PF2 needs more ways to improve weapon proficiency


Homebrew and House Rules

101 to 150 of 274 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Data Lore wrote:
I disagree. Master and Legendary should be limited by the main class. This is like BAB in 3.X.

I hope this person is trolling... and if they are, well played!


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

A Rogue not being able to advance a spell to higher proficiency, a single class with a specific feat, I can live with.

General Feats being useless traps that everyone has available and is the core component for utilizing non-standard class weapons? Yeah, I consider it more important.

Midnightoker wrote:
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.

What? Who is arguing that it's flavor and is solely based on concept??

Then you go on to say it isn't a trap, it isn't garbage, and it isn't an "optimal retrain" when we just established that you think it's literally a "Flavor" feat.

You're not even consistent within your own statements.

And it is 100% objectively a retrain optimal once you get your first proficiency increase.

The reason it matters less to Fighters for Advanced, is because they don't have to spend anything.

Everyone here seems to think General Feats are terrible, but they contain all Skill Feats (which we know some that are out and are very strong) and things like Shield Block, which is a solid feat.


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

Cool. We're in agreement. No one in this thread has asked for anyone to get legendary proficiency.

I just don't want my 'BAB' to be conditional based on the weapon I use with absolutely no way to improve it for certain categories of weapon.

Midnightoker wrote:
What? Who is arguing that it's flavor and is solely based on concept??

Well, sort of: one of my arguments is that these restrictions needlessly restrict someone's ability to express concept by narrowly defining which weapons are "correct" and providing little to no ability to change that outside their class, which I think is a bad thing. That might be where the 'based on flavor' concept is coming from.


Except that as soon as you get Expert, the complaints then become "why does my rogue have Master in all these weapons but only Expert in the greatsword?"

Exact same situation, different class and weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:
What? Who is arguing that it's flavor and is solely based on concept??
Well, sort of: one of my arguments is that these restrictions needlessly restrict someone's ability to express concept by narrowly defining which weapons are "correct" and providing little to no ability to change that outside their class, which I think is a bad thing. That might be where the 'based on flavor' concept is coming from.

Even though I can see what is meant there, the problem is that this edition is supposed to streamline power and make it difficult to plunge into traps.

Objectively, a Halberd with a -2 is worse than a Shortsword without it. Especially in this tight math edition with the Crit/Failure system the way it is.

Not only is this something that will likely come up at one of my tables, but it's going to directly affect new players. Veterans will just realize it doesn't scale and avoid it entirely.

Cyouni wrote:

Except that as soon as you get Expert, the complaints then become "why does my rogue have Master in all these weapons but only Expert in the greatsword?"

Exact same situation, different class and weapon.

OH NO! The game would be ruined and Rogues would be so overpowered.

Good thing you pointed that out. They might have been able to swing Elven Curved Blades with Master Prof. and Dex to Damage with a few measely Ancestry Feats... OH WAIT That's already a thing that can be done (by anyone that can afford the General Feat and Ancestry Feats, but extremely easy for an Elf/Half-Elf/Human)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
I disagree. Master and Legendary should be limited by the main class. This is like BAB in 3.X.

Cool. We're in agreement. No one in this thread has asked for anyone to get legendary proficiency.

Well, actually... *raises hand*

I have no problem with the fighting characters (Barbarian, Champion, Monk, Ranger, maybe Rogue) burning a high level class feat to get Legendary in at least one weapon category. By the same token, I have no problem with Fighters burning a similar feat for Legendary in armour, Perception, or a save. It's easy enough to house rule, but an official option would be nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Except that as soon as you get Expert, the complains then become "why does my rogue have Master in all these weapons but only Expert in the greatsword?"

Exact same situation, different class and weapon.

Except can't human rogues already do that via Ancestry Feats?


Bardic Dave wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Except that as soon as you get Expert, the complains then become "why does my rogue have Master in all these weapons but only Expert in the greatsword?"

Exact same situation, different class and weapon.

Except can't human rogues already do that via Ancestry Feats?

One, no. The ancestry feat is quite explicit in how it applies. It applies only to "a single uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry or is common in another culture".

If two general feats get every rogue master proficiency in elven curveblade, oh look we're back to the PF1 problem again. Or one general feat gets every single martial master proficiency in an advanced weapon. Welcome back falcata everybody.


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

Except that as soon as you get Expert, the complains then become "why does my rogue have Master in all these weapons but only Expert in the greatsword?"

Exact same situation, different class and weapon.

Except can't human rogues already do that via Ancestry Feats?

One, no. The ancestry feat is quite explicit in how it applies. It applies only to "a single uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry or is common in another culture".

If two general feats get every rogue master proficiency in elven curveblade, oh look we're back to the PF1 problem again. Or one general feat gets every single martial master proficiency in an advanced weapon. Welcome back falcata everybody.

I'm not convinced. If the elven curved blade is actually that much better than every other weapon (and I'm not convinced that it is), then wouldn't you expect every single rogue to be an elf? How is that situation preferable?

EDIT: also isn't it reasonable to say that the Greatsword is common to another culture? Perhaps somewhere that venerates Gorum, like Realms of the Mammoth Lords, or the Linnorm kingdoms?

EDIT: NVM, I see why; the Greatsword isn't "uncommon".


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

A Rogue not being able to advance a spell to higher proficiency, a single class with a specific feat, I can live with.

General Feats being useless traps that everyone has available and is the core component for utilizing non-standard class weapons? Yeah, I consider it more important.

Midnightoker wrote:
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.

What? Who is arguing that it's flavor and is solely based on concept??

Then you go on to say it isn't a trap, it isn't garbage, and it isn't an "optimal retrain" when we just established that you think it's literally a "Flavor" feat.

You're not even consistent within your own statements.

And it is 100% objectively a retrain optimal once you get your first proficiency increase.

The reason it matters less to Fighters for Advanced, is because they don't have to spend anything.

Everyone here seems to think General Feats are terrible, but they contain all Skill Feats (which we know some that are out and are very strong) and things like Shield Block, which is a solid feat.

Look, I'm going to bow out now, because you seem to be getting rather heated over this. My statements are no more inconsistent than yours are entirely hyperbolic. I wish you a good night and happy games.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, let me see if I break this down right.

• Wizards have weapon proficiencies.
• Wizards get Expert in those weapons at 13th level.
• Under normal circumstances, you get five general feats in 20 levels.
• You can burn a feat to gain proficiency in a single, solitary weapon with one of those five feats.
• However, that single weapon that you burned a feat for doesn't count as one of your weapons when you hit 13th level and it stays merely Trained.

So now you are 13th level, have spent 20% of your lifetime General Feats because you wanted to be a Wizard with a Halberd, or whatever and now you aren't as good at it as you are with every other weapon you may or may not have used that you didn't burn a feat for.

You COULD spend two of your CLASS feats to be a Wiz/Ftr, but you don't WANT to be a Wiz/Ftr, you just want to have an additional (1) hurty stick with the same cost of living upgrade as the rest of your measly selection of hurty sticks.

And people think this is, what... unfair? Hurting the Fighter's niche?

Am I getting something wrong in the above bullets?


Stone Dog wrote:

Okay, let me see if I break this down right.

• Wizards have weapon proficiencies.
• Wizards get Expert in those weapons at 13th level.
• Under normal circumstances, you get five general feats in 20 levels.
• You can burn a feat to gain proficiency in a single, solitary weapon with one of those five feats.
• However, that single weapon that you burned a feat for doesn't count as one of your weapons when you hit 13th level and it stays merely Trained.

So now you are 13th level, have spent 20% of your lifetime General Feats because you wanted to be a Wizard with a Halberd, or whatever and now you aren't as good at it as you are with every other weapon you may or may not have used that you didn't burn a feat for.

You COULD spend two of your CLASS feats to be a Wiz/Ftr, but you don't WANT to be a Wiz/Ftr, you just want to have an additional (1) hurty stick with the same cost of living upgrade as the rest of your measly selection of hurty sticks.

And people think this is, what... unfair? Hurting the Fighter's niche?

Am I getting something wrong in the above bullets?

You're basically spot on. A few nitpicks:

1) Wizards get expert at 11th level, not 13th.
2) The General Feat gives you Trained in all Simple Weapons, or Trained in all Martial Weapons if you're already Trained in all Simple.
3) So to become Trained with a halberd, the Wizard has to take the General Feat TWICE, using 40% of their total allotment of General Feats.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This seems like a reasonable 11th level General Feat to me.

The good news about that is, of course, that it's super easy for Paizo to include such a Feat if they have a mind to.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

This seems like a reasonable 11th level General Feat to me.

The good news about that is, of course, that it's super easy for Paizo to include such a Feat if they have a mind to.

I agree. And I think it's quite likely that they will eventually.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
I agree. And I think it's quite likely that they will eventually.

Seems likely, yeah. It probably does need to be restricted to a single weapon so as not to completely overshadow Fighter Multiclassing, but that's fine in context.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still think wizards who want to be good at weapons should multiclass fighter. It costs 2 class feats (plus one general if it's advanced) to get expert proficiency in any weapon you like at around the same level you get expert in your class weapons.

Plus "I want to learn to fight with a halberd" is 100% a good reason to take the fighter dedication, and wizards should be the class that is the worst with weapons.


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

You're basically spot on. A few nitpicks:

1) Wizards get expert at 11th level, not 13th.
2) The General Feat gives you Trained in all Simple Weapons, or Trained in all Martial Weapons if you're already Trained in all Simple.
3) So to become Trained with a halberd, the Wizard has to take the General Feat TWICE, using 40% of their total allotment of General Feats.

Okay, so I'm even more convinced that they should scale along with the existing proficiencies of your base class. Burning 2/5 of your resources to have them be a bad idea for half your levels sounds awfully trap like to me.


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

Except that as soon as you get Expert, the complains then become "why does my rogue have Master in all these weapons but only Expert in the greatsword?"

Exact same situation, different class and weapon.

Except can't human rogues already do that via Ancestry Feats?

One, no. The ancestry feat is quite explicit in how it applies. It applies only to "a single uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry or is common in another culture".

If two general feats get every rogue master proficiency in elven curveblade, oh look we're back to the PF1 problem again. Or one general feat gets every single martial master proficiency in an advanced weapon. Welcome back falcata everybody.

I'm not convinced. If the elven curved blade is actually that much better than every other weapon (and I'm not convinced that it is), then wouldn't you expect every single rogue to be an elf? How is that situation preferable?

So there's a few big differences here. The first is that this starts the trend power creep. As an example, every advanced weapon must be judged on "is available to every rogue/martial at master".

Second, then we start the incredibly amazing precedent of "take away fighter and race stuff". Part of the thing that should be incredibly obvious in looking at the CRB design is that advanced weapons are firmly in the territory of fighter and specific exceptions (native races, probably red mantis archetype, etc). This breaks down both of those, turning them into everything goes, and especially heavily devalues ancestries and any future archetypes.

Let's not pretend that one general feat isn't a paltry fee for any martial to go from martial weapons to advanced, and would be paid beyond instantly.

I'm really not interested in seeing general feats turn into "how quickly can we break the game" again. PF1 had more than enough of that.

And realistically, if we put in the general feat that's 100% for spellcasters, then we move on to "why can't my martial get master in weapon X? Spellcasters got the thing specifically for them".
Because unlike Canny Acumen, this feat only benefits casters. It has no value to any other character (especially if we're going by the logic that expert -> trained is a drop that makes it unplayable), and is really not a general feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I still think wizards who want to be good at weapons should multiclass fighter.

What does multiclass fighter actually get you, though? Is it still a weapons, armor, and a skill? Yes, if a wizard wants to have ALL of that, sure.

If they want to have less than that, but still more than a wizard are they stuck?

If they want to have only ONE more thing, do they have to burn 40% of a resource or buy all the fighter things that come with multiclassing too?

It really seems like a bad option. I agree with niche protection in a class based system, but hampering such light customization is hard to swallow.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:
Is it still a weapons, armor, and a skill?

Fighter Dedication no longer grants armor proficiency. So just all martial weapons and a Skill.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I still think wizards who want to be good at weapons should multiclass fighter. It costs 2 class feats (plus one general if it's advanced) to get expert proficiency in any weapon you like at around the same level you get expert in your class weapons.

Plus "I want to learn to fight with a halberd" is 100% a good reason to take the fighter dedication.

Generally it can be okay for a lot of options, I'm sure you can min-max it to make it work.

My only concern here is that a lot of weapons aren't really worth the cost. That's the only way to get expert proficiency, for instance, in another simple weapon on a wizard too. Some martial weapons aren't that great either. Going from a club to a longsword is two feats for +1 damage (and a third exit feat if you want to multiclass again), which I'm not sure I'd even want to do for one feat. Although at least it's possible, which is something worth celebrating.

Unarmed is an even more egregious problem though in my opinion. Monk dedication gets you trained, and as far as I can tell it's the only way to get trained (since it's not a simple weapon anymore) and I haven't been able to find any option that lets you progress beyond trained either. I could just be blind and there's a way to bump it to expert I missed, admittedly.

And as others have mentioned in this thread, armor is weirdly hard to invest in as well. This one is kind of especially frustrating because proficiency scaling is arguably even a bigger deal for armor than it is for weapons.


Stone Dog wrote:
What does multiclass fighter actually get you, though?

Fighter MC gives trained in all simple and all martial weapons, plus training in a skill (acrobatics or athletics unless you have both). Level 12 feat in the dedication gets you expert in simple and martial plus trained in advanced weapons.

Since all other classes (I believe) are already trained in simple weapons, the wizard gets more from MCing fighter than anyone else- a barbarian taking the fighter MC gets only a single trained skill, for example.


I'm going to point out that the solution constantly coming up is to make a level 1 General Feat equivalent to a level 6 Fighter Feat, alternately a level 12 multiclass Fighter feat.
It would alternately be equivalent to two Ancestry feats, one of which is a level 13 one.

General feats, aside from their ability to take skill feats, are by and large the worst out of the four buckets, and I'm pretty sure this is by design.


Cyouni wrote:

I'm going to point out that the solution constantly coming up is to make a level 1 General Feat equivalent to a level 6 Fighter Feat, alternately a level 12 multiclass Fighter feat.

It would alternately be equivalent to two Ancestry feats, one of which is a level 13 one.

General feats, aside from their ability to take skill feats, are by and large the worst out of the four buckets, and I'm pretty sure this is by design.

I think the more common solution being proposed is to create a level 11 general Feat to achieve Expert in one weapon. So a wizard could spend his 3rd (simple: Trained), 7th (martial: Trained), and 11th level General Feats to get Expert Proficiency with a Halberd, forgoing everything else he could have got with those feats instead. If you think that's wrong, then I guess we just can't see eye to eye.


Bardic Dave wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

I'm going to point out that the solution constantly coming up is to make a level 1 General Feat equivalent to a level 6 Fighter Feat, alternately a level 12 multiclass Fighter feat.

It would alternately be equivalent to two Ancestry feats, one of which is a level 13 one.

General feats, aside from their ability to take skill feats, are by and large the worst out of the four buckets, and I'm pretty sure this is by design.

I think the more common solution being proposed is to create a level 11 general Feat to achieve Expert in one weapon. So a wizard could spend his 3rd (simple: Trained), 7th (martial: Trained), and 11th level General Feats to get Expert Proficiency with a Halberd, forgoing everything else he could have got with those feats instead. If you think that's wrong, then I guess we just can't see eye to eye.

So my question is: what happens to all the martials who spent those two feats to get that Expert when their Master comes at 13?

Are they just out in the cold?

Edit: To be clear, this is again the "rogue with a greatsword" example, or the "martial with advanced weapon" one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I want to see before we start adding fundamental features like "new general feats" is "what do archetypes for clubs which have a signature weapon" look like?

Does becoming a red mantis assassin give training with sawtooth sabres, or does it let me treat them as martial weapons, or does it give me auto-proficiency equal to my highest weapon proficiency?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

I'm going to point out that the solution constantly coming up is to make a level 1 General Feat equivalent to a level 6 Fighter Feat, alternately a level 12 multiclass Fighter feat.

It would alternately be equivalent to two Ancestry feats, one of which is a level 13 one.

Which solution? The solution I think is reasonable is the addition of a single 11th level General Feat that grants Expert (technically, it would grant whatever you have as your highest Proficiency from Class) in a single weapon you are already Trained in (restricting it to not be an Advanced Weapon seems a reasonable limit, which I'd support).

So, this can't duplicate the 6th level Fighter Feat, doesn't really duplicate the Fighter Multiclass version (as that applies to all weapons) and is even narrower than the Ancestry version (since all those also apply to multiple weapons).

It'd allow a Greatsword Rogue...but so what? Rogues are much better off sticking to their standard weapons, since they can't Sneak Attack with a greatsword.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

I'm going to point out that the solution constantly coming up is to make a level 1 General Feat equivalent to a level 6 Fighter Feat, alternately a level 12 multiclass Fighter feat.

It would alternately be equivalent to two Ancestry feats, one of which is a level 13 one.

Which solution? The solution I think is reasonable is the addition of a single 11th level General Feat that grants Expert (technically, it would grant whatever you have as your highest Proficiency from Class) in a single weapon you are already Trained in (restricting it to not be an Advanced Weapon seems a reasonable limit).

So, this can't duplicate the 6th level Fighter Feat, doesn't really duplicate the Fighter Multiclass version (as that applies to all weapons) and is even narrower than the Ancestry version (since all those also apply to multiple weapons).

Hmm, that's definitely an interesting concept. So in this proposal, what happens with the trained Advanced weapons that you can get from Weapon Proficiency? Are you just expected to not take them?

Expert in a single specific weapon (martial or lower) for a level 11 general feat would certainly seem to fit the guidelines, but that does leave Advanced weapon proficiency high and dry.

(I'm not certain how I feel about Elven Curveblade rogue, but eh, uncommon can probably handle that.)


Do Fighters gain proficiency in an advanced weapon, but have to keep plugging feats into it to get it to scale along with their baseline ability?

Is there no single weapon proficiency? Or even a weapon GROUP proficiency? It is either whole tiers or nothing?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly? I think Advanced Weapons effectively being restricted to Fighters and characters of specific Archetypes is very on-theme and seems fine.

Martial weapons being so restricted seems a lot less okay.


Stone Dog wrote:

Do Fighters gain proficiency in an advanced weapon, but have to keep plugging feats into it to get it to scale along with their baseline ability?

Is there no single weapon proficiency? Or even a weapon GROUP proficiency? It is either whole tiers or nothing?

Fighters have a feat that gives advanced weapon proficiency in a single group, that scales with their martial weapon proficiency.

It's basically the ancestry one, but for a weapon group instead.
That's the fighter 6 feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

I'm going to point out that the solution constantly coming up is to make a level 1 General Feat equivalent to a level 6 Fighter Feat, alternately a level 12 multiclass Fighter feat.

It would alternately be equivalent to two Ancestry feats, one of which is a level 13 one.

Which solution? The solution I think is reasonable is the addition of a single 11th level General Feat that grants Expert (technically, it would grant whatever you have as your highest Proficiency from Class) in a single weapon you are already Trained in (restricting it to not be an Advanced Weapon seems a reasonable limit).

So, this can't duplicate the 6th level Fighter Feat, doesn't really duplicate the Fighter Multiclass version (as that applies to all weapons) and is even narrower than the Ancestry version (since all those also apply to multiple weapons).

Hmm, that's definitely an interesting concept. So in this proposal, what happens with the trained Advanced weapons that you can get from Weapon Proficiency? Are you just expected to not take them?

Expert in a single specific weapon (martial or lower) for a level 11 general feat would certainly seem to fit the guidelines, but that does leave Advanced weapon proficiency high and dry.

(I'm not certain how I feel about Elven Curveblade rogue, but eh, uncommon can probably handle that.)

DeadManWalking comes in and says exactly what some of us have already been saying for the past 3 pages, and now it's an interesting concept when before it was unacceptable power creep? :P I guess you didn't really read some of my earlier posts?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Advanced weapons are a little trickier to figure out since they're supposed to be 'superior' quality weapons and are hard to access. The fighter feat that gives you expert with martial weapons only gives you trained with advanced after all.

I'm not sure if that's actually balanced in practice, the exotic weapons in the playtest didn't really seem good enough to be worth sacrificing proficiency for, but maybe something will shake out.

For me the bigger issue is being 'behind' on proficiency with weapons that are the same or worse than what you otherwise have even with feat investment.

Cyouni wrote:
I'm not certain how I feel about Elven Curveblade rogue, but eh, uncommon can probably handle that.

I think the point there was that if the ECB rogue is a power creep issue then it's already a problem because elves can already buy into it with their ancestry feats.

Data Lore wrote:
I am definately gonna stick with core only if this sort of class envy power creep makes its way into official Paizo design post core release.

How is a wizard spending two feats to get a morning star that doesn't even increase his damage at all power creeping anything? Much less such significant power creep that it's worth swearing off the entire rest of the game for it?

It's hard to tell which of these posts are serious sometimes.


Bardic Dave wrote:

DeadManWalking comes in and says exactly what some of us have already been saying for the past 3 pages, and now it's an interesting concept when before it was unacceptable power creep? :P I guess you didn't really read some of my earlier posts?

I did actually check back to make sure, and every post I'm seeing is "I want the base Weapon Proficiency general feat to add to your class weapon list for the purposes of scaling".

(I also did check some of your earlier posts, and that still does fall under "suddenly have to change your entire fighting style" for any advanced weapons.)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardic Dave wrote:
DeadManWalking comes in and says exactly what some of us have already been saying for the past 3 pages, and now it's an interesting concept when before it was unacceptable power creep? :P I guess you didn't really read some of my earlier posts?

In fairness, I think I was the first to explicitly say that not allowing Advanced Weapons was a viable restriction. A lot of his worry seems to be Advanced Weapons.


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

DeadManWalking comes in and says exactly what some of us have already been saying for the past 3 pages, and now it's an interesting concept when before it was unacceptable power creep? :P I guess you didn't really read some of my earlier posts?

I did actually check back to make sure, and every post I'm seeing is "I want the base Weapon Proficiency general feat to add to your class weapon list for the purposes of scaling".

(I also did check some of your earlier posts, and that still does fall under "suddenly have to change your entire fighting style" for any advanced weapons.)

This gem is from my very first post in this thread:

Bardic Dave wrote:
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.

I'm expecting that apology card in the mail any day now...


Cyouni wrote:
Fighters have a feat that gives advanced weapon proficiency in a single group, that scales with their martial weapon proficiency.

Okay, good. That sounds solid for a fighter.

Is there any way for a non-martial class to gain proficiency in a single weapon or non-advanced group of weapons without either multiclassing or buying two whole tiers?

Because that is all I want. I want a character to be able to invest in a little mundane variety without planned obsolescence making their choice look like a bad one in the future.


Bardic Dave wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:

DeadManWalking comes in and says exactly what some of us have already been saying for the past 3 pages, and now it's an interesting concept when before it was unacceptable power creep? :P I guess you didn't really read some of my earlier posts?

I did actually check back to make sure, and every post I'm seeing is "I want the base Weapon Proficiency general feat to add to your class weapon list for the purposes of scaling".

(I also did check some of your earlier posts, and that still does fall under "suddenly have to change your entire fighting style" for any advanced weapons.)

From my very first post in this thread:

Bardic Dave wrote:
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."
I'm expecting that apology card in the mail any day now...

Still doesn't have the advanced weapon clause, which also does completely defy quite a few things people have constantly said thus far.

Advanced weapons are definitely a large portion of potential problems - take the falcata and falchion from PF1 as good examples regarding exotic weapon proficiency. They're constantly taken because they fit the mold for what advanced weapons are in PF2 - as a weapon, they're straight-up better than martial variants. Even spending two general feats to allow that in PF2 is practically guaranteed to lead to the exact same thing unless you have a particular need for general feats.
For an easy example, take the Orc Necksplitter (1d8, forceful, orc, sweep) or the Dwarven Waraxe (1d8, dwarf, sweep, two-hand d12) and compare to the Battle Axe (1d8, sweep). It creates a heavy press on martials to go grab those advanced weapons, and general feats are a particularly cheap currency compared to class feats.

(I also did note that the problem was primarily regarding what this would result in for martials. If we're willing to go "hey, advanced weapons are completely off-limits for this, get into proper specialization", feel free to have your expert halberd or whatnot.)


Cyouni wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:

DeadManWalking comes in and says exactly what some of us have already been saying for the past 3 pages, and now it's an interesting concept when before it was unacceptable power creep? :P I guess you didn't really read some of my earlier posts?

I did actually check back to make sure, and every post I'm seeing is "I want the base Weapon Proficiency general feat to add to your class weapon list for the purposes of scaling".

(I also did check some of your earlier posts, and that still does fall under "suddenly have to change your entire fighting style" for any advanced weapons.)

From my very first post in this thread:

Bardic Dave wrote:
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."
I'm expecting that apology card in the mail any day now...

Still doesn't have the advanced weapon clause, which also does completely defy quite a few things people have constantly said thus far.

Advanced weapons are definitely a large portion of potential problems - take the falcata and falchion from PF1 as good examples regarding exotic weapon proficiency. They're constantly taken because they fit the mold for what advanced weapons are in PF2 - as a weapon, they're straight-up better than martial variants. Even spending two general feats to allow that in PF2 is practically guaranteed to lead to the exact same thing unless you have a particular need for general feats.
For an easy example, take the Orc Necksplitter (1d8, forceful, orc, sweep) and compare to the Battle Axe (1d8, sweep). It creates a heavy press on martials to go grab those advanced weapons, and general feats are a particularly cheap currency compared to class feats.

(I also did note that the problem was primarily regarding what this would result in for martials. If we're willing...

And your point is... that in my very first post in this thread, I didn't have a good answer to an objection that hadn't been raised yet? I'm not trying to claim I made an unanswerable argument. My point was just that you obviously misunderstood what I was advocating for, probably because you didn't read what I'd written closely enough.

Anyway, I don't particularly care about Advanced Weaponry, and I've never argued for or against any particular viewpoint on that front. I just think there should be a way for a wizard to invest 60% of his total General Feat allotment so he can be an Expert with a halberd if he wants to be. That's all.

EDIT: Or in the alternative, a wizard shouldn't be allowed to invest 40% of his General Feats into a weapon that will work on curve up until level 10, but fall behind permanently thereafter.


Bardic Dave wrote:

And your point is... that I didn't have a good answer to an objection that hadn't been raised yet? I'm not trying to claim I made an unanswerable argument. My point was just that you obviously misunderstood my what I was advocating for, probably because you didn't read what I'd written closely enough.

Anyway, I don't particularly care about Advanced Weaponry, and I've never argued for or against any particular viewpoint on that front. I just think there should be a way for a wizard to invest 60% of his total General Feat allotment so he can be an Expert with a halberd if he wants to be. That's all.

I've uh...been talking about the consequences for advanced weapons pretty much every post I've made.

You did read those, right?


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

And your point is... that I didn't have a good answer to an objection that hadn't been raised yet? I'm not trying to claim I made an unanswerable argument. My point was just that you obviously misunderstood my what I was advocating for, probably because you didn't read what I'd written closely enough.

Anyway, I don't particularly care about Advanced Weaponry, and I've never argued for or against any particular viewpoint on that front. I just think there should be a way for a wizard to invest 60% of his total General Feat allotment so he can be an Expert with a halberd if he wants to be. That's all.

I've uh...been talking about the consequences for advanced weapons pretty much every post I've made.

You did read those, right?

Uh huh, I did. But how does that change the argument as far as the halberd (or other martial weapon) goes? You vehemently argued against allowing wizards to get Expert in the halberd before you brought up advanced weaponry. I can dig up the exact post if you want.

Anyway, I'm exhausted. I need to go to bed. 'Night.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
DeadManWalking comes in and says exactly what some of us have already been saying for the past 3 pages, and now it's an interesting concept when before it was unacceptable power creep? :P I guess you didn't really read some of my earlier posts?
In fairness, I think I was the first to explicitly say that not allowing Advanced Weapons was a viable restriction. A lot of his worry seems to be Advanced Weapons.

If anyone legitimately thought that the people who were suggesting a second General feat to allow advancing proficiency with a single weapon you’re trained in (where we explicitly said Martial weapons and used Martial weapon examples) meant that we wanted Advanced Weapons to have the same treatment is legit just changing their argument because you said something and they generally agree with you.

It was exceedingly obvious what was being discussed so if people are going to play like “oh I was so concerned about advanced weapons I forgot your main premise had nothing to do with it” I’m gonna say that’s pretty unlikely.

“Power creep”, you gotta be kidding me. Expert proficiency at level 11 is powercreep everyone. Greatsword rogues are going to destroy the game even though an Elven curve blade is better than it.

All the arguments for the Fighter MC being devalued blatantly look past innate proficiency of classes that progress.

The Wizard devalues the fighter multiclass at 11! Better remove their standard progression too otherwise the fighter MC will be useless!


How exactly are greatsword rogues going to destroy the game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that was sarcastic hyperbole


I would argue that the problem here isn't the difficulty for the wizard to get Expert proficiency in non-wizard weapons at level 11+. Instead, the problem is that they (and other non-fighty classes) get Expert proficiency in the first place, thereby (a) creating an expectation that at those levels, Expert is the minimum acceptable proficiency, and (b) devaluing the fighter's advantage in proficiency (because if everyone else is at +4, being at +6 or +8 due to Master or Legendary proficiency is less cool than it could be).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

Okay, let me see if I break this down right.

• Wizards have weapon proficiencies.
• Wizards get Expert in those weapons at 13th level.
• Under normal circumstances, you get five general feats in 20 levels.
• You can burn a feat to gain proficiency in a single, solitary weapon with one of those five feats.
• However, that single weapon that you burned a feat for doesn't count as one of your weapons when you hit 13th level and it stays merely Trained.

So now you are 13th level, have spent 20% of your lifetime General Feats because you wanted to be a Wizard with a Halberd, or whatever and now you aren't as good at it as you are with every other weapon you may or may not have used that you didn't burn a feat for.

You COULD spend two of your CLASS feats to be a Wiz/Ftr, but you don't WANT to be a Wiz/Ftr, you just want to have an additional (1) hurty stick with the same cost of living upgrade as the rest of your measly selection of hurty sticks.

And people think this is, what... unfair? Hurting the Fighter's niche?

Am I getting something wrong in the above bullets?

You've nailed it right on the head, except for the 13th level piece (which is 11th for Wizard).

And let's remind everyone, the Wizard example has to spend two General Feats just to get a Halberd trained.

So 40% of your general Feats just to get a Halberd (or more likely a Human), then if we're proposing another Feat (personally, that's a tax but whatever) that's 60% of all their General Feats.

Let's also remember you can spend a General Feat on increasing your saves a proficiency, gain Shield Block (Paladin and Fighter get for free), wear two additional Magic Items above your limit, and take any of the solid options in Skill Feats.

The cost is staggering for someone without Simple Weapons, and still largely unappetizing to those that do but do not get Martials.

Advanced Weapons need not apply, just in case anyone wants to drag that one back out of the mud. We're not talking about weapons that were literally classified as better than the average weapon, just that a particular General Feat maintain its intended role for longer than half the game.

Quote:
I would argue that the problem here isn't the difficulty for the wizard to get Expert proficiency in non-wizard weapons at level 11+. Instead, the problem is that they (and other non-fighty classes) get Expert proficiency in the first place, thereby (a) creating an expectation that at those levels, Expert is the minimum acceptable proficiency, and (b) devaluing the fighter's advantage in proficiency (because if everyone else is at +4, being at +6 or +8 due to Master or Legendary proficiency is less cool than it could be).

You know when I made the tongue in cheek argument that "the level 11 natural progression increase for the wizard devalues the fighter MC", I didn't actually think someone would think that was legit.

The expectation is there because it's the natural progression. It's no different than PF1 1/2 BAB Classes getting a second attack at 11th level. It's literally the same premise.

Would you have made the same argument for Wizards at level 11 that got a second attack in PF1? Was the wizards second attack in PF1 "Overpowered and encroaching on the martial classes" or was it just the natural increase of their 1/2 BAB?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
We're not talking about weapons that were literally classified as better than the average weapon, just that a particular General Feat maintain its intended role for longer than half the game.

Less than half the game, really. You get a general feat at 3rd and 7th, right? So to get one martial weapon outside your class you get it for four levels (maybe less for another class) before it falls behind your free proficiencies?

I don't have to wait for the Game Mastery Guide, that is changing on day one. Your weapon proficiency rank is based on your class. You get more weapons, it is still based on your class, not how many feats you have.


Midnightoker wrote:

You know when I made the tongue in cheek argument that "the level 11 natural progression increase for the wizard devalues the fighter MC", I didn't actually think someone would think that was legit.

The expectation is there because it's the natural progression. It's no different than PF1 1/2 BAB Classes getting a second attack at 11th level. It's literally the same premise.

Would you have made the same argument for Wizards at level 11 that got a second attack in PF1? Was the wizards second attack in PF1 "Overpowered and encroaching on the martial classes" or was it just the natural increase of their 1/2 BAB?

No, the natural progression of anything in PF2 is the +level part of proficiency. Increasing proficiency level from Trained to Expert is a significant increase. In PF1 terms, the equivalent would be to get Weapon Focus or some other feature increasing attack bonus at 11th level. And yes, I would have objected to that too in PF1.

And if wizards had stayed Trained even in wizard weapons through level 20, we would not be having this thread because taking the general Weapon proficiency feat would be enough to have their halberd or longbow skill keep up with their staff skill for their whole career.


Stone Dog wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
We're not talking about weapons that were literally classified as better than the average weapon, just that a particular General Feat maintain its intended role for longer than half the game.

Less than half the game, really. You get a general feat at 3rd and 7th, right? So to get one martial weapon outside your class you get it for four levels (maybe less for another class) before it falls behind your free proficiencies?

I don't have to wait for the Game Mastery Guide, that is changing on day one. Your weapon proficiency rank is based on your class. You get more weapons, it is still based on your class, not how many feats you have.

I'm likely to join you on this. Like I said, I'd like to think this was a mere oversight and could be errata'd or compensated for.

Especially considering advancing proficiency as you level for all classes was tuned heavily from PT to release. It probably just got overlooked.

Staffan Johansson wrote:


No, the natural progression of anything in PF2 is the +level part of proficiency. Increasing proficiency level from Trained to Expert is a significant increase. In PF1 terms, the equivalent would be to get Weapon Focus or some other feature increasing attack bonus at 11th level. And yes, I would have objected to that too in PF1.

And if wizards had stayed Trained even in wizard weapons through level 20, we would not be having this thread because taking the general Weapon proficiency feat would be enough to have their halberd or longbow skill keep up with their staff skill for their whole career.

Except we would be having this thread, because it applies to more than just the Wizard and even more importantly than that:

Enemies get AC increases as you level in tandem with these weapon proficiency increases

You're blaming someone for drowning because they're tied to a certain threshold of proficiency where the opposing proficiency (AC) rises like a high tide.

You want to do it your way?

Remove all the monster AC increases that happen as the game progresses, because that's why the increases exists at all.

And if you would have objected to how 3.5/Pathfinder/3.0 core gameplay mechanic of BAB worked then there's nothing further to discuss. It's a wonder you even play the game at all.

It was never overpowered for a Wizard to get a second attack at level 11, nor was it even particularly a good idea for him to take advantage of it (the same way a Wizard isn't going to want to swing a Quarterstaff at an enemy just because he has Expert proficiency). So the fact that you think it's a problem, when it was never an issue before tells me you have biases I can't overcome.

101 to 150 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.