| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On Friday, I ran a new group through The Lost Star using the 1.2 update. We did character creation before the session and the removal of Signature Skills significantly changed the experience for the better. I didn't really have a problem with character creation before but this change opened up so many more options. On Sunday, I had a mini-session with some of my regular players converting their existing characters from Pathfinder First Edition to the Playtest. Again - the removal of Signature Skills allowed for a much more satisfactory level of customization.
Since Monday I've been reading the threads theorizing on how the update 1.3 multiclass dedications 'would' be powergamed and, like others, rebelled at the thought of someone taking a 'dip' in Paladin just to get armor proficiency.
All of this is going to a proposal for your consideration. I like niche protection and I like character customization, but why not go for the best of both worlds?
After First Level, let characters invest their proficiency however they choose. If a Fighter wants to go for Legendary Will, let them make that investment instead of boosting Fortitude. If a Wizard wants to go for Legendary Martial Weapons, let them do so instead of investing in their Spellcasting proficiency. This isn't too different from the removal of Signature Skills - which sets the starting point for a class at First Level by locking in a skill or two but then opens up the floodgates of the imagination.
Instead - focus niche protection on abilities; on the unique actions that the classes can take. For instance, I like the idea of Barbarian flavored archery...that's something interesting for a character to multiclass to gain. But if a Rogue wants to have better armor proficiency...why not let them put their precious character resources into it without taking a dip in Paladin. Alternatively, if they want to play something like an Inquisitor...perhaps they want Retributive Strike but don't want better armor proficiency at all?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggested this as well, and I still think it's a good idea. It opens up the design space where all characters are unique, not just a predictable iteration of their class. However, it does have some side effects.
The most notable is that Paizo would need to put a lot of effort into balancing the scale of each proficiency increase, such that some aren't vastly and obviously better than others. This has effects on the DCs of checks, on the way gated feats are designed, and so on.
The second is an inevitable slew of arguments about whether magic users should be getting more proficiency ranks than martial fighters, etc.
I suggested this as well, and I still think it's a good idea. It opens up the design space where all characters are unique, not just a predictable iteration of their class.
Nice! I missed that entirely but you proposed almost the exact same concept. I'm happy to switch over to your thread as it was the original.
The most notable is that Paizo would need to put a lot of effort into balancing the scale of each proficiency increase, such that some aren't vastly and obviously better than others. This has effects on the DCs of checks, on the way gated feats are designed, and so on.
This is true but, at least currently, I feel like they're very close to this. They've almost overtuned the balance of the system...probably an intentional aspect of playtesting. This kind of change - unlike removing Signature Skills - would necessitate a ton of edits on their part.
The second is an inevitable slew of arguments about whether magic users should be getting more proficiency ranks than martial fighters, etc.
Well... Update 1.2 gave most classes more skill proficiency but left a few far in the lead as it was a distinction of their role (e.g. Bard, Rogue). I'd be fine with the same here... Most classes hit the same total but a few like Monks and Fighters go higher. Armor proficiency would probably need a simplification to balance out.
What about things not directly dependent on proficiency? Like spells and slots?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So have a generic 'proficiency increase' and have a 'skill increase' be a specific variant of that. Probably have a 'save increase', and an 'attack increase' that would apply to either weapon proficiencies or spell attack rolls.
Then each class can have a rate at which they get various subtypes of proficiency increases.
I like it.
Rogues currently get skill feats at a higher rate than other classes. Fighters get combat feats at a higher rate than other classes.
The other option is to have general feats that can be used to increase more of the proficiencies. Currently this is the option that the rules have, but the various proficiencies are not all represented and the ones that are there are not given equal standing.
So we could get a similar feel by having more general feats that increase proficiencies. Maybe even make it a subtype of general feat like combat feat and skill feat are. A 'proficiency feat'. Perhaps add a few proficiency feat selections into the class improvement table at a class dependent rate.
What about things not directly dependent on proficiency? Like spells and slots?
Leave them as a function of class? The distinction becoming -Proficiency is about doing something better, feats/spells/slots are about something new/more often?
So have a generic 'proficiency increase' and have a 'skill increase' be a specific variant of that. Probably have a 'save increase', and an 'attack increase' that would apply to either weapon proficiencies or spell attack rolls.
Makes sense to me. Three categories. Offense (Spellcasting/Weapons), Defense (Saving Throws/Armor), and Skills.