| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Title. You generally get master in whatever your class gives you, there's a general feat to become trained, you can get master from ancestry feats for ancestral weapons and you can throw a few feats in fighter multiclass to get expert in martial weapons.
If it's not a class or ancestral weapon, you're only ever going to get trained in it without multiclassing fighter (and even then you cap out at trained with advanced weapons).
Even if you're going up a weapon tier, dropping from master to trained seems painful enough that most characters won't really end up bothering, and if you're not going up a tier there's going to be a pretty severe hit to your power for it.
I feel like as is this pigeonholes people too much into whatever weapons their class or species is 'supposed' to use and I really don't like the idea of trying to lock players down into what's supposed to be typical for their class or ancestry.
As a houserule I think I might try changing the general feat to simply let you pick a weapon and then treat it as part of your class' weapons for the purposes of advancing proficiency and see how that shakes out. Or, at the very least, add a followup feat that does that.
Would you mind giving one (or two?) specific cases where not being able to advance X weapon as Y would stink?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're really that concerned, why not just houserule that players can trade a skill improvement for a weapon improvement?
Just let them swap out the ancestry weapon for a weapon of the PCs choice. If you are wanting anything beyond that, then we would have to be a martial class or fighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Title. You generally get master in whatever your class gives you, there's a general feat to become trained, you can get master from ancestry feats for ancestral weapons and you can throw a few feats in fighter multiclass to get expert in martial weapons.
If it's not a class or ancestral weapon, you're only ever going to get trained in it without multiclassing fighter (and even then you cap out at trained with advanced weapons).
Even if you're going up a weapon tier, dropping from master to trained seems painful enough that most characters won't really end up bothering, and if you're not going up a tier there's going to be a pretty severe hit to your power for it.
I feel like as is this pigeonholes people too much into whatever weapons their class or species is 'supposed' to use and I really don't like the idea of trying to lock players down into what's supposed to be typical for their class or ancestry.
As a houserule I think I might try changing the general feat to simply let you pick a weapon and then treat it as part of your class' weapons for the purposes of advancing proficiency and see how that shakes out. Or, at the very least, add a followup feat that does that.
I'm fairly certain the bit about Ancestral Weapons going up to Master is wrong. Rather, the Feat in question makes your ancestral weapons scale with your class. So, all the way up to Legendary if you're a fighter, but only up to Expert if you're a bard.
Regardless, I'm going to disagree with your premise. I think the weapon proficiencies that each class receives are broad enough to cover a wide range of concepts for most of the weapon-focussed classes. And for classes like Rogue and Monk with thematic reasons for their more restricted lists, I'm glad those restrictions aren't trivially overcome; it helps reinforce the class fantasy better.
And if you really want to have the whole weapon list at your fingertips, you can always multiclass Fighter and be an Expert with essentially every weapon. Not bad for a martial focused bard or wizard.
The only real gap that I can see is for Rogues and Monks (who get Master in their class-preferred weaponry) that want to wield a great-sword; they can't get higher than Expert, and they can only achieve that by multi classing Fighter. Personally, I'm ok with that gap existing, but it's fair enough if you aren't.
EDIT: Maybe I was too quick in my response. I actually think your house rule looks pretty reasonable. Breaking it into two Feats, as you suggested, would be more in line with how the Ancestral Weapons Feats work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is fertile ground for a GM to make up a quick new feat giving improvement to the proficiency. You would want to be keeping in mind the typical progression of the class and you can't allow the proficiency to outpace the class the player has.
I feel like in 90% of the cases what is in the book is going to be sufficient for people. Those who want their characters to be really good with a particular weapon need to, and will likely want to anyways, invest in classes or multiclass feats that promote that end.
But I can also see the odd wizard player who just really wants to be using a longsword like Gandalf, but also wants to be the best with spells (thus not sacrificing any class feats for multiclass).
Rule 1, right? If it doesn't work for you and your group, toss it and make up something that does.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The differences of proficiency is the new BAB. Fighters get Legendary instead of full BAB + Weapon Training. Wizards only get expert, cause you're a wizard.
I get it, you want to hit as hard as the Fighter with a super rare, really awesome weapon and ALSO not give up any of your Wizard feats to do it. In P2, that isn't an option. If you want that, Multiclass or be a Fighter. Your PC, while being fully competent, isn't going to be as good as an actual Melee class in their advanced rare weapon.
To allow otherwise would make the Fighter obsolete in the CRB.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sort of opposed to letting spellcasters advance weapon proficiency like martials without multiclassing. So proficiency level only coming from your class is fine. Just print more options that let people advance more kinds weapons along with their class, like the Aldori Duelist archetype, when it happens, should let you advance the eponymous dueling sword, the red mantis assassin archetype should let you advance sawtooth sabres, etc.
As a houserule I think I might try changing the general feat to simply let you pick a weapon and then treat it as part of your class' weapons for the purposes of advancing proficiency and see how that shakes out. Or, at the very least, add a followup feat that does that.
I would have assumed that feats that granted Proficiency put them on the same level as other default proficiencies.
If a Rogue/Monk wants to invest their General in a specific weapon to fulfill a concept, I feel like that's enough of a cost that having it scale with your other weapons would make sense.
It might need to be two feats, as you mentioned, but two generals is definitely enough. We're talking about the ability to "keep up" your concept. If ultimately it would be better for the Rogue to drop the Greatsword, despite a long time using it and investing general feats to even do it, because his baseline proficiencies have "increased" faster than his added proficiency I would call that a flaw.
If only because it makes no sense for a character to use a weapon they're whole career, and suddenly get better with the weapons they are never using but not with the one they are using.
Do you have your book yet or are we speculating?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you mind giving one (or two?) specific cases where not being able to advance X weapon as Y would stink?
The only real gap that I can see is for Rogues and Monks (who get Master in their class-preferred weaponry) that want to wield a great-sword; they can't get higher than Expert, and they can only achieve that by multi classing Fighter. Personally, I'm ok with that gap existing, but it's fair enough if you aren't.
I also think it's a problem for classes that get a list of specific weapons and want to step outside their weapon within the same tier. Two class feats to grab a different weapon that's roughly the same caliber as what you'd use otherwise is a pretty painful trade to make, even without the potential proficiency loss. Think a wizard eyeballing a simple weapon that isn't a dagger, club or crossbow, for one. The rogue who wants a better weapon like Dave mentioned also stands out, mostly because it's literally impossible for them to ever advance their proficiency to the level of their other weapons.
Unarmed combat is another weirdly hard one. If you don't get it in class there's basically no way to get it past trained that I can see and it's not even a particularly good weapon to begin with, so you can't really argue a 'premium' on it like with advanced weapons or greatsword rogues.
The differences of proficiency is the new BAB. Fighters get Legendary instead of full BAB + Weapon Training. Wizards only get expert, cause you're a wizard.
I get that. The difference is that in this game 'BAB' only applies to certain weapons, which is a problem if you want to do something odd with your character concept.
I get it, you want to hit as hard as the Fighter with a super rare, really awesome weapon
Nah. I want to hit as hard as hard as a wizard, just with the ability to invest feats into picking which weapon I hit as hard as a wizard with.
To allow otherwise would make the Fighter obsolete in the CRB.
Not really. A wizard who could spend one general feat (instead of TWO class feats, three if you ever want to multiclass again) to eventually get expert with a morning star isn't going to suddenly start destroying the game. Certainly not going to do anything to slow down Fighters.
I'm sort of opposed to letting spellcasters advance weapon proficiency like martials without multiclassing.
I don't want spellcasters to advance weapon proficiencies like martials. I want spellcasters to advance weapon proficiencies like spellcasters, just with the ability to pick their own weapons a little bit better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The differences of proficiency is the new BAB. Fighters get Legendary instead of full BAB + Weapon Training. Wizards only get expert, cause you're a wizard.
I get it, you want to hit as hard as the Fighter with a super rare, really awesome weapon and ALSO not give up any of your Wizard feats to do it. In P2, that isn't an option. If you want that, Multiclass or be a Fighter. Your PC, while being fully competent, isn't going to be as good as an actual Melee class in their advanced rare weapon.
To allow otherwise would make the Fighter obsolete in the CRB.
I had a similar knee-jerk reaction to this post too, but if you reread the OP, that's not actually what they're advocating for, like at all. Your misreading of their post and your subsequent response really don't contribute to this conversation productively.
It is a bit odd to me that the tax is so hefty on using unusual weapons for a class - I would absolutely be opposed to anything that allows a main class Wizard to get better than Expert in weapon proficiency, but a Wizard who wants to get that Expert proficiency in a Maul should be able to do that with appropriate investment (IE, the weapon proficiency feat).
It is a bit odd to me that the tax is so hefty on using unusual weapons for a class - I would absolutely be opposed to anything that allows a main class Wizard to get better than Expert in weapon proficiency, but a Wizard who wants to get that Expert proficiency in a Maul should be able to do that with appropriate investment (IE, the weapon proficiency feat).
Sounds like they can do that by multiclassing into a fighter and then nabbing the fighter mulitclass feat that gives you Expert proficiency in simple and martial weapons.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a bit odd to me that the tax is so hefty on using unusual weapons for a class - I would absolutely be opposed to anything that allows a main class Wizard to get better than Expert in weapon proficiency, but a Wizard who wants to get that Expert proficiency in a Maul should be able to do that with appropriate investment (IE, the weapon proficiency feat).Sounds like they can do that by multiclassing into a fighter and then nabbing the fighter mulitclass feat that gives you Expert proficiency in simple and martial weapons.
I would ask this:
Are you saying you think that it makes sense and is balanced for a Wizard, who invested a General Feat to gain proficiency with a Maul, to gain proficiency increases naturally with his class for things like Quarterstaff, despite never using it the entire adventuring career, while also not gaining proficiency increase at the same time for the Maul that was specifically invested in?
Personally, I think that makes no sense and is super weird that it occurs at all. All weapons a person is proficient with should increase to the same level that their default proficient weapons pertain to.
In the scenario you describe, a Wizard has to invest 2 Class Feats as opposed to a General Feat, and the former in that scenario is a tax that absolutely no Wizard would ever do.
It's pretty easy to see that upgraded proficiency in a weapon you are already proficient in via the General Feat would not be overpowered. It's still dependent on the parent proficiency increases, so "Legendary with a Maul" is still not possible for any class that didn't get Legendary proficiency before.
I'd be more than willing to bet this gets errata'd. It's stifling concepts without a real need.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the scenario you describe, a Wizard has to invest 2 Class Feats as opposed to a General Feat, and the former in that scenario is a tax that absolutely no Wizard would ever do.
I wouldn't be so sure about that...
And I don't think it is that wrong how they put it
Wizards (who actually play as wizards) learn most likely (at least somewhat) from books about their craft which will have instructions how to use classic wizard~y implements to fight their foes (staff for most common and best know example)
If you want a Maul swinging wizard it is arguibly not just a wizard anymore but more akin to a battlemage - insert fighter multiclass
It also grants you armor prophiciency and lets be honest, if you swing a maul you are most likely not a dexterity character anyways
One could argue that the prophiciencies granted by fighter and others should scale with the main class prophiciency for free though - I agree that that would make sense, on the other hand again - you picked up training to improve on your weaknesses, you are still not training it as much as your main class (or you would have another main class and probably not complain about having to use class feats), so the training you got from that is, of course, a litte behind your other training
You can turn this point either way, both sides have good arguments, so I think we should (until further notice) try to trust in that the devs at least thought through the whole thing with game balance in their mind
I don't agree with PF2 needs more ways to improve weapon proficiency.
The weapon proficiency are ment to balance classes, some will use weapons, other will use whatever powers thei get.
Trading a talent for a weapon proficiency seem too cheap to me.
What would you allow a fighter to get with one talent? He will not get more weapon proficiency, will he get a buch of cleric spells for the cost of a talent?
In PF2 there is no BBA so proficiency is equivalent to that. What you are saying could be equivalent to a mage with a +20(or +15) BBA with a specifc weapon giving up only one talent (simple to make it Homebrew rule, but in my opnion realy unbalanced)
To be able to hold weapons or cast spells you must multiclass, there is no other way.
Or in the future other classes will rise with that in mind, tranding more stuff for more Proficiency and gaining other powers.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're really that concerned, why not just houserule that players can trade a skill improvement for a weapon improvement?
Just as a reminder, not everyone has the ability to change the rules of the game on a whim: asking your PFS DM for some houserules, for instance, isn't going to get you far.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One could argue that the prophiciencies granted by fighter and others should scale with the main class prophiciency for free though - I agree that that would make sense, on the other hand again - you picked up training to improve on your weaknesses, you are still not training it as much as your main class (or you would have another main class and probably not complain about having to use class feats), so the training you got from that is, of course, a litte behind your other training
I mean, I think it's ridiculous for a character, of any class, to invest a General Feat that effectively becomes useless as you level.
That is the current state if you invest Proficiency in a weapon outside your Class proficiency area, because eventually it will be worse to use the weapon you invested in than one of your other class weapons. That's absurd.
And we're not talking about "improving a weakness", the Wizard with the Maul in this scenario did not gain anything other than the ability to use the Maul instead of another weapon.
This came with an appropriate cost of a General Feat.
The Wizard did not all of a sudden become the best melee combatant in the game, he got proficiency with a Maul so he can roll his attacks without massive penalties.
When you get proficiency increases for weapons, much like the save increases all classes get, are done specifically to keep the power appropriate to your level. Without it, you won't keep up.
You can still keep notable weaknesses and lack of proficiency relevant while extending it to include weapons that you become proficient with via General Feat, the two are not mutually exclusive.
On the matter of the "devs know what they're doing", I agree, they do. I doubt this is intended, but if I'm wrong on that I'd love to hear a reasoning.
Especially on the front of how realistically it makes sense for a Wizard who was equally proficient in Maul and Quarterstaff, who invested in a Maul with a General Feat, becomes more proficient with the Quarterstaff despite never picking up one his entire career and using a Maul for the last X levels. It makes no thematic sense, regardless of whether the rules are intended that way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's be honest, giving expert proficiency to (non-warpriest) casters was already a bonus, they're not going to let you cheap general feat your way into it with your chosen weapon. If you want expert proficiency in something your class doesn't provide, spend two class feats on Fighter MC for all martial weapons or two ancestry feats on ancestry linked weapons.
They also don't want ubiquitous advanced weapons, so the only way to get them up to par is ancestry links. Otherwise you pay a trade off between cheap resource investment and worse proficiency to get some extra traits.
Yeah, the game is missing some advanced general feats that work like the ancestry weapon expertise, I will probably homebrew a lvl 11 (15?) armor/weapon expertise general feat that have "armor/weapon proficiency training" as pre-requisite to make the proficiency fo the stuff gained from the pre-requisite be equal to the character highest weapon/armor proficiency.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm cautiously in favor of this, with some restrictions - at it's core you are basically saying "I'd like the racial weaponry feats to be available for more and different weapons".
My first issue with the idea is that humans already get that, so if you give it to everyone you are taking something "special" away from humans.
So I'd say the baseline needs to be that it's not more powerful or more flexible than the human ancestry feat. And it definitely shouldn't let you exceed your class proficiency; I'd go far as to argue that for advanced weapons it shouldn't let you exceed one less than your class proficiency.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fall on the side of classes need ways to get proficiency up to normal what they would get in weapons they want. Purely for RP reasons. I love they gave Kukris and Glaives to Gnomes. But everyone else is still as narrowly focused.
Consider this example: I want to play a Necromancer or a Druid wielding Scythe; not because I think Scythe is a great weapon mechanically, but because it is so iconic for these two. Yet under current rules, the only realistic way to achieve this is to multiclass into Fighter, not only spending 2 of my precious class feats but also creating a bit of dissonance between mechanical build and what was attempted.
Or another example: why does same classes train in same weapons ALL OVER THE WORLD? Either that, or say druids from that one continent where they never developed crossbows and instead learn using shortbows are mechanically weaker (and proficient with a bunch of other weapons due to spending those extra feats).
My personal preferred solution would be to give option at beginning to either go with standard proficiency set for your class, or to gain proficiency in much smaller number of weapons, but of your choice. For example:
Wizards : gain proficiencies as normal, or gain proficiency in any one simple or martial weapon. No more.
Rogues : gain proficiency as now, or simple weapons + 2 more weapons of your choice.
etc.
Martial and Advanced weapons are objectively better, by design, than simple weapons. For you to spend one general feat and get access to your cherry picked-this is the best weapon I could ask for- weapon is too much.
Again, this general feat doesn't stop being useful, it's just less useful at level 18 than it was at level 3. You can still use the Maul or Katana or greatsword, you just won't be as good as a fighter or barbarian with it. Again, BY DESIGN.
In P2 you can play a front line, high strength killing machine heavy armor transmuter (i.e. Wizard) and be a 100% effective wizard. Your to hit will just be a few points lower than the Fighter, assuming you didn't caste any spells to boost yourself.
Not all character concepts should be equally good. But the way P2 is designed, even one that is super sub-optimal will be just fine, and fairly effective as their single class full-optimized party members.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can still use the Maul or Katana or greatsword, you just won't be as good as a fighter or barbarian with it. Again, BY DESIGN.
Except, again, "as good as a fighter" isn't what's being asked for. The problem is the wizard isn't even as good as another wizard at swinging their weapon with the general feat. Even with multiclassing a rogue is always going to be one step down if they want to use a weapon they don't normally get. Two steps down if they want to fight unarmed.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here by presenting these intentionally disingenuous arguments against points that no one is even making in the first place.
Not all character concepts should be equally good.
I mean, why? Saying certain ideas should be worse than others just because you want them to be feels spiteful and I'm not sure how it makes the game better. What about "Wizard with a club" intrinsically demands it be fundamentally and inalienably better than "Wizard with a morningstar"? I'm not seeing it.
You can still use the Maul or Katana or greatsword, you just won't be as good as a fighter or barbarian with it. Again, BY DESIGN.Except, again, "as good as a fighter" isn't what's being asked for. The problem is the wizard isn't even as good as another wizard at swinging their weapon with the general feat. Even with multiclassing a rogue is always going to be one step down if they want to use a weapon they don't normally get. Two steps down if they want to fight unarmed.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here by presenting these intentionally disingenuous arguments against points that no one is even making in the first place.
Not all character concepts should be equally good.I mean, why? Saying certain ideas should be worse than others just because you want them to be feels spiteful and I'm not sure how it makes the game better. What about "Wizard with a club" intrinsically demands it be fundamentally and inalienably better than "Wizard with a morningstar"? I'm not seeing it.
For my part, I'm mostly ok with things as they stand. You can multiclass fighter if you want to build a wizard who fights with a morningstar or maul and you'll be in good shape. In the few corner cases where this would be subpar—rogues, unarmed combatants, monks, any others?—there are often sound mechanical reasons why (e.g. sneak attacking with a great axe puts you above the expected damage curve by a decent margin)
EDIT: And I agree, Kelseus is either missing the point, or not arguing in good faith; they're arguing against a premise that no one in this thread has endorsed.
I would say a hard no. the good thing about the proficiency system is that it is easy to establish a quantifiable power system. additional feats and class update should expand horizontally on the power curve not vertically. the best thing about Pathfinder 2 is that it is designed in such a way that you can quickly identify and counter power creep. and adding more ways to improve weapon proficiency would be power creep.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say a hard no. the good thing about the proficiency system is that it is easy to establish a quantifiable power system. additional feats and class update should expand horizontally on the power curve not vertically. the best thing about Pathfinder 2 is that it is designed in such a way that you can quickly identify and counter power creep. and adding more ways to improve weapon proficiency would be power creep.
Except no one is asking for a vertical expansion. They're asking for something that is already possible (e.g. an elven wizard that fights with a longbow) to be extended to more cases (e.g. a dwarven wizard that fights with a longbow). That sounds pretty horizontal to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can still use the Maul or Katana or greatsword, you just won't be as good as a fighter or barbarian with it. Again, BY DESIGN.Except, again, "as good as a fighter" isn't what's being asked for. The problem is the wizard isn't even as good as another wizard at swinging their weapon with the general feat. Even with multiclassing a rogue is always going to be one step down if they want to use a weapon they don't normally get. Two steps down if they want to fight unarmed.
Seriously what’s confusing you people. Read the premise.
Are we really saying that having a single weapon match proficency with your designed class proficiency at the cost of a General Feat is going to cause problems?
Like seriously. How is a Wizard of teen level going to out do the fighter with a General Feat and expert proficiency with a halberd? If you want to say it costs an additional General Feat to match proficiency then sure, but it certainly needs to exist because it’s laughable that you effectively get worse at something as you level. In a tight math system like this, a -2 is going to be a big enough deal to change weapons. So “it has less value” doesn’t even cut it, it’ll get retrained every time.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest gripe is that the General Feat seems to be somewhat of a trap option. It works perfectly as expected until level 11, and then suddenly you're subpar.
My biggest gripe is that the General Feat seems to be somewhat of a trap option. It works perfectly as expected until level 11, and then suddenly you're subpar.
Exactly. It makes literally no sense. Especially since you all of a sudden got good with weapons you weren’t using.
You have the book right BardicDave? This is in release correct?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest gripe is that the General Feat seems to be somewhat of a trap option. It works perfectly as expected until level 11, and then suddenly you're subpar.
Exactly. It makes literally no sense. Especially since you all of a sudden got good with weapons you weren’t using.
You have the book right BardicDave? This is in release correct?
*sheepishly* I don't.. but MaxAstro does and they seem to be on the same page, so I don't *think* we're barking up the wrong tree here...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that allowing characters to get to Expert in other weapons via a General feat would be nice, even if it's a little later than others.
I don't see the point of anything beyond that, and think it'd be detrimental to the game. Allowing an expanded version of the racial weapon feats to get other weapons... I disagree with, personally, but maybe Paizo will consider it.
That said, I compared a wizard at 3rd level with trained weapons to one at 15th (who had a 16 attack attribute and boosted it at each interval, plus got a +3 weapon by level 15). The bonuses to-hit were +8 and +23. Most of the monsters of equal level had ACs of 18-20 for level 3 (10-12 to hit), and 35-36 for level 15 (12-13 to-hit). So yes, if you have no other sources of bonuses (like buffs), you'll fall slightly behind by level 15, and that's admittedly after you got an additional +1 for leveling, but the point stands, as far as I'm concerned.
Again, I could agree with allowing the characters to get Expert. I don't see the need for more.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely argue that the General feat to increase a weapon's proficiency to Trained is a trap option. One could just use that general feat to pick the Adopted Ancestry general feat instead (which lets you choose ancestry feats from an ancestry of your choice) and then use two ancestry feats to pick up the 1st level weapon proficiency feat for Humans and the level 13 feat to match class proficiencies.
It's admittedly a 3 feat tax, but most ancestries are already paying a 2 feat tax to do it with their ancestral weapons. The tax of a general feat seems like a fair price to match versatility of Humans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely argue that the General feat to increase a weapon's proficiency to Trained is a trap option. One could just use that general feat to pick the Adopted Ancestry general feat instead (which lets you choose ancestry feats from an ancestry of your choice) and then use two ancestry feats to pick up the 1st level weapon proficiency feat for Humans and the level 13 feat to match class proficiencies.
It's admittedly a 3 feat tax, but most ancestries are already paying a 2 feat tax to do it with their ancestral weapons. The tax of a general feat seems like a fair price to match versatility of Humans.
Without knowing what high level ancestry Feats look like it could be one hell of a tax, but the fact that it can be done in such a ridiculous way solidifies me in the camp that a non-ridiculous way should exist.
The whole multiclass to fighter argument is silly, one it means you’re locked out of other dedications over a weapon, and it costs Class Feats which is hardly going to be worth it.
The General Feat if it doesn’t autoscale is as trap as it gets, or at the very least a for sure retrain at your increase level.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If somebody at my table spends a feat to be able to use a weapon their class doesn't normally use, they are going to be as good at that weapon as all their others for all their levels. Nobody is going to have Expert in a bunch of weapons and only Trained in what they paid a feat to get. Full stop.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely argue that the General feat to increase a weapon's proficiency to Trained is a trap option. One could just use that general feat to pick the Adopted Ancestry general feat instead (which lets you choose ancestry feats from an ancestry of your choice) and then use two ancestry feats to pick up the 1st level weapon proficiency feat for Humans and the level 13 feat to match class proficiencies.
It's admittedly a 3 feat tax, but most ancestries are already paying a 2 feat tax to do it with their ancestral weapons. The tax of a general feat seems like a fair price to match versatility of Humans.
Just wanted to highlight this, in case it gets lost in the noise. So there's already a way to do what the OP wants in the game, and it only costs 2 Ancestry Feats if you're a human? That sounds pretty good. It's not a complete solution to the OP's issues, but it's something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I look at this the more I do not have a problem with it. I actually think Master with the Ancestry Weapon is generous. So trained adds your level plus stat bonus. Multi Class into fighter is expert. That seems on point to me. Otherwise why can't my intelligent fighter take the wizard feat and get access to the spells I want beyond multi classing into the wizard. Most would say well the training. That could also be said for the fighter and their training with various weapons. So no I do not think there should be more ways to gain proficiencies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to highlight this, in case it gets lost in the noise. So there's already a way to do what the OP wants in the game, and it only costs 2 Ancestry Feats if you're a human? That sounds pretty good. It's not a complete solution to the OP's issues, but it's something.I would definitely argue that the General feat to increase a weapon's proficiency to Trained is a trap option. One could just use that general feat to pick the Adopted Ancestry general feat instead (which lets you choose ancestry feats from an ancestry of your choice) and then use two ancestry feats to pick up the 1st level weapon proficiency feat for Humans and the level 13 feat to match class proficiencies.
It's admittedly a 3 feat tax, but most ancestries are already paying a 2 feat tax to do it with their ancestral weapons. The tax of a general feat seems like a fair price to match versatility of Humans.
Not only would a feat like this devalue humans, it would also devalue Fighters - they have a level 6 feat to treat a specific advanced weapon as a martial weapon for proficiency.
The more I think about this the less I'm okay with it. One thing that specifically turned me off to it was the comment about "elf with longbow is okay, why not dwarf with longbow?" Giving different races reasons to play differently is a good thing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to highlight this, in case it gets lost in the noise. So there's already a way to do what the OP wants in the game, and it only costs 2 Ancestry Feats if you're a human? That sounds pretty good. It's not a complete solution to the OP's issues, but it's something.I would definitely argue that the General feat to increase a weapon's proficiency to Trained is a trap option. One could just use that general feat to pick the Adopted Ancestry general feat instead (which lets you choose ancestry feats from an ancestry of your choice) and then use two ancestry feats to pick up the 1st level weapon proficiency feat for Humans and the level 13 feat to match class proficiencies.
It's admittedly a 3 feat tax, but most ancestries are already paying a 2 feat tax to do it with their ancestral weapons. The tax of a general feat seems like a fair price to match versatility of Humans.
Not only would a feat like this devalue humans, it would also devalue Fighters - they have a level 6 feat to treat a specific advanced weapon as a martial weapon for proficiency.
The more I think about this the less I'm okay with it. One thing that specifically turned me off to it was the comment about "elf with longbow is okay, why not dwarf with longbow?" Giving different races reasons to play differently is a good thing.
Yeah, I tend to agree with you. I think my only real issue is that the General Feat essentially accomplishes this up until level 10, and then you hit level 11 and suddenly there's no way to stay on the same track you've been on since level 3. That seems like an unfortunate gap to me. IMO, If it's acceptable and balanced from level 3-10, it should be acceptable and balanced from level 11-20 also. Either there should be another General Feat to extend your weapon proficiency to Expert at level 11, or there shouldn't be one to get Trained at level 3.
As it is, the existing General Feat seems like a bit of a trap if your game is going above level 10 (similar to how Toughness was a good feat for a 1st level one-shot in 3e, but was a trap if your game was going past level 2 or 3).
The flip side of that is, there needs to be some trade-off between the druid who decided to use a scythe and the druid who stuck with a weapon already covered by their class, and I'm not sure "one general feat" is enough of a cost for the benefits.
EDIT: Also, most classes seem to hit expert at 13, not 11. That's also the level that the ancestry feats kick in.
EDIT2: Nevermind, expert is at 11 for non-martial classes. I was thinking of weapon specialization, which is 13.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be nice for the general feat to increase your weapon Prof to expert when you get your class bump. But no further. Remember that's wizard actually has to take the feat twice to get martial, since they aren't already trained in all simple weapons.
But if that does, the fighter dedication and it's expert weapons feat would need an increase. Probably similar scaling on the dedication and raising the level of the later but letting you get to master profency
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This problem is even worse for gaining proficiency in armor. The general feat works well at low levels, but when everyone's armor proficiency increases to expert at level 13 there's no way to keep up (outside of mc champion, which doesn't work roleplay wise for most characters)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, the more I read, the more I think they did the right thing, keeping things where they are. I changed my mind, I'm satisfied with where things sit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Otherwise why can't my intelligent fighter take the wizard feat and get access to the spells I want beyond multi classing into the wizard.
That's... a pretty nonsensical analogy. Spells aren't a class feature of the fighter class to begin with and adding spellcasting to a class that doesn't cast spells would be a significant power boost.
A rogue who can fight with their fists instead of short swords isn't really gaining anything inherently. Neither is a wizard who wants to use a different kind of simple weapon. These aren't power increases, they're flavor options.
It's not even a 'new' thing, because wizards and rogues can already make attacks in the current system. It's asking to be able to do the same thing with a different weapon.
This is more akin to, say, adding a clause to the Fighter that says they aren't allowed to use bows because someone at Paizo didn't like the mental image of a fighter with a bow and wanted Rangers to stand out more. Would everyone here be cool with that?
And, as Bardic Dave pointed out, this supposedly terrible idea is already possible for half a campaign. There's just no way to upgrade it for... some reason.
A level 6 rogue can be as good with their fists as they are with their shortswords! Fast forward a few levels and suddenly that same character has to roll at a penalty with no way to overcome it. There's no balance justification, because the weapon isn't really any better than what they have. It doesn't have any verisimilitude behind it, because someone is getting better with weapons they don't use and unable to improve with weapons they do use.
It's basically just someone at Paizo deciding it's not okay for someone else to RP a certain type of character and I think that's pretty lame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say it is not nonsensical. Weapon Proficiencies are part of the fighter like spells are to caters. Also there was some mention of multi classing into fighter and why there was an expert cap. That is where the comment would have come from about taking spells beyond what fighter would get when the multi class into wizard.
Also if all you are truly talking about is changing out your ancestry weapon for different weapon then ask the GM. I would not think that should be huge problem.
I think the first rule in the book is if a rule does not work change it. I thinking swapping out ancestry weapons would fit into that category.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also if all you are truly talking about is changing out your ancestry weapon for different weapon then ask the GM. I would not think that should be huge problem.
If you're really that concerned, why not just houserule that players can trade a skill improvement for a weapon improvement?Just as a reminder, not everyone has the ability to change the rules of the game on a whim: asking your PFS DM for some houserules, for instance, isn't going to get you far.