So, here's the deal. Say I want to make a druid who plans to take a level or two in barbarian later. I really don't want to start out as a barbarian, either for statistical reasons like the Favored Class bonus or thematic ones.
Now, say I want to be wielding a particular weapon--let's say a greatclub, or a scythe. As those are martial weapons, I must take Martial Weapon Proficiency at first level if I don't want to suck for a good few levels.
At fifth level, I take my level in barbarian.
Boom. I now have a literally useless feat. I have no way to retrain it.
On the one hand, I realize I didn't really "lose" anything. I spent a feat to get myself through the first few levels, and then I stopped using it.
On the other, that slot I could have spent on Power Attack is going to bug me for a long time. Feats are slim when you aren't a fighter, after all, and it seems very harsh to make someone look at "Martial Weapon Proficiency (greatclub)" on their list of Feats every time they get the sheet out. It's like a barbarian spending a feat to gain Sense Motive, Bluff and Disable Device as class skills and then multiclassing to rogue later anyways.
On the third hand, yeah, this is kind of pedantic.
Still, it bugs me. It's easy enough for a GM to house rule in a home game, but in PFS, not so much. Is there any chance that in the future a teensy addendum to the PFS rules could be added to rectify this issue? Something like...
If you later take levels in a class that grants proficiency in this weapon, you may replace this feat with something more useful, like "Fleet" or "Elemental Channel".
Is there a logic behind the status quo that I'm missing, or is this just gonna be one of those, "Yeah, it's kinda lame, but it doesn't really matter..." areas? Or, being optimistic, can some alteration be made?
What he said. I think if you do an official rebuild you can benefit by getting full HPs at 1st with a Barbarian level, and if you picked up an Ioun Stone of INT maxing out a skill you put a few ranks into, you can re-allocate those ranks elsewhere... etc.
And how is Favored Class influencing this? You don't have to take FC for the class you take at 1st level, you can take FC in something that you NEVER end up taking levels in, or that you start advancing in at 4th or 15th level. Only restriction is that you can't select PrCs, only base classes.
Why not just not use martial weapons at low level? If you call your Club a Greatclub, only the stats care. Cast Shillelagh (or use scrolls of...) if you want.
|
The equipment trait Heirloom weapon from Adventurer's Armory would get you proficiency with one (and only that one) non-mw simple or martial weapon. You can't enhance it but it would get you through a few levels.
Check out traits - I used one to give my hafling bard longbow proficiency, since small archer with shortbow = 1d4 base damage.
|
|
You can also cast Masterwork Transformation on your Heirloom Weapon.
Or have it cast on it & it's one of the few spells that carry over to other scenarios. So I assume you could then enchant it as usual since it's now masterwork. Nice.
So:
1. Heirloom Weapon trait to get proficiency
2. Find someone who can cast MWT on it (or buy a scroll & have them do it for you)
3. Enchant as you are able to afford it
|
|
Also, you are allowed to wield a weapon you are not proficient in. You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and that hurts, but it is an option. I have used this option myself, actually. Granted, it was only to level 2.
Alternatively, you could carry the weapon around, but use something else until you get better at using it.
As Finlanderboy stated, there are now rules for retraining past level 1.
Pick up a copy of Ultimate Campaign from your local game store today!
Ouch. So I would have to buy a whole book to get rid of the feat? I mean, to be in accordance with PFS standards. I doubt anybody'd care about whether I owned the book for something that happened offscreen, of course. >.> <.<
They're not re writing the rules for you on such a small matter.
It wouldn't be for me. My druid is wielding a spiked chain, thank you very much. Pfft. Scythes. Like any loser would wield a scythe. No, I just saw something that seemed a bit awkward (and it woulda come up with my hobgoblin longsword-wielding wizard, but that was non-PFS, and he was too awesome to feel bad about a wasted feat).
Oh, and it's not rewriting the rules, Norse. It's adding a new one. They do it all the time. ;)
Overall, like I said, it's pedantic. I probably would end up using a different weapon for the first couple levels, if I ended up making a build like this. The way the core rules stand is a tad inelegant, in my opinion, but only in this obscure area.
It's nice to hear that retraining rules do exist for getting rid of crappy feats, though. That would be a good option, except it's real complicated and I'm too busy making important forum posts to look up stuff like that!
Thanks, everyone, for your responses. :)
I bet it has a ton of awesome stuff, but I have a ton of D&D and PF books that seemed awesome and I enjoyed reading. How much of their content have I used in a game, though? I'm a bit more cautious about what stuff I buy than I was when I was thirteen years old.
Seriously, I have like thirteen books over there I've never used. It's tough being an obsessed kid and not having a reliable gaming group, man.
That's ten dollars I could be spending on the Secret of Nimh Soundtrack. #outrageous #hashtag
|
|
One point you make about favored class -- there's no requirement that your favored class be the one you take at first level.
Another point: if your character is still 1st level, or if you're talking about a theoretical character you've yet to make, you can do a complete rebuild before you play your character at 2nd level. You could play as a druid at first, and then at second rebuild so that your 1st level is a barbarian and your second level is a druid. Or use GM or pregen credit.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Is there a logic behind the status quo that I'm missing, or is this just gonna be one of those, "Yeah, it's kinda lame, but it doesn't really matter..." areas? Or, being optimistic, can some alteration be made?
I don't think it's lame. You are gaining benefits from multi-classing, why shouldn't you have to pay a price for them?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ouch. So I would have to buy a whole book to get rid of the feat? I mean, to be in accordance with PFS standards. I doubt anybody'd care about whether I owned the book for something that happened offscreen, of course. >.> <.<
That's the position you want to take? Really, K.C.?
So, that "lost feat" is going to bug you, but not enough to pay $10 to fix it?
Incidentally, while the retraining happens off-screen, you still need your next GM to sign off on any changes. And yeah, you could borrow somebody else's copy of Ultimate Campaign and claim it's yours. Or you could change out your whole character and not mention it at all. Nobody's likely to catch you. But is that really the sort of stuff you want to promote in this campaign?
|
You should take the level of barbarian first. Not only does this eliminate your problem it also gives you a few more hit points.
Or GM three experience worth of games [say one running of Accursed Halls) and start your character out at 2nd level, with the first level being the barbarian level, and the 2nd level at druid.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or do as you please. BNW and Dhjika are right, insofar as there is a mechanical benefit to taking the Barbarian level first, but Kobold Cleaver's an old salt on these boards, and a smart cookie to boot. (Salted cookies? Bleaugh.) If he has reasons to start with druid, either mechanical or story-wise, I trust he knows what he's doing.
And I don't mean to disparage BNW and the other posters who provide their expertise and experience to newer, greener players. That's terrific, and they don't get the thanks they deserve.
Having said that, I have long advocated a policy of "make reasonable decisions that make sense for the character, rather than mechanically maximal decisions that you can live with." (Smart play with a reasonable character will be as effective as mediocre play with a character replete with a myriad of small advantages.
I'm not saying anything new. But every so often, I feel that some folks -- not the ones posting on this thread -- lose track of that.
|
|
Its harder to get a mechanical work around to the story reasoning without knowing the story reasoning.
Start druid at 1, waste the feat on the big club proficiency , at level 2 become a Barabarian 1 druid 1 (in that order)- You get the proficiency you need, your backstory is a druid, and with the level 2 re write ditch the feat. You get all the advantages of having started barbarian without changing your characters in story start as a druid. If for some reason you're not supposed to be a barbarian to level 5, just don't do anything barbariany until you have to.
I don't think it's lame. You are gaining benefits from multi-classing, why shouldn't you have to pay a price for them?
Isn't that why the Favored Class bonus exists? I don't think this proficiencies issue was specifically inserted into the game to balance things out. ;)
Ouch. So I would have to buy a whole book to get rid of the feat? I mean, to be in accordance with PFS standards. I doubt anybody'd care about whether I owned the book for something that happened offscreen, of course. >.> <.<That's the position you want to take? Really, K.C.?
We're really doing the "really" thing? Really, Chris? I thought we were above that, you and I.
So, that "lost feat" is going to bug you, but not enough to pay $10 to fix it?
Okay, look, here's an excerpt from THINGS THAT BUG KC
1: Mugging2: Paladin alignment threads
3: Having to post threads complaining about stuff
4: Feat Inconveniences
5: Spending ten bucks
6: Nuclear war
As you can see, spending ten bucks is two whole ranks above posting complaint threads, which in turn is one rank less annoying than the feat inconvenience!
Nobody's likely to catch you. But is that really the sort of stuff you want to promote in this campaign?
*Twirls mustache*
NYEAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAno, it's not. I was just noting that if I really wanted to do it and lacked a kobold's ethical mindset, it'd probably be get-away-with-able. Just so people will stop saying I ignore easy solutions!and a smart cookie to boot.
I am? I mean, yeah, I am!
Venture-Lieutenant, California—Sacramento
|
KC, don't feel obligated to build a character based on mechanics, that said...
Like mentioned if you really don't like that you will have a useless feat and you want to change out that feat using the retrain rules you need to own the book, either hardcover or PDF.
Integrity is a big deal in PFS org play and essential for it to work right.
You can be upset about having to buy the book, I can understand not everyone can afford everything, but that does not allow you to ignore the rule of owning it.
What's that, Dragnmoon? Oh, right, right, integrity. Yeah, integrity is a good thing. Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the scribbling sound from me crossing out the session Sahak died in. Hey, listen, if anybody asks, the caryatid column was attacking for nonlethal damage, 'kay?
EDIT: Keep in mind that I am not currently making a character who would even need the unethical action I came off as supporting.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Isn't that why the Favored Class bonus exists?I don't think it's lame. You are gaining benefits from multi-classing, why shouldn't you have to pay a price for them?
The existence of a single balancing factor does not preclude the existence of, or the need for, additional balancing factors.
I played 3.5 for years. It had the same limitation you are complaining about. Hardly anybody played characters that weren't multi-classed because the disadvantages like the ones you are complaining about didn't do enough to discourage people from multi-classing. It was very rare, for example, to find someone with more than 2 level of fighter. PFS tried to fix that by adding things like less front loading of character classes, changing how favored classes work, and removing feats like Practiced Spell Caster. Even then, there is still a lot of multi-classing going on, but at least you are no longer likely to get a snicker when you sit down at the table and tell someone you are playing a straight-classed character. I don't see how making multi-classing easier is a step in the right direction.
I don't think this proficiencies issue was specifically inserted into the game to balance things out. ;)
What makes you think that? The designers specifically chose what benefits you got from multi-classing and what benefits you didn't get. Free retroactive retraining has never been included in that list and the multi-classing rules have been around for more than enough time for the designers to include them if they thought they should be.
|
|
Personally, Id make the character just how you previously mentioned. Druid first, then Barb later. You can flavor your practice with the big weapon, swinging once or twice a combat, or the entire time in less-threatening combats, as actually learning how to use the darn thing.
Sure, youll suck with it, but so what. Most people I know would think this is just kinda funny and then not mind at all, so long as that isnt the only thing you do for the entire scenario. Druids have many other ways they can be of some help.
So spend some time messing around with your weapon you dont know how to use, then do something useful. :P
When you finally take that level of Barb and smack the living daylights out of something, all that 'practice' will have been worth it. ;)
Oh, that's right! I knew there was a reason I was associating them with the weapon.
What makes you think that? The designers specifically chose what benefits you got from multi-classing and what benefits you didn't get. Free retroactive retraining has never been included in that list and the multi-classing rules have been around for more than enough time for the designers to include them if they thought they should be.
Well, it'd be nice if they'd say something, but like everyone's said, it's a pretty minor thing. Meaning it's not very effective at balancing anyone's stats. :P
But for the record, my druid is wielding a spiked chain. I'll shell out the feat on Exotic Proficiency, for the sake of pure Style. What's that? It got nerfed? Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I look with this big spiked chain here.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Well, it'd be nice if they'd say something, but like everyone's said, it's a pretty minor thing.
I am not quite sure who you are expecting to say something. You posted this on the PFS forum, not the Rules forum, so you are not likely to get a response from the designers. If you are expecting a reply from the PFS staff, you might get one as a courtesy, but it is mostly unnecessary as they have always made it quite clear they will make a modification to the existing PFS rules only if it is necessary for the sake of the campaign. It's not like this is a home game where the DM can simply go, "Yeah, I think that rule's lame too. Let's change it." If the PFS staff were to do that they would essentially be telling the design team that they know how to do the design team's jobs better than the design team does. Since the rule you are talking about changing is both minor, and has no characteristic that would make it noticeably different in organized play, then the odds of them changing the rules for PFS are pretty much non-existent.
In short, if you want a rule to be changed in PFS that doesn't noticeably change in effect between a standard home game and PFS, the only way you are going to get it changed is to actually lobby the designers to change the Pathfinder rules.
Note the second part of the sentence. I don't expect to get a response because this is too minor. I just wanted to see if anybody agreed. If people had agreed that this is likely a silly oversight that needs to be stamped out, I might have seriously pursued it in a rules forum.
See, I did see another thread had been made about this, in another subforum. Because he was very aggressive, he got smacked down. I tried to be more polite--though I think we got similar responses, honestly. Point is, I've abandoned this, so I don't really see why we're still discussing it. Do we have to rub salt in this wound? I lost. ;P
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Note the second part of the sentence. I don't expect to get a response because this is too minor. I just wanted to see if anybody agreed. If people had agreed that this is likely a silly oversight that needs to be stamped out, I might have seriously pursued it in a rules forum.
See, I did see another thread had been made about this, in another subforum. Because he was very aggressive, he got smacked down. I tried to be more polite--though I think we got similar responses, honestly. Point is, I've abandoned this, so I don't really see why we're still discussing it. Do we have to rub salt in this wound? I lost. ;P
Well, the rule (or lack there of) has been around for 14 years so I doubt it is an oversight.
But forgive me if I am coming across as being harsh. I am not attempting to rub any salt in any wounds, I am simply trying to inform for future reference.
Honestly, I don't have your confidence. It's such a small "lack of rule" that I have an easy time believing it is an oversight. Maybe one that Paizo's okay with, but I really don't think it was them saying, "Hey, look, let's insert this in to balance out any druid/barbarians dumb enough to roleplay using a weapon before they gain automatic proficiency. After all, if there's anything that can really make a druid insanely powerful, it's him wielding a greatclub!"