| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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'll probably hop on that ruling too. As with anything, I run it through a filter of whether I could look my players in the eye and stand firm on the rule.
If a player spends a feat to use a weapon, then ten levels later find out that they're suddenly relatively worse with that weapon than weapons they haven't even picked up this whole time, I won't be able to look them in the eye.
I don't see a compelling balance reason for it.
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.
Yeah, if the game was balanced differently we'd be having a different conversation. I'm not sure why that's really relevant though.
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.
It's also kind of weird to suggest that the thing that literally every class in the game gets is not something that's part of what the game assumes characters will have.
we would not be having this thread
Back to this though, it's simply not true. The problem with unarmed combat and rogues and any future class that gets a specialized list of weapons or wants to step out of the default assumptions of the class would still be an issue even if wizards were worse at using weapons.
Unless you're suggesting every class in the game get capped at trained and then the game get rebalanced around that assumption. Which... is basically just doing what I was asking for in the first place but in reverse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A thought- something like the Blade Arcanist would work much better in PF2 where BAB is no longer a thing. So could we do a Wizard class archetype which adds a specific martial weapon to the Wizard's weapon proficiencies and advances it the same way? What would be a reasonable cost for this, other than a 2nd level class feat?
A thought- something like the Blade Arcanist would work much better in PF2 where BAB is no longer a thing. So could we do a Wizard class archetype which adds a specific martial weapon to the Wizard's weapon proficiencies and advances it the same way? What would be a reasonable cost for this, other than a 2nd level class feat?
You could probably just do it as a Thesis, but then we're getting off into the "is this a Magus" territory like the other thread.
Either that or a Class Feat with some kind of limited prerequisite, or an Archetype could suffice (a non-MC one that is).
Well, class archetypes are going to exist, even if there aren't any in the CRB. As I understand it the way they work is they can only be taken by members of a specific class, you can only have one, they cost your level 2 feat even if you take them at level 1, and they can alter or replace class features.
I think that's probably a good way to get unusual weapon proficiency on a number of classes (though so are subclasses- give me a more martial druid order please), but I want to see how one works first.
I would rather hope that a 'magus' archetype would be general for spellcasters and not wizard specific - but there we go again -> some people wouldn't want to take a dedication
I feel like there are going to be a bunch of different ways to combine "spellcasting" and "skill at arms". In addition to multiclass archetype, we can have general archetypes, subclasses, and class archetypes. If after all of that there are still gishes people want to play but can't, then we look at new classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there are going to be a bunch of different ways to combine "spellcasting" and "skill at arms". In addition to multiclass archetype, we can have general archetypes, subclasses, and class archetypes. If after all of that there are still gishes people want to play but can't, then we look at new classes.
Agree. I mean, PF1 was basically built on its gishy classes, not to mention things with varying degrees of success like blade adepts and eldritch knights. Variety is good and there's enough distinctive design space between a wizard with a sword, a fighter who dabbles in magic and a proper battlemage that tries to blend both for there to be room for them all to coexist.
*went over the discussion after he went to bed last night*
Nope, I haven't changed my mind. Things work as they are, IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*went over the discussion after he went to bed last night*
Nope, I haven't changed my mind. Things work as they are, IMO.
Unless you really want to play something that isn't Paizo Approved™ like a Sorcerer in heavy armor that isn't also a paladin, or an unarmed rogue... or fighter... or anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A very niche case situation, hmmmm. As someone who won't be running pfs I would probably make it a background choice or create a general feat(3) that increases a single trained weapon to whatever your current class weapon training is. (Continuing to scale of course)
Yes it is a tax, but if I wanted anyone to do everything without restriction I would have to start considering general feats for cantrips and that does open up a can of worms.
As someone who both has the book and is currently playing a Sorcerer/Barbarian in the playtest, I think that things are generally fine as they are for weapons, but that there really needs to be more ways to get better than trained in armor your class doesn't give access to. There's a fair number of ways to get expert in weapons that your class doesn't give proficiency in, and if you're doing a gish build then there's a good number of buffs that can make up the difference in to-hit (personally I use heroism). However, the ONLY way to get better than trained in armor your class doesn't give proficiency in is to MC champion, which doesn't work thematically for the vast majority of builds. If your class doesn't start with armor proficiencies, the earliest you can get heavy armor if you're not a human is level 11, and at that point you'll have more AC unarmored when you get expert proficiency in unarmored defense in 2 levels. It's pretty ridiculous that pretty much any gish WILL be wearing no armor because armor would reduce their AC.
|
What exactly does the wording say on the Expert advancement? Could it be construed to say/mean (or changed to) "all weapons you are Trained in you become Expert in". That would fix the issues as I understand them. Or read the feat that gives you the proficiency in that 1 weapon you want to say "This weapon is now treated as a Class weapon for your character".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you really want to play something that isn't Paizo Approved™ like a Sorcerer in heavy armor that isn't also a paladin, or an unarmed rogue... or fighter... or anything.*went over the discussion after he went to bed last night*
Nope, I haven't changed my mind. Things work as they are, IMO.
And? I want to play a kineticist. I can't in the current system, because they haven't put out things to support it. I'd like to play an arcanist, but the rules don't support that, either. I'd like to play a summoner, and the current rules don't really make that possible.
Archetypes will happen, presumably ones that will adjust armor and weapon proficiencies. I could see a 'battle-mage' class archetype for wizard or sorcerer that allow armor use, including heavy armor. I could see an archetype for anyone to allow them to specialize in unarmed attacks.
My point, the one I've been making over and over again, is I don't think that general feats should give huge math boosts like proficiency increases. I dislike that they have even the basic armor and weapon proficiencies, but I'll admit that it's the best place for them given the current rules.
Personally, I just wish that Paizo had at least created a pool of 'universal' Class Feats for things like this, much like there are universal general feats as well as the skill feats, but that ship sailed months ago.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I want to draw attention to something that I find a bit disturbing.
It seems that people are okay with having to multiclass fighter if you want to be able to scratch your butt.
Now, multiclassing is easier in this edition, and stronger, and more encouraged to flesh out ideas. That doesn't mean every problem of game design should be solved by requiring someone to multiclass. In fact, it would be better if the only time you need to multiclass is if you *strongly* desire the flavor of the class you're dipping into added onto your character.
"Being Goood With Weapons" is apparently the fantasy that they wanted Fighter to have (even though it's problematic as it stands, we'll ignore that for now). Advancing a weapon in line with other Wizard weapon proficiencies isn't even coming close to "Being Good With Weapons", it's "Being Slightly Less Awful at This One Weapon"
You should be forced to multiclass fighter if you want to be able to do cool unique things with the weapon that the fighter is hanging their hat on, not just to slightly fix numbers. Remember that this edition is about reducing pure number feats?
Problems with forcing everything through multiclassing:
1. Uses up valuable feats that could be used for actually cool stuff, rather than honestly pretty innocuous things like picking up a different weapon
2. Forces people to interact with a subsystem they might not want to. PF1 was essentially founded on the principle that multiclassing shouldn't be necessary. PF2 shouldn't do a 180.
3. Waters down the multiclassing system. When you take a multiclass dedication, you should feel like you're becoming part of that class. It shouldn't just be mechanics only dip, or we'll lose the flavor.
4. Locks you out of dedications that you actually WANT to take. The required minimum number of feats before changing to a new dedication still made it to the final system, right?
Now, in my opinion, letting someone spend a feat and use a weapon they like from then on at exactly the same skill level relative to the rest of their other weapon options is so far from breaking the game it's not even worth writing this post. Asking them to spend an additional feat to do the same thing? Least broken house rule I've ever heard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that while we have only the CRB, we should try to play characters which are enabled by rules, not the things that are not. Considering Paizo will keep adding more books and thus more options, we will be able to play characters we can't currently. I feel like it's more constructive to phrase requests in terms of "I would like to play this kind of character" rather than "I require this specific method to enable this character."
And? I want to play a kineticist. I can't in the current system, because they haven't put out things to support it. I'd like to play an arcanist, but the rules don't support that, either. I'd like to play a summoner, and the current rules don't really make that possible.
Yeah, but what you said is that you're fine with things as they are. In that case that would mean never adding the kineticist or arcanist or summoner.
is I don't think that general feats should give huge math boosts like proficiency increases.
Most of the things that have been suggested aren't huge math boosts though. Some of them aren't even math boosts at all.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Advancing a weapon in line with other Wizard weapon proficiencies isn't even coming close to "Being Good With Weapons", it's "Being Slightly Less Awful at This One Weapon"
The problem is that for every wizard that wants his halberd because it looks like he's a proto-runelord there are 10 players that will pick the strongest weapon they can find to min-max their character for optimization. Martial weapons are objectively better than their simple weapon counterparts. As are advanced weapons for martials. The decision was made that if you want to be good at these weapons you have to either be a martial class, multiclass into that class or be a specific race that grants access to that weapon. As begin to encroach upon the features of another class, you begin to cheapen that class. Once a sorcerer or bard becomes as good with a martial weapon as a native martial class that the impetus to play that class is reduced. Without BAB, the only thing that makes a martial class better at what it does than a non-martial class is weapon proficiencies. Jealously guarding that ability isn't calling "wrong-bad-fun", it's guarding against every unique ability of a class like the fighter being stripped away leaving you with little to no reason to play one.
Yes, the wizard gets to expert in weapons as a class feature, but on a very limited list. They also get access to the entirety (common) of the arguably strongest spell list in the game. If you want to be a unique wizard that swings around a great axe, that's fine. But you shouldn't expect to be as good at it as a class that has a natural proficiency in it. Maybe there will be an archetype in the future that gives you access to a specific weapon or weapon group, but again that is spending CLASS feats to get not general feats.
It's not that you can't have what you want, you just don't want to pay the cost to get there.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, how about this as a test run.
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally as if that weapon was included with the proficiencies granted by your class.
And? I want to play a kineticist. I can't in the current system, because they haven't put out things to support it. I'd like to play an arcanist, but the rules don't support that, either. I'd like to play a summoner, and the current rules don't really make that possible.Yeah, but what you said is that you're fine with things as they are. In that case that would mean never adding the kineticist or arcanist or summoner.
is I don't think that general feats should give huge math boosts like proficiency increases.Most of the things that have been suggested aren't huge math boosts though. Some of them aren't even math boosts at all.
I said I'm fine with things as they are, and I am. This is the core rulebook. I didn't have any of those things in the original PF core rules either.
As for not being math boosts, anything that increases something from Trained to Expert is a math boost by its very nature. That's why I wouldn't have an issue with a class feat boosting a trained proficiency in weapons or armor to Expert, but I do have an issue with the idea of general feats doing it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you shouldn't expect to be as good at it as a class that has a natural proficiency in it.
Agreed! Every class that has a natural proficiency in it is either better at it by 11th level or has been equal to it for a while. AND they have more combat abilities as well.
I don't think anybody is claiming that wizards should be able to match martials for fighting prowess. They should just be able to use the prowess they already have with a weapon that they pay a feat for.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that for every wizard that wants his halberd because it looks like he's a proto-runelord there are 10 players that will pick the strongest weapon they can find to min-max their character for optimization. Martial weapons are objectively better than their simple weapon counterparts. As are advanced weapons for martials. The decision was made that if you want to be good at these weapons you have to either be a martial class, multiclass into that class or be a specific race that grants access to that weapon. As begin to encroach upon the features of another class, you begin to cheapen that class. Once a sorcerer or bard becomes as good with a martial weapon as a native martial class that the impetus to play that class is reduced. Without BAB, the only thing that makes a martial class better at what it does than a non-martial class is weapon proficiencies. Jealously guarding that ability isn't calling "wrong-bad-fun", it's guarding against every unique ability of a class like the fighter being stripped away leaving you with little to no reason to play one.
Yes, the wizard gets to expert in weapons as a class feature, but on a very limited list. They also get access to the entirety (common) of the arguably strongest spell list in the game. If you want to be a unique wizard that swings around a great axe, that's fine. But you shouldn't expect to be as good at it as a class that has a natural proficiency in it. Maybe there will be an archetype in the future that gives you access to a specific weapon or weapon group, but again that is spending CLASS feats to get not general feats.
It's not that you can't have what you want, you just don't want to pay the cost to get there.
Look at it another way, though.
Picking the martial weapon proficiency feat is a math feat. It's already out of place. It's not much different from getting +2 damage with clubs.
At 11th level, the math of falling behind 2 points in accuracy totally wipes out the extra benefit of the earlier feat.
It's essentially a math feat with a sunset date, which violates two design principles of the game.
If you have to multiclass to gain super basic wizard-level competence with martial weapons, the general feat shouldn't exist, since it's a trap option.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And? I want to play a kineticist. I can't in the current system, because they haven't put out things to support it. I'd like to play an arcanist, but the rules don't support that, either. I'd like to play a summoner, and the current rules don't really make that possible.Yeah, but what you said is that you're fine with things as they are. In that case that would mean never adding the kineticist or arcanist or summoner.
is I don't think that general feats should give huge math boosts like proficiency increases.Most of the things that have been suggested aren't huge math boosts though. Some of them aren't even math boosts at all.I said I'm fine with things as they are, and I am. This is the core rulebook. I didn't have any of those things in the original PF core rules either.
As for not being math boosts, anything that increases something from Trained to Expert is a math boost by its very nature. That's why I wouldn't have an issue with a class feat boosting a trained proficiency in weapons or armor to Expert, but I do have an issue with the idea of general feats doing it.
Ah yes the Kineticist and general weapon usage have the exact same parity and rules bearing as each other.
Not at all another false equivalence.
And if you want to be obtuse and call any proficiency increase a "math" thing, then there's a bunch of proficiency increases across the board for everyone.
The point of Proficiency is to remove the need for those feats.
By making a Trained Weapon feat that doesn't scale at all, you've created a "penalty" feat.
Are you going to continue to plead willful ignorance on the fact that Trained->Expert proficiency is to compensate for Enemy AC increased Proficiency? Or we just gonna stuff our head in the sand on that one?
Because then I want to see the Uncanny Acumen removed from the game on the same flimsy logic.
It means that you can let the +level part handle the "treadmill", and have proficiency increases actually mean that you get better at handling even equal-level challenges.
Are you trolling me?
Literally, this is why Wizards get Expert at level 11 at all, to stay relevant to same level encounters
Monster/NPC AC increases on the exact same premise.
I mean I'm just baffled.
"I like that proficiency is a meaningful increase and it allows you to stay on par with encounters for your level!"
but then your stance is still:
"I hate the increase that's there to make sure you stay on par for your level!"
*scratches head*
Yea, I'm firmly in the RAW camp on this one. To say the General feat is a trap, feels disingenuous.
1: There's not a lot you can do with a General Feat.
2: You absolutely get objectively better benefits from level X -> 11.
3: a -2 to hit is super close to 2 dmg.
4: I disagree with the assumption that Monster's AC scales at the same pace as PC's weapon proficiency. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. I want to see analysis on the bestiary. From my rough napkin math I'm leaning towards PC's to-hit out scales Monster's AC as they level.
5: Retraining.
Finally, there is literally a mechanic in game to achieve the OP's request.
There will always be sub-optimal choices. But in Second you are punished FAAAR less for making those "sub-optimal" choices than you were in 1st.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who are saying math boosters in general feats are wrong, you should look at canny acumen, which boosts either perception or a save to expert and then to master at 17th. So at least on the math improvement front there is precedent
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with things as they are, and I am. This is the core rulebook. I didn't have any of those things in the original PF core rules either.
Yes you did. It is the feat Weapon Proficiency. It is available at 1st level.
...I do have an issue with the idea of general feats doing it.
I agree. It should be a skill feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: There's not a lot you can do with a General Feat.
Totally.
Except Shield Block, Uncanny Acumen (an expert save increase), increased Magic Item limit Feat, More hitpoints, and any skill feat.
Basically nothing.
2: You absolutely get objectively better benefits from level X -> 11.
I'd love to see how "objectively" the Wizard's Halberd, which took two feats to even use, is so much better than the Quarter staff when they could have selected anything.
3: a -2 to hit is super close to 2 dmg.
No it absolutely is not. Not even in the ballpark. -10% chance to hit in no way equates to the loss in damage.
And remember, you spent resources for that.
Not even gonna touch the Critical Success/Failure aspect, which SIGNIFICANTLY defeats the argument (where +2/-2 makes a huge difference).
4: I disagree with the assumption that Monster's AC scales at the same base as PC's weapon proficiency. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not.
Oh, let me clear it up for you:
It is true.
Retraining.
Finally, there is literally a mechanic in game to achieve the OP's request.
There will always be sub-optimal choices. But in Second you are punished FAAAR less for making those "sub-optimal" choices than you were in 1st.
One, this is not OP's request.
Two, you literally just admitted it's a trap.
Nothing to see here guys! It doesn't matter because this person said it doesn't matter!
Doesn't matter that the claim and logic behind it is sound, nope, this person said "it's k cuz Paizo said so".
For those who are saying math boosters in general feats are wrong, you should look at canny acumen, which boosts either perception or a save to expert and then to master at 17th. So at least on the math improvement front there is precedent
But that doesn't further the narrative that there is nothing wrong! BOO!
Ah yes the Kineticist and general weapon usage have the exact same parity and rules bearing as each other.
Not at all another false equivalence.
No more than you ignoring anyone who doesn't agree with you. They aren't in the core rules doesn't mean that an option won't exist in the future. Right now, based on what I've seen in the Core Rulebook and Bestiary, I see no problem with things as they stand.
However, I haven't played the game yet. Shock of shocks, none of my friends have their books yet, so it isn't possible. I have no idea how it will work out in play. Maybe I'll change my mind!
But as it stands right now, I'm not changing my mind.
I'm fine with things as they are, and I am. This is the core rulebook. I didn't have any of those things in the original PF core rules either.Yes you did. It is the feat Weapon Proficiency. It is available at 1st level.
Wrong. Arcanist, Kineticist, and Summoner weren't in the core rules.
Except Shield Block, Uncanny Acumen (an expert save increase), increased Magic Item limit Feat, More hitpoints, and any skill feat.
Basically nothing.
You're the one going on about false equivalency. I see a lot of Defensive options, but no Offensive Options (which is the underlying request).
No it absolutely is not. Not even in the ballpark. -10% chance to hit in no way equates to the loss in damage.
So I can't actually model the specific scenario, because I don't have my book on me. Which I will do once I get home to shed some light on all of this.
But, based on my preliminary assumptions, the +2 to hit only overtakes the +2 to damage when the +2 to dmg needs to roll a 15 on the die. And then it's only 2% better. And the higher damage is going to benefit from flanking, other circumstance bonuses to hit, item bonus to hit, etc. . .
Whereas there is not a ton you can do to increase your damage, other than be a barbarian or pick up a heavier weapon.
But, I've done a lot of modeling, and a 1 to hit and 1 to damage are very close in equivalency.
Oh, let me clear it up for you:
It is true.
I'd be interested in seeing how you arrived to this.
Two, you literally just admitted it's a trap.
I admitted nothing. I admitted there are weaker choices and stronger choices, and in second it's more ok to make weaker choices for flavor.
The implication being if hypothetically only being trained in Halberds was a weaker choice, who cares, it's fine.
If you looked at my post I indicated multi class fighter into a wizard and yes they then would get spells. As far as I am concerned casters should not get weapon proficiency at all. Explain to me how that makes sense. The assumption is that using weapons is easy enough for a caster to gain proficiency in doing it. So PF2 is quite generous in its proficiency system. I am fine with it. To argue somehow that casters are being snubbed makes me smile some.
Also the idea that changing out weapons is an easy thing is also nonsense. Using a mace versuses a club is a big difference. This, my point about changing out weapons and being trained in a variety of weapons is a fighter class feature to the board extent they are proficient with a variety of weapons and the highest proficiency.
So, I figured the greatest gap disadvantage a Wizard using their "best" native melee weapon a 2 handed staff verse their trained "best" martial a Greatsword was at level 13 when Wizard's get Weapon Specialization with Expert Weapons.
The summary of which the Staff is better. At it's absolute best it's 25% more Damage per round. If you're standing still and attacking 3 times a round. But generally it's somewhere around 7 - 15% more DPR (AC depending).
This assuming:
For the staff:
+2 Potency Rune, Expert +4, and a Str of +4 (Start at 16, boost it twice by lvl 13) for a total of +10 to hit, level adjusted.
Damage was: Wielding it 2 handed (D8), greater striking rune (2D8), Strength +4, and Weapon Specialization (+2).
Great Sword was
+2 for Trained, +2 for Potency, +4 for Str for a +8 total level adjusted to-hit.
D12 for damage, 2D12 Greater striking, and 4 for strength.
The AC is level adjusted. Without Weapon specialization it's much tighter.
Roll AC In Favor of Staff
7 15 3.09%
8 16 5.87%
9 17 9.53%
10 18 14.59%
11 19 15.25%
12 20 8.91%
13 21 6.69%
14 22 10.64%
15 23 16.17%
16 24 24.47%
17 25 18.54%
However, I still maintain you want to be a weapon wielding Wizard, take Fighter Dedication feat.
The General level feat is still worth it for a ton of levels. Certainly through levels 7 -> 12.
Below is No weapon specialization for the staff. With the Greatsword being super close until needing a 15 on the die.
Roll | AC | No Weapon Spec.
7 15 8.08%
8 16 5.25%
9 17 1.73%
10 18 -2.76%
11 19 -3.31%
12 20 2.31%
13 21 4.44%
14 22 0.71%
15 23 -4.08%
16 24 -10.48%
17 25 -6.00%
Edit: The formating of the tables is jacked, and I gotta run. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once a sorcerer or bard becomes as good with a martial weapon as a native martial class that the impetus to play that class is reduced.
Which, for like the third time, has never at any point been the request this thread is about.
I don't really get the point of even posting if you're going to just talk about something completely unrelated to the thread every single time.
It's not that you can't have what you want, you just don't want to pay the cost to get there.
Also, once again. As it stands right now there is literally no way for a rogue to reach proficiency parity with any nonrogue weapon by high levels.
There is no way for any class in the entire game to keep their unarmed proficiency up. Even the fighter can't do it.
So yes, it really is can't.
Even in the situations where it isn't the costs are often so steep or so specific that it just becomes absurd. Two class feats to get a weapon that might not even increase your damage? 14 Charisma required for anyone to learn how to use armor? I'm not sure how any of these things somehow preserve the integrity of the game.
...Looks like we've been banished to the homebrew subforum now.
A rogue should not gain proficiency pariety with non rogue weapons. Why should they?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A rogue should not gain proficiency pariety with non rogue weapons. Why should they?
Because I think people should be able to RP the character they want without being smashed over the head with giant to-hit penalties that often don't come with anything close to commensurate bonuses.
Paizo is effectively penalizing people for wanting to do something different, often with no balance merit behind these choices, which seems fundamentally at odds with PF2's much touted modular design philosophy and emphasis on character customization. I think that's pretty lame.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm honestly more concerned about lack of ways to improve armor proficiency.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Also trained is basically the good base progression from 3.5/PF1. What proficiency is beyond that is an added bonus like specialization. It is an extra bonus on top of level. So I do not see how they are that far behind. So the balance metric is trained and if you multiclass into a fighter expert. Which is certainly a balance metric.
So if what you want is to trade out d4 weapon for d4 weapon fine house rule it and say the rogue was trained by a different group and the favored rogue weapon is B instead of A. I think that is perfectly fine. If you want to switch that weapon from a d4 to d12. Well, that may be different. However, it is your table do what you want. I do not think these should be official rules though in the case of d4 to d12.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth pointing out that while people are straw-man-ing about asking for pure casters to be as good as martials, this issue applies even to casters who multiclass into a martial class that isn't fighter.
A wizard who takes the barbarian multiclass will do *more damage* with a staff than a cool, thematic barbarian weapon like a greatsword, because not only will they be more likely to hit with it, they don't get weapon specialization damage because they're not expert, so a d8 weapon you're expert in does the same damage as a d12 weapon you're trained in.
It doesn't seem like too much to ask that someone who has put significant resources into being barbarian-y be as effective with thematically appropriate martial weapons than with whatever different sizes of sticks paizo thinks wizards should be able to use.
The correct answer is to multiclass into a caster from a martial base for these characters that you guys seem to want to play.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The correct answer is to multiclass into a caster from a martial base for these characters that you guys seem to want to play.
Which brings up its own, entirely separate issues (like how you can't access spontaneous heightening ever via multiclass, which severely inhibits an x/sorcerer in ways that it doesn't for an x/wizard).
Also I kinda feel like telling someone to rebuild their entire character from the ground up just to equip a different weapon or piece of armor does an amazing job highlighting just how over the top these restrictions are.
So how did you do that in PF1 ohh you did not. So I really find it odd you want to say how odd restrictions are when they were worse in PF1. It seems you want to trade out weapons that could require different proficiencies than what the class gives in PF2.
Saying over and over again that trained does not scale is not true. You add your level which does scale. In fact it scales at the good base attack bonuses from PF1. As reminder caster had the bad scaling which was +10 and +5 at 20th level. PF2 it is 20 at level 20.
What many want is to you what their class features may give them at expert or master and switch to weapons and armor that are not part of their class. When I mentioned fighters getting spells it was pointed out that this was nonsense since fighters to not get spells as class. Well, if you do not get the weapon and armor you want as part of the class e and do not want to multi class than the argument you should is nonsense. Since it is not part of your class. Just like spells are not part of the fighter class.
Sorry you in the above post should be take.
What many want is to take what their class features give.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how did you do that in PF1
We took the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat.
That way we could have an additional weapon that scaled the same way as all our other weapons.
We don't want to be as good as Fighters. We just want to be as good at the weapons we spent build currency for as the we are with the ones that were free.