If you want to insist the General Feat is a trap, you must prove to me it's a trap in all circumstances, not just your build trying to get a Halberd.
Every single build who wants to have one Martial Weapon other than the ones they start with has to either multiclass or spend two out of five feats to get every Martial Weapon in the game.
Whichever option they choose to get every martial weapon in the game when they only want one, what they don't get is it advancing at the same pace as their free weapons.
Maybe that isn't a trap depending on your definition, but it a bad purchase.
Fighter dedication is a good choice, sometimes. However it's kind of overkill in certain situations. Some weapon choices are never going to be worth two class feats (and the requirement you take a third feat before you can multiclass again).
Fighter dedication also doesn't let you catch up at all if your proficiency goes past expert, people who want master in a weapon they don't normally qualify for just have to hope it's a racial weapon, otherwise they'll always be a step behind or more.
It also doesn't help you pick up unarmed, since fists aren't simple weapons anymore. You can only get that via monk dedication and can't advance them at all. A fighter who wants to use their fists is giving up eventually +8 to hit relative to their other weapons to do so, at the cost of a dedication feat.
Beyond all of that, there's an issue that the general feat effectively scales worse the longer a campaign goes on. Early game it's not a penalty at all for a spellcaster and costs you a small to-hit bonus as a martial (which yes, still feels problematic to me), but the better your proficiencies get, the comparatively less value this feat grants you. It effectively scales against your level in a way that makes it feel a bit deceptive and at odds with the rest of PF2's design to me.
I didn’t appreciate the limitations of the Fighter dedication. It seems like at the very least there should be a later advanced fighter dedication
I had no idea about the fists . I would like to think they sort that somehow (at least for fighters ) because inability to use fists effectively as a fighter was really the only reason the brawler became a thing in my opinion - design failure of the fighter class. I am surprised the same thing happened again
And I assume monk dedication doesn’t “fix” it as it will have the same proficiency cap issues as the fighter ones does?
Or is the idea that monks not needing to be lawful or ki based kind of fills the design space of unarmed warrior ?
A fighter who wants to use their fists is giving up eventually +8 to hit relative to their other weapons to do so, at the cost of a dedication feat.
Fighters as published, I'm told, get legendary with unarmed along with all their other weapons.
A fighter who wants to use their fists is giving up eventually +8 to hit relative to their other weapons to do so, at the cost of a dedication feat.Fighters as published, I'm told, get legendary with unarmed along with all their other weapons.
Oh, I could be wrong then. I'll have to double check when I get the chance.
Oh, I could be wrong then. I'll have to double check when I get the chance.A fighter who wants to use their fists is giving up eventually +8 to hit relative to their other weapons to do so, at the cost of a dedication feat.Fighters as published, I'm told, get legendary with unarmed along with all their other weapons.
See if it's consistent across Barbarian, Ranger, and Rogue, too. I know the Alchemist gets unarmed equivalent to simple weapons if he takes Mutagen as his specialty, but if only Fighter has unarmed proficiency matching weapons among other martial classes it might (or might not) be an error.
Fighters as published, I'm told, get legendary with unarmed along with all their other weapons.
FWIW, I dislike fighters having better proficiency in unarmed strikes than a monk can.
So, Mutigenist, Barbarian, and Monk get Master in Unarmed while Fighter gets Legendary in everything except Advance weapons where they end up Master.
Barbarian, Champion and Ranger end up Master in all Simple and Martial Weapons.
Side note on Fighter/Monk Unarmed bit; Monk does get Perfected Form which means their Unarmed can never get a nat 1 or really crit fail ever again. I share that Monk should get Legendary with Fists, but Perfected Form is soooooo nice IMO.
Hmmm I wonder if some of the issue regarding teml and weapons could be circumvented by decoupling the damage bonus and reintroducing it to eml weapon qualities.
(I am still sad they ditched the mundane weapon qualities)
It wouldn't change the to hit, which would upset some. But the damage difference wouldn't be nearly as stark.
I really don't like updating the single feat to scale with other class proficiencies, but at the same time I dislike having more than one feat do the same more.
I will probably handle it via custom backgrounds in play though.
So, Mutigenist, Barbarian, and Monk get Master in Unarmed while Fighter gets Legendary in everything except Advance weapons where they end up Master.
Barbarian, Champion and Ranger end up Master in all Simple and Martial Weapons.
Side note on Fighter/Monk Unarmed bit; Monk does get Perfected Form which means their Unarmed can never get a nat 1 or really crit fail ever again. I share that Monk should get Legendary with Fists, but Perfected Form is soooooo nice IMO.
Alchemists only get expert.
Where are people getting this information that they get expert?
Coming out from my lurking again to say a few things about this matter.
If you want to insist the General Feat is a trap, you must prove to me it's a trap in all circumstances, not just your build trying to get a Halberd.
It's a trap for anyone since level 13 (sometimes before). A trap because you get better at weapons, except the one you specifically wanted and spent feats for.
Leave halberds, scimitars and other martial weapons aside for now; and tell me why a Wizard should be expert with a staff, but not with a spear; with a crossbow, but not with a sling.
They are all simple weapons, balanced against each other, so it can't be a 'power' reason. If a Wizard wants to use a sling they must pay a feat, because the sling is not iconic (and crossbows being iconic is very questionable for me, but whatever). Then, after spending the feat, they still can't be as good with the sling, because reasons.
I can see a few ways to put some sense into it:
1) Wizards (just to stick to the example) start the game trained in 4 simple weapons? Well, let them choose which ones.
Remove Armor/Weapon Proficiency feats from the game.
You are stuck with the weapons your class gives you, unless you multiclass; at least, you can have a say in which ones you get.
2) Really, just let the proficiency you get with feats scale up like the other, similar stuff you learn.
1) Wizards (just to stick to the example) start the game trained in 4 simple weapons? Well, let them choose which ones.
Remove Armor/Weapon Proficiency feats from the game.
You are stuck with the weapons your class gives you, unless you multiclass; at least, you can have a say in which ones you get.2) Really, just let the proficiency you get with feats scale up like the other, similar stuff you learn.
I would actually have loved something like 1) but I feel like the ship has sailed on that one.
Option 2) at least can be errata'd to just say "At level 13, you can add a single weapon to your base Class weapons for the purposes of progressing proficiency"
Now in the option 2 scenario, it means a Rogue/Barbarian has to tough it out with a below average Proficiency for about 6 levels (7th-12th) but at the very least it does come online eventually.
There seems to be a lot of fear around the feat just adding it to the base pool.
Or, you could create an entirely new Feat that just applies to a single weapon that required Trained in that weapon and Level 7 that adds that specific weapon to your Class proficiency list.
The least invasive way would be some kind of one line errata to the General Feat, at least that's how it seems to me.
Trying to patch out the problem with further mechanics (such as additional Feats, Class Feats, or Class Archetypes for weapons not super "involved" like siege/guns/etc.) seems less than ideal, but I did see a "Feat upgrade mechanic" in Captain Morgan's initial impression thread that could potentially be a solution to the problem (no book, so no idea what it actually means).
So, Mutigenist, Barbarian, and Monk get Master in Unarmed while Fighter gets Legendary in everything except Advance weapons where they end up Master.
Barbarian, Champion and Ranger end up Master in all Simple and Martial Weapons.
Side note on Fighter/Monk Unarmed bit; Monk does get Perfected Form which means their Unarmed can never get a nat 1 or really crit fail ever again. I share that Monk should get Legendary with Fists, but Perfected Form is soooooo nice IMO.
Alchemists only get expert.
Where are people getting this information that they get expert?
You’re right, Alchemist only gets up to Expert. That’s kinda. . . Odd. I must have assumed they got Master along with Rogues and mistook Weapon Specialization or something for Master Prof.
_________________
As for Barbarian, are we talking Advanced weapons? I thought it was mentioned about Barbarians having a Proficiency issue with certain Martial Weapons but they’re trained in all Martial; unless i’m starting to get dyslexic or something.
Though that now brings up the fact that if a Barb or Rogue want to use Advanced Weapons they get stuck with Trained Proficiency inspite of getting Master with their other weapons. I think Fighter MC only gives you up to Expert in Martial and not Advanced.
Though that now brings up the fact that if a Barb or Rogue want to use Advanced Weapons they get stuck with Trained Proficiency inspite of getting Master with their other weapons. I think Fighter MC only gives you up to Expert in Martial and not Advanced.
This is correct. The only way to get above Trained in an Advanced weapon is: a) be a Fighter as your main class or b) pick an ancestry-related weapon and take the weapon familiarity ancestry feats.
That means, for example, there's no way to get above Trained in Sawtooth Sabers right now, unless you're a Fighter. (Although I'm sure the Red Mantis Assassin archetype will change that.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much all advanced weapons should probably be associated with a culture (accessible via an ancestry feat) or an organization (accessed with an archetype) anyway. Like the "advanced" doesn't mean "technologically advanced" it means "the techniques for using this are less accessible." But if a weapon is more effective, someone's going to make a point of developing those techniques.
I can't really see many people voluntarily taking an accuracy hit to use an advanced weapon.
Pretty much all advanced weapons should probably be associated with a culture (accessible via an ancestry feat) or an organization (accessed with an archetype) anyway. Like the "advanced" doesn't mean "technologically advanced" it means "the techniques for using this are less accessible." But if a weapon is more effective, someone's going to make a point of developing those techniques.
I can't really see many people voluntarily taking an accuracy hit to use an advanced weapon.
That would actually be interesting. Exotic usually took the place of advanced and uncommon or rare weapons. If Advanced just has niche weapons belonging to Organizations and Ancestries then i might be okay with people just getting trained with them.
