Because of the flatter maths, spells are not going to give big bonuses. We have seen some +1 to hit . But I doubt we will be see anything that gives a +3 that stacks with weapon/armour magic bonuses.
Reduced duration
A lot of buff spells shown so far have duration in the order of minutes. So, it will take an action (or two) in combat to get them going.
Debuff sliding scale
Because of the new debuff system, a lot of save or suck spells and effects appear to less sever on a fail, and only a major debuff on a critical fail. Whereas in PFe1, you could offload high DC, area of effect debuffs that essentially ended encounters starting around level 7. These got worse with Persistent Spell metamagic.
No automatic damage scaling
Many of the damage spells do not scale with level. They need to be prepared in higher spell slots for more damage. This is a clear reduction in power.
Burning Hands is previewed in the Wizard pre-gen character sheet.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5427-Pathfinder-2-Character-Sheet- 6-Ezren-Human-Wizard
It does 2d6 fire damage. This is better than PFe1 at level 1, but then it is behind from level 3. Of course, it was quite possible to be doing 3d4+6 at level 1 with a particular character build, 5d4 with another.
Save scaling
Character and monster's saves are generally going to scale at a similar rate to spell DCs. Therefore monsters are going to be able to make saves more often. Critical fails are going to be rare against challenging monsters.
|
Maintaining buffs
Check out the pre-gen character sheet for the Cleric for Bless.http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?5411-Pathfinder-2-Character-Sheet- 2-Kyra-Human-Cleric
It requires concentration now to maintain. I believe this costs 1 action per round. I think a lot of buffs work this way. So it looks like there is no more fire and forget buff stacking. Going by the bard cantrips, buffs also seems to affect fewer people.
I agree with your other points, but this one is quite a bit less clear. Bless is in a very specific situation that most spells are not, since it cannot readily be raised in level (being very iconic) nor can its bonus be lowered (since it's already down to +1). Buff spells are certainly depowered, but I doubt that Concentration will be the usual or universal solution.
Also, I have no idea what you mean about the Bard stuff. Inspire Courage still effects the whole party, for example. Allegro is one target, but it's also at-will one action Haste, making it one target is pretty reasonable.
You might be right DMW. I guess we will see next week.
Based on the multi class blog I see martials can use feats to get spells. The multiclassing feats look strong, especially if the have synergy with one of your key attributes (I.e. paladin / sorcerer or paladin / bard).
Based on the multi class blog I see martials can use feats to get spells. The multiclassing feats look strong, especially if the have synergy with one of your key attributes (I.e. paladin / sorcerer or paladin / bard).
Yeah, it turns out the answer to the topic's question is, in fact, spells.
If you didn't start out as a wizard, then you're expected to become one.
Definitely feeling uneasy about the latest blog. Not necessarily conceptually speaking as the idea sounds fine enough on paper to me. It's just so frustrating to see the fighter in particular miss out on truly becoming his own class again because of the inability to define him as anything other than "Gets the most feats".
If Feats were anything but as swappable as they are then this might actually mean something, but I have a feeling that we've simply traded one problem for another. They might not have all their feats eaten by never ending feat chains, but given their hardline dependence on feats it seems to essentially be switching the multi classing penalties from casters spell progression to the fighter's progression period, arguable worse than 3.0's dead levels IMO.
Though I will again admit that I may have simply missed certain responses or mis read the post.
Fighters aren't defined by getting the most feats, though? They do get two more class feats than anyone else, but these are variable feats you're expected to swap out on a day to day basis rather than something you're locked in to. The Fighter's identity in PF2 is supposed to be an extremely advanced rate of weapon proficiency, getting Legendary in his preferred weapon group quite a bit before anyone else is Legendary in anything. The question is if being Legendary with swords does anything other than give you a +1 to hit rolls over people who are Master with swords...
I think they have heavily implied that they do get more then just a +1. I don't know what but they have said a bunch that you unlock other options by getting legendary.
I think they have heavily implied that they do get more then just a +1. I don't know what but they have said a bunch that you unlock other options by getting legendary.
Unlocking isn't the same as getting though. And depending on the class, spell casters might have already run the show for awhile and could continue to do so.
I mean I think the only Legendary we've seen was "Immune to Fall Damage".
Well I would hope that the level I unlock it I would also get a feat or whatever so I can get some cool ability from it. If I don't get anything automatically I mean.
Well I would hope that the level I unlock it I would also get a feat or whatever so I can get some cool ability from it. If I don't get anything automatically I mean.
*Flips to Level up chart*
If Skill Rank is actually the ability to raise a skill from Trained to Expert and so forth; then you are kinda out of luck. Unless maybe as a Rogue.
You seem to get a Skill Feat every Even level and a Skill Rank for every Odd at level 3 and beyond. General feats might be able to be used for Skill feats(Okay, what can't General be traded for and how balanced are they going to be to not be instantly traded off for another Feat category).
And Rogues also get Skill Feats I think at every level.
So for most classes you're going to have to wait a level before you can get some cool ability if the Rank has nothing built in. That or use a General.
Now would you use a skill feat or other for legendary with weapons?
I think they have heavily implied that they do get more then just a +1. I don't know what but they have said a bunch that you unlock other options by getting legendary.
At this point I'm not trusting anything that seems "heavily implied". It's been made very clear that higher skill proficiencies unlock more extreme abilities, while we've seen nothing of that sort for for weapon or armor proficiency. The closest we've gotten to a high level fighter ability is something I'm used to being able to pick up at level 1 with Spheres of Might.
|
Well I would hope that the level I unlock it I would also get a feat or whatever so I can get some cool ability from it. If I don't get anything automatically I mean.
I think most things will have a benefit for increasing proficiency. Some skills for instance have trained and expert uses you don’t need feats to unlock.
|
|
I think they have heavily implied that they do get more then just a +1. I don't know what but they have said a bunch that you unlock other options by getting legendary.At this point I'm not trusting anything that seems "heavily implied". It's been made very clear that higher skill proficiencies unlock more extreme abilities, while we've seen nothing of that sort for for weapon or armor proficiency. The closest we've gotten to a high level fighter ability is something I'm used to being able to pick up at level 1 with Spheres of Might.
I think critical abilities might be related to weapon proficiency.
That is what I was thinking. Hey its only a few more days anyways I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With how much the different fighter techniques have been hyped, I bet fighters get some ridiculous combat options with legendary proficiency, the kind of stuff that will really bend the action economy and make other classes jealous. Stuff to turn one action into an AoE attack, move and attack, who knows what else, but enough stuff that the fighter will reign supreme as the weapon master.
The thing that people are worried about is the fighter's out of combat utility. My prediction is that the fighter in particular will look weak out of combat (probably only being able to really focus in on one or two skills), but that will be people trying to analyze the fighter as a stand alone character, out of a party and without equipment or access to rituals. In play, I am betting that the fighter will be more useful than they look on paper. At the very least, most parties are probably only going to have one character with a STR higher than 14, with 2 party members probably hosting a 10. That mean that many parties might really struggle with athletics challenges and general lifting/carrying of things. If longer term summons and buffs are reigned in as much as they look like they are going to be, it is going to be much more difficult to pull strength out of a hat for any length of time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I would hope that the level I unlock it I would also get a feat or whatever so I can get some cool ability from it. If I don't get anything automatically I mean.*Flips to Level up chart*
If Skill Rank is actually the ability to raise a skill from Trained to Expert and so forth; then you are kinda out of luck. Unless maybe as a Rogue.
You seem to get a Skill Feat every Even level and a Skill Rank for every Odd at level 3 and beyond. General feats might be able to be used for Skill feats(Okay, what can't General be traded for and how balanced are they going to be to not be instantly traded off for another Feat category).
And Rogues also get Skill Feats I think at every level.
So for most classes you're going to have to wait a level before you can get some cool ability if the Rank has nothing built in. That or use a General.
I believe a lot of skill feats will upgrade themselves with your proficiency. For example if you had the falling one already you can ignore 50 ft of fall damage (or whatever the number is) with expert proficiency and the moment you upgrade your skill to legendary that becomes infinite. So you need to wait a level to get a new feat that has legendary as a prerequisite but I think skill feats are modeled after skill unlocks in PF unchained where upgrading your proficiency will upgrade all the feats you already have associated with that skill.
I expect certain combat feats will likewise upgrade with weapon proficiency.
I expect certain combat feats will likewise upgrade with weapon proficiency.
Oh, of course that's how it works. Power Attack has been noted to get extra dice at certain levels, and I bet that's proficiency instead. So one more at master, and another at legendary.
Oh, of course that's how it works. Power Attack has been noted to get extra dice at certain levels, and I bet that's proficiency instead. So one more at master, and another at legendary.
I expect certain combat feats will likewise upgrade with weapon proficiency.
That would be my guess as well.