Since those weapons are tied to a class, then my stance is no. I like the RAW. Also trained does scale, just not as well as the class weapons.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since those weapons are tied to a class, then my stance is no. I like the RAW. Also trained does scale, just not as well as the class weapons.
By that logic, PF1 didn't need any Weapon Proficiency Feats at all, since non-proficient weapons still scaled at Level -4.
Which is to say that scaling in such a way that all other options leave you behind isn't real scaling. Leaving aside how or even whether this issue should be fixed, acting like weapons are still meaningfully usable after falling behind in Proficiency is just not correct.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can definitely see a case for "by default wizards are encouraged to use iconic wizard weapons" and that things like "gun wizard" or "sword wizard" or "trebuchet wizard" are best suited for archetypes.
So with PF1 a wizard at 20th level who is non proficient had 10-4 is 6 to hit at 20th level. A trained PF2 is level plus 2. So I am not sure how that does not scale. Expert is level +4. There should be no bonus at all for Wizard who picks up great sword and is not trained. -2 is not really leaving you behind.
Also that statement is in conjunction with being able to swap out your class weapons for whatever you feel like. I am not in favor of that.
So in essence you have the class weapons that will cap at expert and if you take a weapon feat trained. So at 20 the level it is 24 to hit for class weapons and 22 for trained. PF1 it is +10 at level 20. So I fail to see how bad it is. In PF1 there was no way a Wizard was hitting on any regular basis a level appropriate targets AC with melee attacks. In PF2 there is chance. So it is not true that trained does not scale much better than it did for wizards in PF1.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So with PF1 a wizard at 20th level who is non proficient had 10-4 is 6 to hit at 20th level. A trained PF2 is level plus 2. So I am not sure how that does not scale. Expert is level +4. There should be no bonus at all for Wizard who picks up great sword and is not trained. -2 is not really leaving you behind.
Someone without Proficiency in PF1 is at -4 compared to someone with it. Likewise, someone at Trained in PF2 is always -2 behind someone at Expert...and that -2 matters more than the -4 did in PF1.
A Wizard is better off in PF2 than PF1, I'll grant, but the point stands that not getting to Expert is the same sort of penalty not getting Proficiency was in PF1.
Also that statement is in conjunction with being able to swap out your class weapons for whatever you feel like. I am not in favor of that.
This is a fine argument for Weapon Proficiency not existing as a Feat. It's a worse one for the odd in-between situation we have now.
So in essence you have the class weapons that will cap at expert and if you take a weapon feat trained. So at 20 the level it is 24 to hit for class weapons and 22 for trained. PF1 it is +10 at level 20. So I fail to see how bad it is. In PF1 there was no way a Wizard was hitting on any regular basis a level appropriate targets AC with melee attacks. In PF2 there is chance. So it is not true that trained does not scale much better than it did for wizards in PF1.
Every bonus matters quite a bit more in PF2 than it did in PF1. A difference of -2 is pretty huge in PF2.
I would agree. I would say expert is slightly better than the bad base progression bonus. With PF1 it was 10 vs 20 without modifiers. PF2 it is 22 or 24 vs 28 without modifiers.
Also I think it is totally on point with expert being it for casters when it comes to melee and ranged. It is not their primary mode of attack like Martials which are Master and Legendary. So expert works just fine for me. There was also the idea that classes should be able to trade out what weapons their class gives them. Not fine with that either. If it is purely for an RP reason fine. Let the character swap out weapons same damage type. That is an easy fix that does not need rule. If it is a different damage type. D6 to D8 then I would say no. That is me though.
What I think was being advocated for is having the PF2 feat be able to increase to the class cap. So the wizard becomes trained with a great sword and be able to increase that to the class cap expert. My point is I do not think they should be able to do that. They can be trained with the great sword and expert with the class weapons.
This where I will agree to disagree with the original poster.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Wizard is better off in PF2 than PF1, I'll grant, but the point stands that not getting to Expert is the same sort of penalty not getting Proficiency was in PF1.I would argue that not getting to Expert is more akin to having a bad BAB in PF1.
While I realize that the ship has already sailed and returned with a couple of tons of already-printed books, I reject the idea that Expert rank in anything should ever be expected for normal tasks at higher levels. Trained should be the baseline, even at level 20.
Every single class that currently exists in the game has Expert in some weapons at 11. You can't play a character not expert at weapons at high levels.
So I would say, yeah, Expert is required and expected. Otherwise why are wizards getting it at 11? They even get weapon specialization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also every ancestry has access to ancestry weapons they can increase to expert with a level 13 ancestry feat. It's thus literally impossible to deny an entire class access to expert weapon proficiency. So wizards who want to use a longsword are encouraged to be elves, wizards who want to use a battleaxe are encouraged to be dwarves, etc. I think in the meantime (more options will come later) that's probably fine.
Biggest issue is that there's a blip between for levels 11-12 where the wizard gets expert proficiency in wizard stuff at 11, but expert proficiency from the fighter dedicaton comes online at 12 whereas ancestral weapons go expert at 13.
But since each of these options is a 2 feat investment, I don't know if a level 11 general feat to get expert weapon proficiency wouldn't just be better than those two options, which is probably a thing they just wouldn't do. I don't think "I spent 2 general feats on this" should be a more efficient option than "I spent 2 class feats on this" or "I spent 2 ancestry feats on this." An efficiency edge should probably go to the more thematic options rather than the most general one.
I would agree with Staffan on the proficiencies. However, since that ship has sailed I would say that keeping classes locked in at expert with their class weapon. If they want different weapons they can become trained. It would be required and expected at expert for the class weapons and ancestry and nothing else.
I will say that the class feats in PF2 do a nice job of separating martial classes and what they can do with weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OP is right about more ways to improve weapon proficiency. I can easily see a General Feat chain that allows you to improve maybe individual weapon training? There’s a feat for Trained, like the OP said, so a feat for Expert and then a feat for Master that’s level restricted seems fine. Does is step on the Fighter? Not even close. Having to make a feat investment for something a class gets for free does not devalue something; actually quite the opposite. The Fighter MC also allows up to expert in ALL simple, martial, and trained in advanced weapons. OP has stated multiple times they aren’t interested in introducing power creep, but rather more options. I am certainly in favor of this.
To me expert is already a little high for casters. So restricting it to the class and ancestry weapons is what I will do as DM and is RAW. However, it should not be to hard to add single feat to allow for the trained to expert for weapons outside class and ancestry. I would be cautious about master.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a question worth having is that in what situations is a wizard really better off bopping a level appropriate foe with a weapon as opposed to casting a spell - after level 11. I think anyone looking to make anything resembling a melee wizard is going to be heavily invested in archetyping and multiclassing, not just for weapons but the armor and the HP you also lack.
It feels like we're giving wizards expert proficiency with staves, etc. for those extremely rare situation in which a wizard wants to whack someone with a magical staff instead of casting a spell, even a cantrip. I mean, Shield is one action.
So, having slogged through this entire miserable nightmare of a thread, I just have two words for everyone, words tied to the more Golarion-focused approach Paizo is using in 2E, which address notions of spellcasters in armor or swinging sharp pointy things around:
Hellknight Signifier.
Hang tight, kiddos. We'll get there eventually. Yes, out of the core book, a wizard with a polearm a la Runelords is going to be mechanical trash.
Just like they were in 1E when all you had to work with was the core book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, having slogged through this entire miserable nightmare of a thread, I just have two words for everyone, words tied to the more Golarion-focused approach Paizo is using in 2E, which address notions of spellcasters in armor or swinging sharp pointy things around:
Hellknight Signifier.
Hang tight, kiddos. We'll get there eventually. Yes, out of the core book, a wizard with a polearm a la Runelords is going to be mechanical trash.
Just like they were in 1E when all you had to work with was the core book.
Signifiers’ schtick was wearing armor, not weapon fighting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like we're giving wizards expert proficiency with staves, etc. for those extremely rare situation in which a wizard wants to whack someone with a magical staff instead of casting a spell, even a cantrip. I mean, Shield is one action.
And in the scenario that this particular Wizard, who's thesis is heavily tethered to studies of the moon, decides he wants to use a scimitar as sort of his "iconic" identity as an adventurer, so he invests a General Feat in it:
Shouldn't this same Wizard just be able to swing at Expert in the event he needs to wack someone?
Any other Wizard could select Uncanny Acumen, a Knowledge Skill Trick, etc.
Why can't he just be as good as he is at swinging the staff as swinging a slightly different weapon that he spent a General Feat to get?
Even if the Feat came with a "At level X, you can add a single weapon not normally on your class proficiency list to your class proficiency list" tag line, that would suffice.
There was an intriguing response on the All Seeing Orb thread that alluded that this is already a thing? That general proficiency means it gets added to your base pool, but I feel like if that was actually the case there would have been more voice here.
Perhaps they just meant the racial weapons though.
Regardless, Fighter MC grants much more than a single weapon matching proficiency. And it grants it much earlier and it costs a LOT more to do it (and locks you out of other concepts).
This is not some weird edge-case, it's a common thing players will do and "MC into Fighter" should not be the answer to everything (or require backwards build choices just to supplement the use of a weapon).
Drawing a convoluted map to Rome and saying "see it's fine, there's no need for a road to go right here" is weak. We need a road that doesn't involve going through Fighter-ville.
Just about any polearm is easier to learn and use than a staff. The sharp bit helps quite a lot.
Maybe we should just give wizards polearm proficiency?
It's a little silly but if we really want to be rational it's a better choice. A spear can do most things a quarterstaff can and one very important thing that it can't.
That said, it's weird to me that fighters are essentially the only full BAB class in this edition. I assume that will change if we get classes like the samurai that are equally "weapon focused".
As this thread is in the homebrew section I guess that means the developers intended for Multi classing to be the only way for wizards (and others) to obtain higher than trained proficiency in non class weapons.
While I understand the angst, I am okay with this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven’t read the 200 + posts (might when I have more time) but I don’t quite understand .
Every class gets +1 to attack per level . The only variation is between 0 and 8 for proficiency. Start giving out too many proficiency increases and you end up back in a situation where those with the highest proficiency get made redundant .
This was always one of the main complaints of 3.5 and the 3.5 chassis and pathfinder as well:
- within a few spells a Druid or cleric could out melee many materials (3.5)
- almost every class did skills just as well as a rogue but usually got spells or equivalent as well (PF)
Unless I have missed something of a wizard has similar strength to a fighter then the final different (i assume) in their attack roll will be +8 - this is less than in PF1.
I have clearly missed something from not having opportunity to read the full thread (my guess is wizard to too extreme and example)
Caveat: don’t have the book yet so there could be nuances I am missing
I haven’t read the 200 + posts (might when I have more time) but I don’t quite understand .
There is a post about two pages ago from Stone Dog that sums it up rather nicely.
The problem is this:
- The game currently expects a reasonable progression of proficiency based on Class role
- Roles have distinct weaknesses and strengths which guide when they receive proficiency upgrades (Fighter's gain Master at 7th in weapons, Paladins gain Master in armor at 7th, Wizards gain Expert in weapons at 11th level, Rogues get Expert in Reflex at 7th, and so on and so forth)
- These increases in proficiency are not just for Class power, they are also to allow the character to match up with encounters of their level. This is why all Classes at least get Expert in Weapons by 11th level and all classes eventually get Expert (or higher) in even their weakest Saves.
- If you select a weapon outside of your Class, you can do this through a variety of ways, one of which is the General Feat for Weapon Proficiency
- This Feat does not add the weapon to your default Class pool, which means, that if you select any weapon outside your Class pool of weapons that weapon will not increase with your natural Proficiency progressions (Rogue, Barbarian, Wizard, or anyone)
- Because the Feat does not scale, it becomes optimal for a Wizard/Rogue/whatever to switch back to a weapon on their Class Proficiency list and retrain the General Feat to some other useful feat.
The biggest problem is essentially the General Feat is a trap feat, because at level 11 it is effectively a "-2" to use your weapon you've used for the last 10 levels (not even 10, since you don't get it at 1st level in normal circumstances).
The context of the Druid/Cleric argument:
This does not apply anymore for a variety of reasons, if only for the fact that buff spells do not really exist like they did in the previous context, but this change does not affect that.
Clerics/Druids are actually not affected by this near as much as the other classes:
Rogues/Barbarians/Paladins/Wizards/etc. who want non-orthodox weapons on their Class list simply can't get them without going through the Fighter (which comes with a lot more than "I want to use a single weapon not on my list").
Wizards (or anyone without full Simple Weapons list) has to actually take the General Feat twice just to get a Martial Weapon, which then becomes obsolete 3 levels later (if you got it at 7th and weren't Human for instance).
This "Proficiency" discrepancy applies to Armor as well (some have said it's actually even worse for Armor, but I'm more concerned with the General Feat being a feat trap).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just LOL that people are mad that they can't invalidate all the effort put into improving cantrips and giving martials a clear advantage in a sphere of combat by allowing a general feat to grab expert proficiency in their preferred weapon.
Yes because looking at the limitations of something critically is "people mad".
I laugh at the people that are so opinionated that even when they lose their own objective argument during a thread they come back to make snipes that amount to "haha! Take that". Makes me feel like having an opinion contrary to theirs is a good sign.
Your little response can be equated:
"I laugh at people who complain about houses that are on fire, it shows a complete lack of appreciation for the houses that are not on fire"
As if appreciating what is done "right" and critiquing what is believed "wrong" are some how diametrically opposed.
And in the scenario that this particular Wizard, who's thesis is heavily tethered to studies of the moon, decides he wants to use a scimitar as sort of his "iconic" identity as an adventurer, so he invests a General Feat in it:
Shouldn't this same Wizard just be able to swing at Expert in the event he needs to wack someone?
Nonetheless-
-you have a lower attack bonus at level 11 than people for whom "hitting people with metal objects" is their job.-you get 6 HP per level
-you have worse armor proficiencies than everyone else, so you have a lower armor class.
-all of this is exacerbated by the fact that you have most likely been investing heavily in Intelligence (and wisdom, for initiative) in lieu of str, dex, and con.
So carry around a scimitar if you want, hell put a blade on the end of your staff so it's a glaive, but you probably shouldn't be finding yourself in situations where "attacking with a weapon" is a good idea. Be a wizard, cast spells!
I'm double posting since I want to talk about something that's not wizards.
A warpriest cleric gets its highest weapon proficiency in only their deity's favored weapon. Does this have an outsized impact on deity choice for a cleric who wants to hit people? Like even with deadly simplicity at my disposal, I have a hard time imagining my battle cleric is wading into battle with a dagger (or, outside of core a net!) as their primary weapon.
I guess it makes sense that Iomedae has more battle clerics than Nethys, but it's slightly odd that Shelyn and Erastil have more than Calistria or Irori just because of weapon quality.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nonetheless-
-you have a lower attack bonus at level 11 than people for whom "hitting people with metal objects" is their job.
You have a lower attack bonus at level 11 than anyone of your current class.
Heck in the case of the Rogue who grabs a non-class weapon with the General Feat has a lower proficiency than the Wizard at level 11.
Now of all the classes where that's not "their job" we have this scenario:
A Wizard can have higher proficiency at level 11, Expert, than a Rogue/Barbarian with a non-traditional Martial weapon (not Advanced weapons, just Martial).
Not only will they have higher proficiency at level 11 than the two martial classes with non-traditional weapons automatically, the two martial classes cannot even get Expert in that weapon, let alone Master which their main Class weapons foster.
And in the case of the Barbarian, there is almost 0 incentive to MC into Fighter, so you have to eat crow or stick to traditional.
The issue is not "should wizards get Expert proficiency?"
Wizards DO get Expert proficiency.
It's a matter of extending that already given proficiency to include the weapons that Classes use the General Feat to acquire training in.
You all are speaking as if the Class contains the role of all weapon and armor usage.
And if that were the case, Feats that expand that (the General's for Weapon/Armor Proficiency) should not exist.
As is, they exist, and they do their job expertly for the first X levels of a characters lifetime.
The issue is not with anyone getting proficiency, they already get it, it's about the General Feat not being a trap.
In PF1, you took MWP and got the -4 removed. This did not give Wizards Full BAB, it just removed the -4. You still got +10/+5 BAB, just without the minus.
Notice how Expert happens for Wizard at level 11, and how Master happens for Rogue at level 13.
Notice how coincidentally, those lineup with 3.5/PF1 additional attacks (a second attack at level 11 for Wizards, a 2nd and 3rd attacks for Rogues at 8/15th).
Expert in Weapons at 11th level for Wizards is there to keep up with enemy AC progression states.
Just as saves are, even for Fortitude saves, Wizards get progression.
Gun Wizard
In the case of these specialty things, sure, make them archetypes.
But don't foster creative decisions for weapons if you don't want people to do it. That's what the General does.
A whole archetype is not needed for a weapon choice on every single class, and realistically, is impossible to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A big problem with "general feat to get expert" at level 11, is that non-fighter martials are still on expert until level 13 when they get master. So letting a wizard get expert on a chosen weapon at 11 let's them be just as good with that weapon as a same level barbarian, ranger, or champion.
For that reason, I think a general feat upgrade shouldn't be available until 15th, at which point you're better off with the class feat or ancestry feat option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in the case of the Barbarian, there is almost 0 incentive to MC into Fighter, so you have to eat crow or stick to traditional.
huh? That's so not true.
it's about the General Feat not being a trap.
You're obsessed with this idea that the General feat is a trap. I'm going to infer that by "trap" you mean a sub optimal choice.
And if that's the case wielding a Halberd AT ALL is a trap (as a wizard).
It would be more optimal to hit a mook with a crossbow and then cast electrical arc, and just eschew the whole Halberd thing.
And that's ignoring the fact that there is an objective, tangible, measurable benefit for the General feats from Level x -> 12.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the wizard who wants to scimitar it up should do the following:
-take the general feat at level 1 or 3
-enjoy your scimitariness until level 11.
-suck it up at level 11.
-before level 12, retrain your least favorite class feat to the fighter dedication, you can now also retrain the general feat as it is redundant, justify this how you like. Humans have a 9th level ancestry feat (I believe) for a free dedication, so that's an option
-at level 12, spend you class feat on the upgrade to expert in a weapon group of your choice.
I'm pretty sure this works well enough. PF1 had plenty of builds which simply did not function until a critical mass of feats had been acquired, so we can survive a niche concept not working well for a single level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A big problem with "general feat to get expert" at level 11, is that non-fighter martials are still on expert until level 13 when they get master. So letting a wizard get expert on a chosen weapon at 11 let's them be just as good with that weapon as a same level barbarian, ranger, or champion.
For that reason, I think a general feat upgrade shouldn't be available until 15th, at which point you're better off with the class feat or ancestry feat option.
I wouldn't be opposed to a high gate on the concept, but being even with a Rogue/Barbarian at the cost of a General Feat (and being even 4 levels later mind you) doesn't equate to "infringing" if you ask me.
There were about 4-5 levels where the Wizard had the same number of Melee attacks as a Rogue/Monk in PF1 as well, but in no way did that infringe on their abilities.
-take the general feat at level 1 or 3
-enjoy your scimitariness until level 11.
-suck it up at level 11.
-before level 12, retrain that general feat, and your least favorite class feat to the fighter dedication, justify this how you like.
-at level 12, spend you class feat on the upgrade to expert in a weapon group of your choice.I'm pretty sure this works well enough.
And on the last point, we disagree.
I would ask you this:
If the game already did what those of us in favor are asking for would you be arguing against it in the same context as us arguing for it?
I can firmly say that I would be arguing to keep it if it did exist and vice-versa, but I am not so sure those that are arguing against it are even against it.
The reason I get that impression, is because the answer is always not that it works "well" or is "balanced" but that "it's not a problem if you do (some crazy build path that makes no sense) and Feat traps exist so oh well"
If it existed already, would you be arguing for it to be removed?
You're obsessed with this idea that the General feat is a trap. I'm going to infer that by "trap" you mean a sub optimal choice.
It is a trap because it gets worse as you level. You're "trapped" in the sense that you get to take a Feat with a real tangible benefit for 10 levels that becomes worse as you level.
And if that's the case wielding a Halberd AT ALL is a trap (as a wizard).
It would be more optimal to hit a mook with a crossbow and then cast electrical arc, and just eschew the whole Halberd thing.
So your argument for why the Wizard doesn't deserve Expert proficiency with the Halberd they spent two General Feats to get is because it's already "not optimal".
And that's ignoring the fact that there is an objective, tangible, measurable benefit for the General feats from Level x -> 12.
The Wizard got no such benefit for 7 levels buddy.
3rd level for First General to get Simple, 7th General to get Halberd.
That's 3 levels of "optimal" weapon use, at which point it becomes obsolete at level 11.
huh? That's so not true.
Explain what the Dedication Feat does for a Barbarian?
At the very least, it's extremely less valuable to a Barbarian than a Wizard, but it doesn't have any incentives on the first feat alone.
If you want to argue that the additional Fighter feats you can take after are good, that's fine, but the initial Dedication does not offer the Barbarian much (significantly less than a Class feat or really any other dedication).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That does nothing to help the fact that if it becomes wasted and the player has to ‘suck it up’ there is a clear mechanical issue. It’s one thing to include power creep; it’s another to say a Wizard who grew up as a farmer ends up being worse as using a Sickle to fight with, even after investing a feat, simply because ‘mechanics say so.’
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're obsessed with this idea that the General feat is a trap. I'm going to infer that by "trap" you mean a sub optimal choice.
it is a trap because it is simultaneously too much and too little.
It is two feats to get all the simple and Martial weapons in the game by level 7 when you don't need all those weapons nor should you wait seven levels to do it. Halberd wizard or greatsword rogue or whatever. It is forcing somebody to buy in bulk when they only want or need single item. It is wasteful.
Most importantly to me though is the disconnect that makes you pay resources to get abilities that become worse than the abilities you get for free as you level up.
If wizards never upgraded to expert at all, the argument would be the same because of rogues and bards and other secondary combatants.
So it is like wizards get two Twinkies and Fighters get a half dozen of their favorite pastry WHICH IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, but if the wizard wants a third Twinkie they need to pay ten bucks for a case and there isn't enough filling for all of them.
Substitute different pastries for different classes if you need to, it is an analogy, not an equation.
And in the case of the Barbarian, there is almost 0 incentive to MC into Fighter, so you have to eat crow or stick to traditional.huh? That's so not true.
it's about the General Feat not being a trap.You're obsessed with this idea that the General feat is a trap. I'm going to infer that by "trap" you mean a sub optimal choice.
And if that's the case wielding a Halberd AT ALL is a trap (as a wizard).
It would be more optimal to hit a mook with a crossbow and then cast electrical arc, and just eschew the whole Halberd thing.
And that's ignoring the fact that there is an objective, tangible, measurable benefit for the General feats from Level x -> 12.
Out of legitimate interest - what are the main benefits of barbarian multiclassing into fighter? I assume the stuff from 4 onwards?
My *guess* is that Midnightoker sees zero incentive on the Fighter dedication feat for a Barbarian since this is a proficiency discussion. Kind of like how Champion dedication seems to do nothing for a Fighter which is a shame
*
I think 1E has spoiled everyone for choice. From what I hear if you played the first edition of dungeons and dragons and wanted to wield anything other than a staff or dagger as a wizard you would be laughed all the way home
This proficiency system is trying to go back to that to an extent whilst the game system as a whole offers so many other choices and options that it *shouldn't* matter too much
And if someone feels that passionate about weapon choice then giving up one class feat for a fighter should be an reasonable price to pay - unless the plan was to MC in something else when it becomes a problem. But then you are going down lots of more niche avenues and place yourself far more in the minority of any discussion (in my view at least)
*
There have been lots of vigorously argued cases on the boards in the past few weeks that seem to boil down to "I don't want to have to make difficult choices" - nearly always connected to number of class feats (and trading them) it seems
The modular nature of the game seems to allow for a very easy fix in home games (just not PFS) - a bonus class feat at level 2 so you don't have the dilemma of MC vs. carrying on and don't have to "dilute" your main class so early
*
There are also some incredibly niche cases being brought into arguments and debates. I am not so sure about ones in this thread re: non standard weapon using wizards so won't go into any detail on that one other than arching an eyebrow and linking it to my point below:
My example was a month or two ago on Know Direction - one of the main guys was moaning and expressing doubt over the 'flexibility' of the new edition because he couldn't play a Gnome with negative charisma that he had in 1E
Everyone knows that in 1E his Gnome would have had 9 charisma because he dumped it to 7 to get 4 extra points in point buy most likely to offset the negative strength and make his Barbarian viable. Sure he may have developed an interesting RP style for the un-charismatic Gnome but I struggle to believe that was the original design concept (because he said it was Giant slaying Gnome barbarian)
Floating, class and background boosts removed that problem that arguably forced him to have negative charisma in the first place and yet he was *still* complaining because of a really niche issue in the attempted recreation of an old character.
(But in this case the voluntary two flaws fixed had been added without him knowing so he can achieve what he wanted)
But in some of these niche cases then 1E will surely be the better game...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have been lots of vigorously argued cases on the boards in the past few weeks that seem to boil down to "I don't want to have to make difficult choices" - nearly always connected to number of class feats (and trading them) it seems
Lanathar with all due respect, if this is what you have boiled this thread down to, you have missed the point entirely.
This is not a case of having to make hard choices, this is an example of where existing mechanics put in place to supplement concepts do not uphold that purpose.
If for the first X levels a Feat does it's job, and then it stops doing that job from Y levels on, that is a failure of the system, not of the player's ability to make choice.
They made a choice to wield a non-class weapon.
They chose a feat that allowed them to do that (presumably).
That feat stopped doing it's job at X level.
It's that simple.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the game already did what those of us in favor are asking for would you be arguing against it in the same context as us arguing for it?
If the game either auto-upgraded the general feat or had a level 11 extension, I would be arguing that Champions, Monks, Rogues, Barbarians, and Rangers should get their upgrade to master before level 11, since at no point should a Wizard be as good at a Barbarian's chosen weapon as a Barbarian is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
since at no point should a Wizard be as good at a Barbarian's chosen weapon as a Barbarian is.
Primary martials have other abilities that make them better combatants than somebody that just happens to have the same proficiency rank. Having the same bonus doesn't make them just as good.
If the game either auto-upgraded the general feat or had a level 11 extension, I would be arguing that Champions, Monks, Rogues, Barbarians, and Rangers should get their upgrade to master before level 11, since at no point should a Wizard be as good at a Barbarian's chosen weapon as a Barbarian is.
So if the Feat was level 13 inclusion, you would have no issues.
Would that be accurate to say?
Out of legitimate interest - what are the main benefits of barbarian multiclassing into fighter? I assume the stuff from 4 onwards?
Yea, you bite the bullet at 2 to get those Juicy Fighter feats, like Dual strike (I don't remember if that's the exact name, but the 2 action feat that hits someone twice).
But why take just only 1 Dedication feat?
Only a few of the classes, in my opinion, have super interesting feats at 1 and 2. Wizards did not make that list imo, so MC'ing at 2 is w/e. Barbarians were another where I felt like their feat choices didn't start to get exciting until 6.
greatsword rogue
I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember Greatsword could not be used with Sneak attack. I remember thinking it was capped at a D8 weapon size, but don't have my book in front of me.
The Wizard got no such benefit for 7 levels buddy.
3rd level for First General to get Simple, 7th General to get Halberd.
They get Spear at 3, which is just a better version of a Staff (i.e. reach), and then Halberd at 7.
Also at 7 you can use Bows, Greatswords, Mauls, etc. . .
So for as long as they have the General Feat they get a measurable benefit.
Also, if hypothetically the General feat is a "trap" for this one specific build, that doesn't mean it's a "trap" for the other, nearly infinite, builds that exist.
There have been lots of vigorously argued cases on the boards in the past few weeks that seem to boil down to "I don't want to have to make difficult choices" - nearly always connected to number of class feats (and trading them) it seemsLanathar with all due respect, if this is what you have boiled this thread down to, you have missed the point entirely.
This is not a case of having to make hard choices, this is an example of where existing mechanics put in place to supplement concepts do not uphold that purpose.
If for the first X levels a Feat does it's job, and then it stops doing that job from Y levels on, that is a failure of the system, not of the player's ability to make choice.
They made a choice to wield a non-class weapon.
They chose a feat that allowed them to do that (presumably).
That feat stopped doing it's job at X level.
It's that simple.
Does a cantrip ancestry feat stop doing its job because it never gets proficiency improvements?
Does a cantrip ancestry feat stop doing its job because it never gets proficiency improvements?There have been lots of vigorously argued cases on the boards in the past few weeks that seem to boil down to "I don't want to have to make difficult choices" - nearly always connected to number of class feats (and trading them) it seemsLanathar with all due respect, if this is what you have boiled this thread down to, you have missed the point entirely.
This is not a case of having to make hard choices, this is an example of where existing mechanics put in place to supplement concepts do not uphold that purpose.
If for the first X levels a Feat does it's job, and then it stops doing that job from Y levels on, that is a failure of the system, not of the player's ability to make choice.
They made a choice to wield a non-class weapon.
They chose a feat that allowed them to do that (presumably).
That feat stopped doing it's job at X level.
It's that simple.
No.
Because I didn't take a Cantrip feat to get Trained in a Spell, I took a Cantrip feat to be able to cast one. If any spell could be cast "Untrained", this would make sense.
Since that's not the case, the argument is a moot one.
Everyone, all characters, can use any weapon.
All characters of any class get at least Expert Proficiency in weapons.
EDIT
Just so I can add some thought to this mentality:
If all spells could be cast untrained, would you spend a General Feat on increased proficiency with a single Spell?
How many spells that can be selected with a Cantrip feat are even dependent at all on Proficiency?
Contextually, being able to cast the spell is the powerful part, and it is also limited by not being as accessibly available as a Weapon for that reason.
When people keep drawing this parallel it shows how tone deaf they are to the situation of this General Feat. Apples to oranges.
Does a cantrip ancestry feat stop doing its job because it never gets proficiency improvements?
If it is taken along with a class that gets automatic proficiency increases and it doesn't increase, I'd say yes.