|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
With the release of the Weapon Master's Handbook, a Fighter having Weapon Training or not is far more important and relevant than it was prior.
And so we have the problem of this FAQ.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qto
This mostly impacts Fighter archetypes such as the Brawler. Their Close Combatant ability is in almost all ways identical to weapon training, but due to this FAQ, they miss out, while Dragoons (Who also have a higher damage than attack bonus) are happy campers. Even Archers, whose Expert Archer ability is mechanically identical to Weapon Training lose out.
Considering that these archetypes were released before Weapon Master's was even a twinkle in someone's eye, it's not reasonable to expect them to be designed with it in mind, but minor difference in wording arbitrarily cutting some archetypes off from Advanced Weapon Training just won't do.
Considering the FAQ itself even, it seems to have been written by someone interpreting the words of the abilities themselves, without considering the intent behind them.
I feel most archetypes are all right. Brawler is a lockdown monster, and a lot of archetypes still have their niche, like Mobile Fighter for ranged/archery builds or Two Weapons. Fighter for consistent use of two, more accurate blades. Not to mention there is the Armor Master's Handbook which might serve as an equalizer for those with Armor Training.
Remember, these books, more than anything when it comes to a Fighter, want to make the Core Fighter just as good an option, if not better in certain circumstances, than archetypes, which in my opinion, is how it should be. The Fighter and its archetypes will finally be in the same position as most classes and their archetypes: different, varying is strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately not (hugely) superior to the core class.
Frosty Ace wrote: I feel most archetypes are all right. Brawler is a lockdown monster, and a lot of archetypes still have their niche, like Mobile Fighter for ranged/archery builds or Two Weapons. Fighter for consistent use of two, more accurate blades. Not to mention there is the Armor Master's Handbook which might serve as an equalizer for those with Armor Training.
Remember, these books, more than anything when it comes to a Fighter, want to make the Core Fighter just as good an option, if not better in certain circumstances, than archetypes, which in my opinion, is how it should be. The Fighter and its archetypes will finally be in the same position as most classes and their archetypes: different, varying is strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately not (hugely) superior to the core class.
The thought that Archetypes should leave a class largely similar in power to where it began is a valid one, but in no way actually existent in the game. Brawlers already being alright isn't really relevant, since they aren't cut out by design, just clumsy wording.
And what about the Archer archetype, which is the butt of every joke from here to Taldor, and even more so now it can't even take AWT?
This is not a new issue. There have been complaints about this since gloves of dueling came out and the ruling was made. AWT just makes the issue more frustrating.
Imbicatus wrote: This is not a new issue. There have been complaints about this since gloves of dueling came out and the ruling was made. AWT just makes the issue more frustrating. Has anyone actually weighed in on this at all, or are they just ignoring it and hoping people forget about it?
I think the only times the Core is significantly weaker than archetypes... are for the more fundamentally weak classes. The two that pop right in my head are, and I'm guessing you already know, Monk and Fighter. Followed by Rogue.
The first two were meant to be powered up via archetypes, and the last was just too weak overall.
Now, I may be wrong, but outside of those 3 classes, sticking with the Core class is never really a bad idea. I mean, for goodness sake, Armor Training is lauded in guides for being tradable for good features.
Now, with unchained Monk and Rogue, just going core is not a bad deal. I know UnMonk has no choice, but it's equivalent to an archetyped monk, and is now getting archetype support.
Fighter didn't really get much love in unchained, so a core fighter was still pretty not great, but with Weapon Master Handbook and Armor Master's Handbook hopefully making Armor training a good choice, then the Core will be viable as well.
Now as I said, there could be more classes that always have very obvious archetypes that must be taken since core is so much weaker, but none jump mind like the three mentioned. The overall intent is for the archetypes to be equal, and I think in most cases they are, but for the weakest classes in the game were used as a band aid, and, with the new material in the past year, that is no longer the case.
Now as for the weapons training issue, in some cases I'm with you in them needing further clarification, but most like Mobile Fighter and the like won't be getting it.
Thing is, that I don't think that there's anything in Advanced Weapon Training that would in any way make Archetypes like Brawler overpowered. Even overpowered by martial standards.
Hell, Upon looking closer, Dragoons have a BETTER damage bonus than Brawlers do, since despite Brawlers' starting at 3, a Dragoon's increases by 2 at every iteration, so you can't even point at Trained Grace and say we don't want them having that.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
