PF2 needs more ways to improve weapon proficiency


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 100 of 274 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also if it is weapon you are trained with you add your level so you do get better with the weapons each level. Also this is the same way it worked with the attack bonus of PF1. The difference is in PF2 there is proficiency system that adds 2/4/6/8. So I do not see bardic Dave's point since trained is adding your level. Expert adds an additional bonus. if Bardic Dave's point is based on wanting to swap out whatever weapon that is class feature or ancestry for whatever they want. Then no. A rogue should not be able to back stab with great sword. If you want maximum choice in weapons be fighter. If you want to back stab be rogue.


Think of it this way: if proficiency only went to expert, with fighters getting "Weapon Master" and "Legendary Caster" as class feats while wizards got "Spell Master" and "Legendary Caster" as class features would you still be clamoring for the fighter's high level abilities for weaponry?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Think of it this way: if proficiency only went to expert, with fighters getting "Weapon Master" and "Legendary Caster" as class feats while wizards got "Spell Master" and "Legendary Caster" as class features would you still be clamoring for the fighter's high level abilities for weaponry?

Come on, man! No one is "clamouring for the fighter's high level abilities for weaponry!" All they want is a way to extend a wizard's existing Expert proficiency with the club to gain Expert proficiency with the Warhammer at the cost of a couple of feats. That's not really that unreasonable, is it? And I'm not even really advocating for their position; I'm pretty happy with how things stand. It just really bugs me how people keep misrepresenting what they're saying.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bardic Dave wrote:
All they want is a way to extend a wizard's existing Expert proficiency with the club to gain Expert proficiency with the Warhammer at the cost of a couple of feats. That's not really that unreasonable, is it?

I'm beginning to think yes, it is. They can get it by multiclassing, since class feats are supposed to be more powerful than general feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Think of it this way: if proficiency only went to expert, with fighters getting "Weapon Master" and "Legendary Caster" as class feats while wizards got "Spell Master" and "Legendary Caster" as class features would you still be clamoring for the fighter's high level abilities for weaponry?
Come on, man! No one is "clamouring for the fighter's high level abilities for weaponry!" All they want is a way to extend a wizard's existing Expert proficiency with the club to gain Expert proficiency with the Warhammer at the cost of a couple of feats. That's not really that unreasonable, is it? And I'm not even really advocating for their position; I'm pretty happy with how things stand. It just really bugs me how people keep misrepresenting their position.

I'd argue two class feats does that fine? Fighter Dedication and Diverse Weapon Expert seem literally built for that purpose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

“It’s totally a good thing that a Feat exists that loses all value once you reach level 11 for your class”

Just delete the General then. If you’re going to make it impossible to be comparative to a standard person of your class after spending a feat then delete it from the game.

This abject fear of encroaching on the fighter is utterly ridiculous. The Wizard has to take multiple feats just to get a weapon that’s martial and progressing to Expert at 11th level is apparently going to massively upset the balance of the game and tear the fighter from his throne of weapon master.

Because hey if you want to use a weapon outside your class, not only should you be punished long term, you should feel the need to retrain because it’s so much worse than swinging a stick.

Proficiency increases for Class at 11 is literally there so you don’t fall behind. It’s the same reason everyone gets free save increases now.

Do those of you that think this is a good thing think the General Feat is anything other than a trap? I’m asking honestly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes I do think it is. I will go back to the Wizard analogy. If a fighter Multi classes into a Wizard and starts asking to be able to pick higher level spells than what multi casting allows. This is the same thing with weapon choice. It should matter.


Cydeth wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
All they want is a way to extend a wizard's existing Expert proficiency with the club to gain Expert proficiency with the Warhammer at the cost of a couple of feats. That's not really that unreasonable, is it?
I'm beginning to think yes, it is. They can get it by multiclassing, since class feats are supposed to be more powerful than general feats.

Yeah, I think I also prefer that it be restricted to Multiclassing and Ancestry Feats as it currently is. However, if that's the case, then the existence of the General Feat that grants Trained proficiency is problematic, because it allows you to stay on par up until level 10, only to fall behind with no way to catch up at level 11. Like, why would you ever take that Feat if you know your campaign is going above level 10?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dave2 wrote:
Yes I do think it is. I will go back to the Wizard analogy. If a fighter Multi classes into a Wizard and starts asking to be able to pick higher level spells than what multi casting allows. This is the same thing with weapon choice. It should matter.

Your analogy makes no sense because a Fighter doesn’t get any spells but a Wizard does get weapon proficiency increases at level 11.

It’s a ridiculous argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:


Just delete the General Feat then.

I agree. Just get rid of it. If multiclassing or ancestry feats are the only "correct" options, then don't include a "wrong" option that functions perfectly fine for 10 levels and then leaves your character permanently behind the curve unless you change your fighting style.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bardic Dave wrote:
Yeah, I think I prefer that it be restricted to Multiclassing and Ancestry Feats as it currently is. However, if that's the case, then the existence of the General Feat that grants Trained proficiency is problematic, because it allows you to stay on par up until level 10, only to fall behind with no way to catch up at level 11. Like, why would you ever take that Feat if you know your campaign is going above level 10?

I did the math earlier in this thread. If you do the same degree of focus, a character who's only trained in their weapon is able to hit an enemy pretty much on the same numbers all the way to 15th level. That isn't 10th level.

That said, I don't think it's a good feat. I struggle to come up with an instance where I'd personally take it, because I'd build my characters to where they got the proficiencies I felt were vital very early on, either via multiclassing or my base class.

But that doesn't make it a terrible feat. Just not an amazing one.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dave2 wrote:
I would say it is not nonsensical. Weapon Proficiencies are part of the fighter like spells are to caters.

Literally every class in the game has weapon proficiencies. Weapon proficiency is not a feature unique to fighters. What fighters have that's unique is legendary proficiency, which... no one I've seen is actually asking for anyone else to poach.

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
would you still be clamoring for the fighter's high level abilities for weaponry?

Who's clamoring for that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
All they want is a way to extend a wizard's existing Expert proficiency with the club to gain Expert proficiency with the Warhammer at the cost of a couple of feats. That's not really that unreasonable, is it?
I'm beginning to think yes, it is. They can get it by multiclassing, since class feats are supposed to be more powerful than general feats.

Multiclassing to Fighter just to get Expert Proficiency in a Weapon doesn't seem at all like something that isn't intended?

Wouldn't you say that if someone was MC into Fighter, they should be doing it because they thematically want to be identified as a Fighter?

It's not the "Fighter's thing" to have Expert proficiency in a weapon, they get that at level 1.

So if you could, explain what's overpowered about it? Is it just because the only way to do it without a completely obvious fix of adding it to your Weapon class list is to spend two Class Feats? Because pointing to existing limitations that people consider to be "poor" as a defense for why it needs to cost what it does is weird.

Especially considering the "spend a General for Ancestry Feats" option that is definitely available to anyone.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Yeah, I think I prefer that it be restricted to Multiclassing and Ancestry Feats as it currently is. However, if that's the case, then the existence of the General Feat that grants Trained proficiency is problematic, because it allows you to stay on par up until level 10, only to fall behind with no way to catch up at level 11. Like, why would you ever take that Feat if you know your campaign is going above level 10?

I did the math earlier in this thread. If you do the same degree of focus, a character who's only trained in their weapon is able to hit an enemy pretty much on the same numbers all the way to 15th level. That isn't 10th level.

That said, I don't think it's a good feat. I struggle to come up with an instance where I'd personally take it, because I'd build my characters to where they got the proficiencies I felt were vital very early on, either via multiclassing or my base class.

But that doesn't make it a terrible feat. Just not an amazing one.

11th level is when the least-weapon focussed classes (wizard, sorc, bard, druid etc.) get expert proficiency with their weapons. That's where the "up until level 10" comes from. So no math needed. Or rather, some very, very simple math (+2 is less than +4)

Why would I stubbornly insist on swinging my morningstar past level 10 when the club has now become unequivocally a better option for me? And why was it "fine and balanced" for me to swing my morningstar as well as I can swing a club for the first 10 levels (at the cost of a General Feat), but now It becomes "unbalanced" for me to keep pace at level 11?

That's why the General Feat is problematic in its current implementation. There should be another one to go up to expert at level 11, or they should get rid of the current one that takes you up to Trained. But having one without the other is... unsatisfying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
Cydeth wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
All they want is a way to extend a wizard's existing Expert proficiency with the club to gain Expert proficiency with the Warhammer at the cost of a couple of feats. That's not really that unreasonable, is it?
I'm beginning to think yes, it is. They can get it by multiclassing, since class feats are supposed to be more powerful than general feats.
Yeah, I think I also prefer that it be restricted to Multiclassing and Ancestry Feats as it currently is. However, if that's the case, then the existence of the General Feat that grants Trained proficiency is problematic, because it allows you to stay on par up until level 10, only to fall behind with no way to catch up at level 11. Like, why would you ever take that Feat if you know your campaign is going above level 10?

Because you remembered that retraining feats is easy?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Midnightoker wrote:

Multiclassing to Fighter just to get Expert Proficiency in a Weapon doesn't seem at all like something that isn't intended?

Wouldn't you say that if someone was MC into Fighter, they should be doing it because they thematically want to be identified as a Fighter?

No, what I'm saying is, if you want to get better at weapons, that's the way to do it. Because that's what they appear to have decided is mechanically balanced.

I don't care about the rest, really. If they made a class feat for Wizard to pick up Expert proficiency in other weapons at level 12, so long as they were trained in the weapon, I wouldn't care at all. I'm saying it doesn't feel appropriate as a general feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm more concerned with armor than weapons personally. I like full-plate, and champion multicasting doesn't fit with as many concepts as fighter multicasting for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't personally see why everyone thinks the feat suddenly becomes useless when your other proficiencies go up. You aren't actually losing anything as you level. You have an objectively stronger weapon in trade for a +2 with the simpler weapons. It doesn't turn off your proficiency scaling in any way, you just aren't objectively stronger than the guy with the club. And you spent several levels being objectively better. But you get to use the cooler, stronger weapon.

All that said, I probably wouldn't take the feat unless I was going for a specific character concept and refused to play anything else. But then, in that case, I'm not really playing to be the best, I just want to be my cool character who happens to have a slightly lower hit chance.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Alyran wrote:

I don't personally see why everyone thinks the feat suddenly becomes useless when your other proficiencies go up. You aren't actually losing anything as you level. You have an objectively stronger weapon in trade for a +2 with the simpler weapons. It doesn't turn off your proficiency scaling in any way, you just aren't objectively stronger than the guy with the club. But you get to use the cooler, stronger weapon.

All that said, I probably wouldn't take the feat unless I was going for a specific character concept and refused to play anything else. But then, in that case, I'm not really playing to be the best, I just want to be my cool character who happens to have a slightly lower hit chance.

Thematically, getting to be objectively worse with that cool ancestral sword you have been practicing with for years than you are with a club they taught you to use in bard's college is weird.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Cydeth wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
All they want is a way to extend a wizard's existing Expert proficiency with the club to gain Expert proficiency with the Warhammer at the cost of a couple of feats. That's not really that unreasonable, is it?
I'm beginning to think yes, it is. They can get it by multiclassing, since class feats are supposed to be more powerful than general feats.
Yeah, I think I also prefer that it be restricted to Multiclassing and Ancestry Feats as it currently is. However, if that's the case, then the existence of the General Feat that grants Trained proficiency is problematic, because it allows you to stay on par up until level 10, only to fall behind with no way to catch up at level 11. Like, why would you ever take that Feat if you know your campaign is going above level 10?
Because you remembered that retraining feats is easy?

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think any Feat in a game that is supposed to be beginner friendly should come with the implicit caveat "this is only good up until X level, so make sure you remember to retrain".

EDIT: I also don't find the idea that you should retrain out of your preferred weapon style because you've hit the magic level very satisfying. Like, if I was allowed to be the cool Wizard with a halberd for the first 10 levels without multiclassing, why can't I continue being that wizard for rest of my adventuring career and not fall permanently behind?

EDIT2: Alternatively, if being the the cool non-multiclassing Wizard with the halberd isn't supported from level 11 onward, then why did you give me a Feat to realize that concept for the first 10 levels? Why is the concept ok at some levels but not at others? It just seems wrong...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alyran wrote:
I don't personally see why everyone thinks the feat suddenly becomes useless when your other proficiencies go up.

You just said it. Your other proficiencies go up. The weapon you were using before isn't scaling anymore.

Quote:
You have an objectively stronger weapon

Possibly. Possibly not.

I think you'd be hard pressed to call unarmed "objectively stronger" than most other weapons, though and that's capped at trained even with multiclassing. A rogue who goes from shortswords to unarmed drops from a d6 to a d4... and loses two steps of proficiency over their career.

A wizard who wants to grab a different simple weapon isn't gaining any power at all, they're just losing the to-hit bonus from their proficiencies as a roleplaying tax.

Even going from a club to a longsword is -2 to hit for an average +1 to damage at the cost of a feat. That's a really hard sell for 'objectively superior'. Hell, -2 to hit for +1 to damage would be a dubious trade even if it was free.


Paradozen wrote:
Alyran wrote:

I don't personally see why everyone thinks the feat suddenly becomes useless when your other proficiencies go up. You aren't actually losing anything as you level. You have an objectively stronger weapon in trade for a +2 with the simpler weapons. It doesn't turn off your proficiency scaling in any way, you just aren't objectively stronger than the guy with the club. But you get to use the cooler, stronger weapon.

All that said, I probably wouldn't take the feat unless I was going for a specific character concept and refused to play anything else. But then, in that case, I'm not really playing to be the best, I just want to be my cool character who happens to have a slightly lower hit chance.

Thematically, getting to be objectively worse with that cool ancestral sword you have been practicing with for years than you are with a club they taught you to use in bard's college is weird.

No weirder than spontaneously learning better spells that you might not have even seen before. Or the 12 things that Druid gets better at in PF1 that you didn't always want to use. Or any number of other things that are inherent to classed RPG progression.

I guess I agree that it's weird thematically, but so are so many other things that this seems like a strange thing to get hung up on because people mechanically want to have higher numbers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think any Feat in a game that is supposed to be beginner friendly should come with the implicit caveat "this is only good up until X level, so make sure you remember to retrain".

EDIT: I also don't find the idea that you should retrain out of your preferred weapon style because you've hit the magic level to be a very satisfying solution. Like, if I was the cool Wizard who uses a Halberd for the first 10 levels without multiclassing, why can't I keep being that wizard for rest of my adventuring career and not fall permanently behind?

What a ridiculous notion Bardic Dave!


Squiggit wrote:
Alyran wrote:
I don't personally see why everyone thinks the feat suddenly becomes useless when your other proficiencies go up.

You just said it. Your other proficiencies go up. The weapon you were using before isn't scaling anymore.

Quote:
You have an objectively stronger weapon

Possibly. Possibly not.

I think you'd be hard pressed to call unarmed "objectively stronger" than most other weapons, though and that's capped at trained even with multiclassing. A rogue who goes from shortswords to unarmed drops from a d6 to a d4... and loses two steps of proficiency over their career.

A wizard who wants to grab a different simple weapon isn't gaining any power at all, they're just losing the to-hit bonus from their proficiencies as a roleplaying tax.

Even going from a club to a longsword is -2 to hit for an average +1 to damage at the cost of a feat. That's a really hard sell for 'objectively superior'. Hell, -2 to hit for +1 to damage would be a dubious trade even if it was free.

I have to disagree with the basic premise of the bolded section. You are absolutely not losing proficiency. You are just not gaining extra proficiency as you would if you fell in line with your class. It might seem pedantic, but those are two very different things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alyran wrote:
I have to disagree with the basic premise of the bolded section. You are absolutely not losing proficiency. You are just not gaining extra proficiency as you would if you fell in line with your class. It might seem pedantic, but those are two very different things.

Okay, you're not losing proficiency, you're just behind on proficiency compared to the expected baseline Paizo set forward for the class with potentially no actual gains to show for it.

The point remains unchanged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
Yeah, I think I also prefer that it be restricted to Multiclassing and Ancestry Feats as it currently is. However, if that's the case, then the existence of the General Feat that grants Trained proficiency is problematic, because it allows you to stay on par up until level 10, only to fall behind with no way to catch up at level 11. Like, why would you ever take that Feat if you know your campaign is going above level 10?

*laughs in Canny Acumen between levels 11 and 17, possibly even by level 7*

Bardic Dave wrote:


Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think any Feat in a game that is supposed to be beginner friendly should come with the implicit caveat "this is only good up until X level, so make sure you remember to retrain".

EDIT: I also don't find the idea that you should retrain out of your preferred weapon style because you've hit the magic level very satisfying. Like, if I was allowed to be the cool Wizard with a halberd for the first 10 levels without multiclassing, why can't I continue being that wizard for rest of my adventuring career and not fall permanently behind?

Being a wizard comes with certain ups and downs.

Up: You get 10th level spells.
Down: You'll never be as good at the halberd.

The runelords would be perfectly fine with just trained, since it's more a symbol than "I want to constantly hit people with a halberd".

If you want to be good at it, actually invest in it, aka fighter multiclass.

Quote:
EDIT2: Alternatively, if being the the cool non-multiclassing Wizard with the halberd isn't allowed from level 11 onward, then why did you give me a Feat to realize that concept for the first 10 levels? Why is the concept ok at some levels but not at others? It just seems wrong...

I just wanted to highlight this part especially. Imagine this feat didn't exist.

Can you imagine how much more the exact same people would moan about it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alyran wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
Alyran wrote:

I don't personally see why everyone thinks the feat suddenly becomes useless when your other proficiencies go up. You aren't actually losing anything as you level. You have an objectively stronger weapon in trade for a +2 with the simpler weapons. It doesn't turn off your proficiency scaling in any way, you just aren't objectively stronger than the guy with the club. But you get to use the cooler, stronger weapon.

All that said, I probably wouldn't take the feat unless I was going for a specific character concept and refused to play anything else. But then, in that case, I'm not really playing to be the best, I just want to be my cool character who happens to have a slightly lower hit chance.

Thematically, getting to be objectively worse with that cool ancestral sword you have been practicing with for years than you are with a club they taught you to use in bard's college is weird.

No weirder than spontaneously learning better spells that you might not have even seen before. Or the 12 things that Druid gets better at in PF1 that you didn't always want to use. Or any number of other things that are inherent to classed RPG progression.

I guess I agree that it's weird thematically, but so are so many other things that this seems like a strange thing to get hung up on because people mechanically want to have higher numbers.

To an extent I disagree with those things too. I try to throw in a bit of RP practicing and practicing with related magic thematically for spontaneous casters to explain why they learn the spells they do. Druids no longer have that strange patchwork assortment of weapons from what I've gleaned. I get that weird stuff is going to exist in-game, that doesn't mean I don't hope these issues get fixed. I can and will live with them, but the fewer house rules I want to throw into a game the more I want to play it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alyran wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Alyran wrote:
I don't personally see why everyone thinks the feat suddenly becomes useless when your other proficiencies go up.

You just said it. Your other proficiencies go up. The weapon you were using before isn't scaling anymore.

Quote:
You have an objectively stronger weapon

Possibly. Possibly not.

I think you'd be hard pressed to call unarmed "objectively stronger" than most other weapons, though and that's capped at trained even with multiclassing. A rogue who goes from shortswords to unarmed drops from a d6 to a d4... and loses two steps of proficiency over their career.

A wizard who wants to grab a different simple weapon isn't gaining any power at all, they're just losing the to-hit bonus from their proficiencies as a roleplaying tax.

Even going from a club to a longsword is -2 to hit for an average +1 to damage at the cost of a feat. That's a really hard sell for 'objectively superior'. Hell, -2 to hit for +1 to damage would be a dubious trade even if it was free.

I have to disagree with the basic premise of the bolded section. You are absolutely not losing proficiency. You are just not gaining extra proficiency as you would if you fell in line with your class. It might seem pedantic, but those are two very different things.

It's not two different things and I'll explain why:

In 3.5/Pathfinder you increased your proficiency as you leveled.

Fighters got Full BAB, others got 3/4, Casters generally got 1/2

That equates to Legendary, Master, and Expert in this edition (more or less).

This is why every single class in the game gets some form of proficiency increase as they level. Not just for weapons, for saves and armor as well.

These aspects are to replace the general progression of those things, and they are staggered/developed in ways that make thematic sense for the classes (wizards get fortitude increases after will, rogues get them after reflex, etc.)

So when you remove the "progression" of the proficiency for the weapon a person has invested in because it's not in the default Class weapon list, you are effectively doing this in PF1:

"Martial Weapon Proficiency" - "You gain proficiency with a weapon, but you can never gain more than +X BAB to attack with that weapon and can never gain an extra attack with that weapon"

Except, we know that's not how it actually worked in 3.5/PF1, you just removed the penalty (which is all this does for the first 10 levels) and then works as intended from there.

If you want to argue that it costs another General Feat, then fine argue that, but personally I find it kinda weird that everything thinks this is somehow "busted" or even touches the Fighter.

It has been discussed over and over about how tight math is going to govern this edition. Expert proficiency at level 11 is already not that good, dropping to Trained is basically unpalatable.

Not getting a standard progression in this edition is a penalty and anyone that's trying to argue differently is quite literally arguing against the entire premise of the streamlined math they sought to make.


I also find it amusing that two general feats is now the baseline for "I want to get master weapon proficiency on an advanced weapon on a rogue".

Because by equivalent, that's exactly what people want.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Squiggit wrote:

Okay, you're not losing proficiency, you're just behind on proficiency compared to the expected baseline Paizo set forward for the class with potentially no actual gains to show for it.

The point remains unchanged.

They specified that the baseline would be changed to be Trained after the backlash in the playtest. Any proficiency beyond Trained is a bonus. And yes, I'm including every type of proficiency, not just weapons.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

I also find it amusing that two general feats is now the baseline for "I want to get master weapon proficiency on an advanced weapon on a rogue".

Because by equivalent, that's exactly what people want.

eye roll

You mean at 15th level when the rest of the Martials have had it for a while.

Yeah, what a travesty. The extra 2 average damage (at BEST) per swing at the cost of two General Feats really broke the game /s

Quote:
They specified that the baseline would be changed to be Trained after the backlash in the playtest. Any proficiency beyond Trained is a bonus. And yes, I'm including every type of proficiency, not just weapons.

Considering almost no Class ends with Trained in any main attribute (Save, Armor, Weapon, Spells, etc.) I fail to see how that's the case and would love to see the quote that says "Trained is the baseline from levels 1-20" because I seriously don't think so.

Trained is the baseline for being able to participate at all in Skill based tasks, but it has to be because Skill Increases are far less proportionally available to increase to any other aspect of the character.

Trained is the baseline until level 11+ for just about everything else because that's when all the Classes start getting Expert qualities in their weaknesses. Unless you're actually trying to say that a Wizard is supposed to be above the "baseline" for Fortitude based saves?


Ok, give me the exact same 2 general feats for master spellcasting on a rogue and we'll call it even.

Because Minor Magic is a thing.


Midnightoker wrote:
It has been discussed over and over about how tight math is going to govern this edition. Expert proficiency at level 11 is already not that good, dropping to Trained is basically unpalatable.

Except that that is based entirely on the playtest version of the rules and bestiary. The math has been loosened considerably which can be seen when looking at the to-hit required for at-level monsters. A +1 still matters, but you aren't left scrounging for every possible bonus just to keep up.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:


Being a wizard comes with certain ups and downs.
Up: You get 10th level spells.
Down: You'll never be as good at the halberd.

So, I feel like you're misunderstanding/misrepresenting my point. Regardless, this part is wrong, because from level 1-10 you are exactly as good as the expected baseline for your class with the halberd. So "never" is wrong, because you can be 100% at par for your level, but only within a particular level band.

That's the part that bugs me. I don't like the inconsistency of it. If it's a valid concept from level 1-10, it should be valid from 11-20. If it's not a valid concept, then it shouldn't be supported from levels 1-10.

That's my position. If it's "better" for it to be gated behind multi-classing, then it should actually be gated behind multi-classing for all 20 levels.

The reason I don't like the inconsistency is because for a new player, the nuances of the Feat being "good at some levels but not at others" won't be readily apparent, which could make for an unsatisfying gaming experience when they hit level 11 and realize that they can't swing their mother's ancestral batteaxe as well as a club.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Ok, give me the exact same 2 general feats for master spellcasting on a rogue and we'll call it even.

Because Minor Magic is a thing.

Yep, it's totally the same thing! They are not at all different and this isn't a blatant false equivalence based on a single feat that a Rogue has access to.

Totally combats the entire premise of the argument including the progression issues, feat trap of a general, and the complete lack of power behind an Expert Proficiency Wizard swinging a Warhammer at level 11.

What a formidable argument.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, yes it is. Several ancestries get innate spells, and innate spells are only trained unless you have an Expert or higher spellcasting proficiency.

It is the exact same thing as what you're asking for.


Alyran wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
It has been discussed over and over about how tight math is going to govern this edition. Expert proficiency at level 11 is already not that good, dropping to Trained is basically unpalatable.
Except that that is based entirely on the playtest version of the rules and bestiary. The math has been loosened considerably which can be seen when looking at the to-hit required for at-level monsters. A +1 still matters, but you aren't left scrounging for every possible bonus just to keep up.

No, the tight math is 100% still a thing, they just reduced the numbers on the enemies from the Playtest which were overtuned by their own admission.

A -2 to your attacks is significant. Otherwise, why give the progression at 11 at all?

Would you try to argue that Legendary isn't significantly better than Master?

Why do casters get Expert at 11? Answer that question, and then you'll see why it makes no sense to make the argument that a -2 doesn't matter.

They get it because it's needed as part of the progression to 11th level.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:

Actually, yes it is. Several ancestries get innate spells, and innate spells are only trained unless you have an Expert or higher spellcasting proficiency.

It is the exact same thing as what you're asking for.

No, the reason it's not the same thing is because the Wizard already gets Expert Weapon Proficiency for free at level 11.

Actually, the fact that your innate casting proficiency increases along with your own spellcasting proficiency kind of speaks against your point, doesn't it?


Midnightoker wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Ok, give me the exact same 2 general feats for master spellcasting on a rogue and we'll call it even.

Because Minor Magic is a thing.

Yep, it's totally the same thing! They are not at all different and this isn't a blatant false equivalence based on a single feat that a Rogue has access to.

Totally combats the entire premise of the argument including the progression issues, feat trap of a general, and the complete lack of power behind an Expert Proficiency Wizard swinging a Warhammer at level 11.

What a formidable argument.

It is the same thing though. They are both the primary expected attack form for the class that would primarily use them. It might actually be worse for picking up casting because it usually requires a class feat and not a general feat. And I'd be willing to bet that that Wizard swinging a warhammer is having a good time of it.

Midnightoker wrote:

No, the tight math is 100% still a thing, they just reduced the numbers on the enemies from the Playtest which were overtuned by their own admission.

A -2 to your attacks is significant. Otherwise, why give the progression at 11 at all?

Would you try to argue that Legendary isn't significantly better than Master?

Why do casters get Expert at 11? Answer that question, and then you'll see why it makes no sense to make the argument that a -2 doesn't matter.

They get it because it's needed as part of the progression to 11th level.

I never said a -2 doesn't matter. I said it doesn't suddenly invalidate your choice of off-class weapon. Which I maintain that it doesn't. IIRC a fighter's proficiency in advanced weapons lagged a step behind their other weapons, at least in the playtest. Does that mean they should never ever use them?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:

No, the reason it's not the same thing is because the Wizard already gets Expert Weapon Proficiency for free at level 11.

Actually, the fact that your innate casting proficiency increases along with your own spellcasting proficiency kind of speaks against your point, doesn't it?

Actually, I'll take a step back because the other guy said that he wanted to get Master in Spellcasting, and most people I've seen are asking for Expert.

However, no, it doesn't. Because the only way to get a spellcasting modifier is to take multi-class feats, or be a spellcaster. A wizard is not an innate martial character, so them not automatically scaling a martial weapon feat makes perfect sense to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alyran wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Ok, give me the exact same 2 general feats for master spellcasting on a rogue and we'll call it even.

Because Minor Magic is a thing.

Yep, it's totally the same thing! They are not at all different and this isn't a blatant false equivalence based on a single feat that a Rogue has access to.

Totally combats the entire premise of the argument including the progression issues, feat trap of a general, and the complete lack of power behind an Expert Proficiency Wizard swinging a Warhammer at level 11.

What a formidable argument.

It is the same thing though. They are both the primary expected attack form for the class that would primarily use them. It might actually be worse for picking up casting because it usually requires a class feat and not a general feat. And I'd be willing to bet that that Wizard swinging a warhammer is having a good time of it.

See previous comment.

It's not the same thing. How you could even argue it's the same thing is beyond me.

As if some feat down the line that increase Spell proficiency for a Rogue's selected Minor Magic is some "out of the question" addition to the game.

For all that's known, it could be coming out in the next book.

This General Feat situation applies to everyone not just the Rogue or the Wizard. It is an objectively terrible Feat if it does not at least allow the opportunity to scale with your normal proficiency pool, because as even the people in this thread that defend it have stated "just retrain it at level 11" is about the weakest argument for why it's "working as intended" as it gets.

If its a guaranteed optimal retrain at a certain level, that means it's a trap. Are we arguing traps are "good" for the game? How am I going to explain to a new player that his Halberd he spent a feat to get is now worse than his other weapons he's never used?

Tell me how you logistically explain that in a way that makes sense to a new player, because I can't see it sounding at all "fair" or even remotely plausible.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

When I was building my fighter early today, I seriously considered taking the elven feat Otherworldly Magic to get Ray of Frost for a ranged attack. This is available to every elf, and gnomes could do similar things.

Ray of Frost is an innate spell, and thus is considered Trained and only uses Charisma for the linked attribute. As such, unless I multi-class to a spellcaster, my to-hit with it will never rise above Trained, and I'll be using Charisma for it's to-hit.

This is exactly like using the Weapon Proficiency feat. It has the same pitfalls. Thus, the previous comments about them being similar are very applicable.


Midnightoker wrote:

See previous comment.

It's not the same thing. How you could even argue it's the same thing is beyond me.

As if some feat down the line that increase Spell proficiency for a Rogue's selected Minor Magic is some "out of the question" addition to the game.

For all that's known, it could be coming out in the next book.

This is just silly. You could argue that a follow-up general feat will exist later to boost weapon proficiency further.

Midnightoker wrote:


This General Feat situation applies to everyone not just the Rogue or the Wizard. It is an objectively terrible Feat if it does not at least allow the opportunity to scale with your normal proficiency pool, because as even the people in this thread that defend it have stated "just retrain it at level 11" is about the weakest argument for why it's "working as intended" as it gets.

If its a guaranteed optimal retrain at a certain level, that means it's a trap. Are we arguing traps are "good" for the game? How am I going to explain to a new player that his Halberd he spent a feat to get is now worse than his other weapons he's never used?

Tell me how you logistically explain that in a way that makes sense to a new player, because I can't see it sounding at all "fair" or even remotely plausible.

It is not objectively terrible. It gives you a new option that you can but do not have to use all of the time and as others have argued is only for class concept (read: flavor). It isn't a trap. It isn't garbage. It isn't a guaranteed optimal retrain. Is it min-max bait? No, but it does unlock a cool new thing for you to use if you really, really want to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:

When I was building my fighter early today, I seriously considered taking the elven feat Otherworldly Magic to get Ray of Frost for a ranged attack. This is available to every elf, and gnomes could do similar things.

Ray of Frost is an innate spell, and thus is considered Trained and only uses Charisma for the linked attribute. As such, unless I multi-class to a spellcaster, my to-hit with it will never rise above Trained, and I'll be using Charisma for it's to-hit.

This is exactly like using the Weapon Proficiency feat. It has the same pitfalls. Thus, the previous comments about them being similar are very applicable.

Fair point. So do you think it would be bad if there were another General Feat at level 11 to increase your spellcasting proficiency to Expert for one (or more) innate spell(s) that you can cast? Because I think I could live with that.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bardic Dave wrote:
Fair point. So do you think it would be bad if there were another General Feat at level 11 to increase your spellcasting proficiency to Expert for one innate spell that you can cast? Because I don't.

As I said before, several times. I do not think this is the place of General Feats. If the designers decided to put a feat into Fighter that allowed me to dabble in magic, and thus get an Expert spellcasting proficiency at 12th or higher? Sure! I'm all for it. Because they've put these sort of things as class feats, and as far as I'm concerned that's intentional on their part.


Cydeth wrote:


However, no, it doesn't. Because the only way to get a spellcasting modifier is to take multi-class feats, or be a spellcaster. A wizard is not an innate martial character, so them not automatically scaling a martial weapon feat makes perfect sense to me.

If the Weapon Feat read like this:

"You gain proficiency with a Martial weapon of your choice. This weapon is added to your base class proficiency list for the purpose of advancing proficiency."

So the wizard, who invested a feat, now gets Expert with one weapon at level 11.

That doesn't "scale", that's cost of living. 11th level comes with inflation of AC of enemies.

Cydeth wrote:

As I said before, several times. I do not think this is the place of General Feats. If the designers decided to put a feat into Fighter that allowed me to dabble in magic, and thus get an Expert spellcasting proficiency at 12th or higher? Sure! I'm all for it. Because they've put these sort of things as class feats, and as far as I'm concerned that's intentional on their part.

Shield Block is a General.

Fighters get that for free.

Yet Shield Block is still available to other classes via General Feat... hmmmm


Cydeth wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Fair point. So do you think it would be bad if there were another General Feat at level 11 to increase your spellcasting proficiency to Expert for one innate spell that you can cast? Because I don't.
As I said before, several times. I do not think this is the place of General Feats. If the designers decided to put a feat into Fighter that allowed me to dabble in magic, and thus get an Expert spellcasting proficiency at 12th or higher? Sure! I'm all for it. Because they've put these sort of things as class feats, and as far as I'm concerned that's intentional on their part.

Alright. So one key difference between the General Feat that gives you an innate spell and the General Feat that gives you proficiency with weapons, is that if you multiclass into a spellcasting class, your innate spellcasting proficiency automatically goes up with your spellcasting proficiency bonus.

However, no such multi-class compatibility exists for the weapon feat. The weapon feat is just completely redundant with multi-classing.

I would love it if they were compatible in some way. I really don't like that there's no way to improve upon the Feat's limitations after you take it.


Cydeth wrote:
This is exactly like using the Weapon Proficiency feat. It has the same pitfalls. Thus, the previous comments about them being similar are very applicable.

Not exactly, because Wizards already have expert, sometimes, while Otherworldly Magic never gives you it in the first place.

If Otherwordly Magic gave you Ray of Frost and then bumped your proficiency to expert at level 11 and later you somehow swapped Ray of Frost for Acid Splash but you went back down to trained because Expert only applied specifically to Ray of Frost your analogy would work.

That said, I don't think a feat to bump magic proficiency higher would even be bad in the first place, so even ignoring the false equivalence I'm not sure it's a very strong argument against letting people use weapons they want to use.


Midnightoker wrote:
Cydeth wrote:


However, no, it doesn't. Because the only way to get a spellcasting modifier is to take multi-class feats, or be a spellcaster. A wizard is not an innate martial character, so them not automatically scaling a martial weapon feat makes perfect sense to me.

If the Weapon Feat read like this:

"You gain proficiency with a Martial weapon of your choice. This weapon is added to your base class proficiency list for the purpose of advancing proficiency."

So the wizard, who invested a feat, now gets Expert with one weapon at level 11.

That doesn't "scale", that's cost of living. 11th level comes with inflation of AC of enemies.

I think that's fine if they added a General Feat that gives you a single cantrip from any tradition that scales with your weapon proficiency or (to be closer in parity) even with any spellcasting proficiency you have.

I think both are terrible and reasonably equivalent ideas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disagree. Master and Legendary should be limited by the main class. This is like BAB in 3.X.

51 to 100 of 274 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / PF2 needs more ways to improve weapon proficiency All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.