* Alchemical items, including bombs, can be made ahead of time, in batches of 4, for 2x the cost of buying 1 at the market.
* A 5th level character w/ 18 Int will get 9 batches of infused reagents per day. Advanced Alchemy lets him, at the start of the day, convert 1 batch of infused reagents into 2 of any one alchemical item (that you have the formula for). Thus, he could make, if nothing else, 18 bombs for the day.
* He may use focus to extend the Splash damage of Alchemist's Fire by 5', but it is not necessary. He still gets Xd8 Fire Damage and X persistent fire damage and 1 splash w/o spending focus.
* Alchemical Items =/= Cantrips. Cantrips cannot be manufactured and handed out to other people to use whenever they feel like it.
... After we learn the system, a trap's required proficiency level is certainly not information players should have...
I disagree. Knowing how to disarm traps includes (or ought to) the ability to study a trap and discern quality, complexity, etc. The response should certainly be narrative rather than listing a stat block -- "This is a superbly crafted trap with quite a complex mechanism" -- but some information should be accessible.
Captain Morgan wrote:
For base class, sure, but individuals often break molds and that is part of the fun, sometimes, of playing a fantasy character.
Mechanically, the edge in proficiency is the equivalent of BAB. It is one of tee most important balancing points for martials to have to make up for not having magic or sneak attack.
With class weapon proficiencies, the best damage dice a Rogue can get is d8 (Spear or Staff two-handed). Otherwise, they're swinging d4 or d6 while Fighters are swinging d10 or d12. At 12th level, with +3 Weapon Potency, a Rogue is swinging an average if 20.5 damage with 4d4 + 3d6 sneak, or 24.5 with 4d6 + 3d6 sneak. Without the conditional sneak, it's 10 and 14 respectively. A Fighter is swinging a constant average of 22 with 4d10 or 26 with 4d12.
Even with the same BAB, Rogue's certainly aren't outshining Fighters.
Judging by several threads and many posts in these forums, Fighters are certainly not handicapped by the absence of magical ability. Indeed, when MC Fighter is the way -- as some have emphatically commented -- to make a Caster viable, it's Magic that needs some balancing to Fighter.
Slaughter the Sacred Cow that says that Rogues, or anyone else, must intentionally be kept less good at hitting things than fighters. There are other ways to establish class distinctions. If a non-Fighter wants to specialize in striking that's some customization that ought to be allowed.
An improve proficiency feat would not only go against the goal of moving away from feats that give boring numerical bonuses...
Alertness, Fleet, Great Fortitude, Hefty Hauler, Incredible Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Remarkable Resonance, Toughness...
But, there is more than just a +1 bonus in a new proficiency. There are gated abilities as well. While none are available in the play test for Master Swordsman or Legendary Crossbowman, or what have you, expect them to come. So, improving proficiency would be more than just a boring numerical bonus. It would open access to proficiency-gated feats/tricks/etc.
... it would become extremely over centralizing because of how powerful +1s are.
If feats are done right, choosing to improve weapon or armor proficiency should be an actual trade-off, not a default setting.
That is poop too.
PF1 Rogue could, with some effort, get a very similar base to-hit bonus as a Fighter. There is no good reason -- thematically, naratively, mechanically, or otherwise -- to gate total mastery of proficiencies by class
Igor Horvat wrote:
Just becuse you had access to some weapon since you were a kid doesn't mean that you put effort(had a certain class) into practice to become a master.
Perhaps I confused the topic with the specific reference to Racial weapon.
I'm not looking to auto-master just 'cause it's my racial weapon. Rather, non-Fighters should have the means to put the effort into mastering a weapon or very narrow group and/or their armor proficiency w/o having to MC fighter. There is no good reason, narratively or mechanically, that a Rogue, for instance, cannot become Legendary with Rapier, or improve his armor proficiency beyond Trained.
Gating access to Master+ Proficiency (any of them, including Perception and Saves) by Class is poop. There should be a simple General Feat (e.g.: Improved Proficiency: Increase one Proficiency by one level up to the maximum proficiency by level.), General Feats for specialization (weapon, armor, perception, saves, etc.), or Feat Trees along those lines.
Because they wanted a universal proficiency system. Not everything has a path to legendary for all characters...
Well, that's poop!
That prevents player driven character development. "Choose this class or else never be Legendary in X" is garbage. Sure, make it have trade-offs. Perhaps my Rogue being Legendary in two Goblin Weapons means he'll never Master Stealth, but I should have the means if that is the Vision of my character. Otherwise, talk of customization is more poop.
The GM has enough to keep track of and do. The more tracking that can be offloaded to the players (e.g.: tracking that I have a +2 to hit for flanking, instead of the GM tracking a -2 to AC), the better. Secret rolls put more on the GM. They may be thematically appropriate for some things for... reasons... but should be the exception.
Along that vein, I don't think PC debuffing, penalties not conditions (e.g.: Bane in 2e), should be a thing. I get that debuffing is thematically cool, but, mechanically, a debuff is no different than a ally buff. Taking the example of Bane, enemies are at -1 to hit. That is on the GM to track. But, it is mechanically, no different than saying the PC's are at +1 AC/TAC which would offload the tracking from the GM to the players.
A "level-appropriate challenge" says, to me, that, whatever it is, it is roughly my equal. Therefore, it should either be a stale-mate (roughly 0 to 5% success rate to either side) or closer to a 50/50.
However, it should be noted, that not every challenge should scale by level. If climbing a wall, at level 5, is a DC 15 challenge, then that same wall, with no modification, should not be a DC 25 just because I am now level 15. Similarly, not every challenge should be "level-appropriate". In fact, I would argue, that most challenges should not be because, again, "level-appropriate", means I have come across my equal and, as a fantasy hero (or villain) that should not happen often.
If shields are damaged when actively used to block...
I love the idea of Raise Shield / Shield Block making shields more interactive than before, but the disparity of taking damage when weapons and armor do not doesn't make much sense.
Technically we have that skill-action. Its called Battle Medic. And the reason it's a feat is because you heal someone for 1d10+WIS in a single action.
Except it's not a single action. At minimum it's two...1. Interact: Retrieve kit
2. Battle Medic.
Or, 3. Interact: Stow kit (vs. leave it on the ground).
More actions are needed if you have to remove a shield first or it's stowed in a backpack.