| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was the case in PF1 as well. +45/65 is better than +25/45.Sure, but in practice, you often didn't need more than the +25, making the rest superfluous. That wasn't always true of invisibility, but it was common.
And I never saw a spell that could completely replace a skill. The classic example of knock invalidating disable device is silly, because a rogue can get a much higher disable device score than level+10.The issue with this is that you basically never need more than Level +10. Yeah, a Rogue could get it...and have it almost never provide much advantage.
There are also much worse offenders that really do sidestep and trump skills completely, like pass without trace utterly trumping Survival or discern lies bypassing both Bluff and Sense Motive completely. Or even fly trumping Climb.
Survival has a lot more uses than just following druids or rangers, and discern lies is easily beaten by a Will save, meaning it should always be used in conjunction with sense motive.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Survival has a lot more uses than just following druids or rangers, and discern lies is easily beaten by a Will save, meaning it should always be used in conjunction with sense motive.
Sure, but how much Bluff someone has is irrelevant in PF1 if they come under Discern Lies, and a 20th level spell-less Ranger instantly fails against a low level spell when he attempts to track someone using Pass Without Trace. The spells just trump the Skill instantly and completely.
The point is not that you could never use Skills for anything, it's that many spells were flatly preferable if you had to pick only one of the two options and made skills unnecessary to succeed. Which is a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Survival has a lot more uses than just following druids or rangers, and discern lies is easily beaten by a Will save, meaning it should always be used in conjunction with sense motive.Sure, but how much Bluff someone has is irrelevant in PF1 if they come under Discern Lies, and a 20th level spell-less Ranger instantly fails against a low level spell when he attempts to track someone using Pass Without Trace. The spells just trump the Skill instantly and completely.
The point is not that you could never use Skills for anything, it's that many spells were flatly preferable if you had to pick only one of the two options and made skills unnecessary to succeed. Which is a problem.
They're not flatly preferable, they're a bit situational. Sense Motive is always more reliable than discern lies if you have to pick one, though you're best off with both, and pass without trace is only good if you're expecting to be followed, in which case you'd want that exact benefit.
And why is it bad if your skill in magic can circumvent some skill checks? That's just multiple paths to success.
I've been waiting for this one for a long time, is the Cleric still a healbot? Is blasting still the way to go for other casters or did control spells get a buff?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
And why is it bad if your skill in magic can circumvent some skill checks? That's just multiple paths to success.
Because it's multiple paths to success for casters only.
re: healbot, other part of equation was Spontaneous Cure(Heal)/Harm Substitution whereby even if they Prepared alot of non-healing spells, there was understanding they could spontaneously give it all up and be a heal-bot if demanded. Also, that they were primary viable healing source. So without involving Cleric rules at all, the fact 2E gives EVERYBODY with Medicine skill a mundane healing option is major factor taking pressure of Clerics, especially considering Combat Medic Skill Feat. IMHO Clerics choosing to focus on healing is still 100% viable, probably even MORE viable for in-combat healing, but they are not pushed inexorably towards that. Changes like Domain Focus Powers gives Clerics can give Clerics alot of persistent ability in other areas with appropriate Domains, like Fire Domain now being "all day" (with 10 minute Focus refresh) instead of just 1 Domain Slot and then nobody can remember you worship a Fire god.
I've been waiting for this one for a long time, is the Cleric still a healbot? Is blasting still the way to go for other casters or did control spells get a buff?Bit of an odd question given that Clerics could already do plenty else in the Playtest, but they do still have free Heal/Harm spells and feats that augment the use of Heal/Harm, if that's what you mean. Not really healbot though since it's either heal or harm (depending on deity, but Harm seems less alignment-restricted than it used to be, or maybe I remember wrong) and they do still have plenty they can focus on aside from that.
Similar deal with blasters, buffs and debuffs were already CRAZY strong in the Playtest, and I saw control spells used to great effect more than once, and from what I've heard all that is still tru in the full rules. And I hear spell damages have been tweaked, including dialing back at least some of the Update 1.4 spell damage increases, which were indeed a bit much (though it took a while for me to realize it).
Yes what I meant was Heal was considerably better route to go then Harm. And the stacking of conditions was very minimal in 2.0 is it like that?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's multiple paths to success for casters only.
And why is it bad if your skill in magic can circumvent some skill checks? That's just multiple paths to success.
That’s somewhat of a false binary though. While spells are unquestionably powerful they don’t invalidate skills altogeather.
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're not flatly preferable, they're a bit situational.
Yes, they are. Not because of being better, but because of opportunity costs. Having skills is a pretty big opportunity cost in many cases whereas to have a spell you need to be a Cleric or Wizard (ie: play one of the most powerful Classes in the game) and basically no other investment.
Sense Motive is always more reliable than discern lies if you have to pick one, though you're best off with both, and pass without trace is only good if you're expecting to be followed, in which case you'd want that exact benefit.
All true, but again it's about investment. Individual spells (either in a spellbook or on scrolls several levels below max spell level) are such a low investment compared to a maxed out Skill that it makes getting any Skill that can be made needless by a spell a poor investment. Which sucks, as I rather like Skills.
This isn't an absolute unshakable rule, but it's true enough to be a very serious problem in PF1 if you actually have a Wizard doing the utility spells thing.
And why is it bad if your skill in magic can circumvent some skill checks? That's just multiple paths to success.
Because you can get spells cheaply and thus utterly invalidate a major build choice on they guy who invested in the skill. The PF2 version, where it provides a bonus/alternative but works best when combined with someone who's actually invested in the skill is much better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The class tables only advance the armor that your class made you trained with at 1st level, so they are of no help to armor proficiencies gained through dedication or other feats. However, there is a Champion multiclassing feat that can make you expert with all armor.
Damn. :( So Armour Proficiencies feats are also a trap. And bye-bye my idea for Heavily Armoured Barbarian.
And no, Champion dedication is never an option for me due to RP/personal reasons.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of strange. PF2 lets you build a martial wizard or a spellslinging fighter really easily and has lots of really open ended, modular design choices. Then it punishes you really hard for wanting to wield different armor and weapons than the ones it deems appropriate for your class. Even though we established earlier in this thread that the different types of armor are balanced against each other so players can focus on flavor.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of strange. PF2 lets you build a martial wizard or a spellslinging fighter really easily and has lots of really open ended, modular design choices. Then it punishes you really hard for wanting to wield different armor and weapons than the ones it deems appropriate for your class. Even though we established earlier in this thread that the different types of armor are balanced against each other so players can focus on flavor.
This has got to be an oversight. Stuff like this and the lack of Spontaneous Heightening for MC seems like an after thought that seemed obvious but slipped everyone's minds. It's my hope we get some quick errata that t say weapons and Armor gotten through feats are added to your class lists. It seems a quick and simple fix. As for the Heightening issue, we'll definitely need another feat thrown in.
It's my hope we get some quick errata that t say weapons and Armor gotten through feats are added to your class lists. It seems a quick and simple fix.
I don't think it's quite as easy as you might think. With your solution, a Monk multiclassed to Paladin would become legendary in all armor, including heavy armor.
|
|
It's my hope we get some quick errata that t say weapons and Armor gotten through feats are added to your class lists. It seems a quick and simple fix.I don't think it's quite as easy as you might think. With your solution, a Monk multiclassed to Paladin would become legendary in all armor, including heavy armor.
Yeesh. I hadn't even considered that...I hate to use the phrase trap option but that armor and weapon feat really do just become suboptimal at higher levels where you get higher proficiency and weapon specialization with your class weapons.
Though now that makes me wonder what archetypes that give proficiencies will do.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damn. :( So Armour Proficiencies feats are also a trap. And bye-bye my idea for Heavily Armoured Barbarian.
And no, Champion dedication is never an option for me due to RP/personal reasons.
Unlike weapons, this isn't necessarily true. A Dex 10 Wizard, for example, is much better off AC-wise investing the Feats in Full Plate (or even something in a Medium Armor) than taking his Expert Unarmored Proficiency and running with it.
This is less true if you get to Master in specific armor lighter than Heavy (especially Medium Armor, relevant to the Barbarians), but it remains worth noting.
This doesn't mean a Feat to solve this situation wouldn't be nice (it absolutely would, and I think we need one), but it's important to keep all the factors in mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unlike weapons, this isn't necessarily true. A Dex 10 Wizard, for example, is much better off AC-wise investing the Feats in Full Plate (or even something in a Medium Armor) than taking his Expert Unarmored Proficiency and running with it.
This is less true if you get to Master in specific armor lighter than Heavy (especially Medium Armor, relevant to the Barbarians), but it remains worth noting.
This doesn't mean a Feat to solve this situation wouldn't be nice (it absolutely would, and I think we need one), but it's important to keep all the factors in mind.
Is it that better? Since you can just cast Mage Armour that stacks with your Unarmoured Proficiency?
Let's say +1 AC from 1st level Mage Armour and +2 AC from Expert Unarmoured (over Trained). This means you need Medium armour at minimum to equal it or exceed it, which also comes with ACPs and doesn't even give you the special Armour traits.
And all this for the cost of 2(!) General feats. I don't see it ever worth it. Hell, even if you got Expert it's at best marginal, more RP than anything.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it that better? Since you can just cast Mage Armour that stacks with your Unarmoured Proficiency?
Don't have the book yet, but judging by the playtest, relying on mage armor would cost you one of your highest lvel spell slots each day to have it keep up with armor. That's quite a big cost.
The class tables only advance the armor that your class made you trained with at 1st level, so they are of no help to armor proficiencies gained through dedication or other feats. However, there is a Champion multiclassing feat that can make you expert with all armor.
Damn. :( So Armour Proficiencies feats are also a trap. And bye-bye my idea for Heavily Armoured Barbarian.
And no, Champion dedication is never an option for me due to RP/personal reasons.
Champion would only get you expert in heavy, worse than your master in everything else.
Is it that better? Since you can just cast Mage Armour that stacks with your Unarmoured Proficiency?Don't have the book yet, but judging by the playtest, relying on mage armor would cost you one of your highest lvel spell slots each day to have it keep up with armor. That's quite a big cost.
But it's not, that's the point. I calculated this using a lvl1 Mage Armour. At 13th level, that is:
Mage Armour with Expert Unarmoured:
Lvl 13 + 4 Expert + 1 Mage Armour = 28 AC
Trainted Medium Breastplate (at cost of 2 Feats):
Lvl 13 + 2 Trainted + 4 Breastplate = 29 AC
2 Feats to get 29 AC when you can achieve the same (and get +1 bonus to saves) via a 2nd level Mage Armour?
In a lot of cases, you'll probably be better off throwing out some buffs/debuffs to cover that disparity. That lowered proficiency on an attack can be mitigated with single action true strike and that lowered armor has the shield cantrip.
That's a completely invalid approach as these are the actions you can use with your better bonuses to get an even higher AC / attack.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a lot of cases, you'll probably be better off throwing out some buffs/debuffs to cover that disparity. That lowered proficiency on an attack can be mitigated with single action true strike and that lowered armor has the shield cantrip.That's a completely invalid approach as these are the actions you can use with your better bonuses to get an even higher AC / attack.
Oh no, I do understand that but for people with a certain preferred flavor they're going for with their armor and weapon choices, I was just saying that's an easy way to try and stay relevant until errata and more options come around to fix this issue.
|
We're veering off-topic, and Mage Armour was always a bit rubbish, just something to spend a 1st level slot on. The price was very nice for the duration. A proper defensive spell is Mirror Image. Is that any good in this edition? In 1e it was the best defence for the investment, and it wasn't close.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it that better? Since you can just cast Mage Armour that stacks with your Unarmoured Proficiency?
Let's say +1 AC from 1st level Mage Armour and +2 AC from Expert Unarmoured (over Trained). This means you need Medium armour at minimum to equal it or exceed it, which also comes with ACPs and doesn't even give you the special Armour traits.
Well, if you have Dex 10 and are investing in armor my guess is your Str is pretty high.
And all this for the cost of 2(!) General feats. I don't see it ever worth it. Hell, even if you got Expert it's at best marginal, more RP than anything.
I'm not saying this is optimal (an optimal strategy involves Mage Armor or Bracers and high Dex), I was just noting there are characters it's good for.
But it's not, that's the point. I calculated this using a lvl1 Mage Armour. At 13th level, that is:
Mage Armour with Expert Unarmoured:
Lvl 13 + 4 Expert + 1 Mage Armour = 28 ACTrainted Medium Breastplate (at cost of 2 Feats):
Lvl 13 + 2 Trainted + 4 Breastplate = 29 AC2 Feats to get 29 AC when you can achieve the same (and get +1 bonus to saves) via a 2nd level Mage Armour?
You'll note that my example was Full Plate, which makes the comparison AC 28 to AC 31 (and a higher level Mage Armor can be matched by magic armor).
That's 3 Feats, I'll absolutely grant, but that's not an unpayable price. Heck, as a Human you could have this going at what, 3rd level?
I'm not saying this is optimal (an optimal strategy involves Mage Armor or Bracers and high Dex), I was just noting there are characters it's good for.
...
You'll note that my example was Full Plate, which makes the comparison AC 28 to AC 31 (and a higher level Mage Armor can be matched by magic armor).
That's 3 Feats, I'll absolutely grant, but that's not an unpayable price. Heck, as a Human you could have this going at what, 3rd level?
3 Feats require at least 6th level, even for Human? Anyway, 3 feats is a huge investment. You only ever get 5 General feats, 6 with a human.
Of course, for a Barbarian things are slightly different, but they also get Master proficiency with their armours, no?
So yeah. Sure, you can make it, but you are spending significant character resources to not give you that much. And don't forget, even if you have STR for it, it still takes up Bulk.
My point is, why did they have to limit it this much? Would it be *that* much OP if they made proficiency feats scale with your default proficiencies?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying this is optimal (an optimal strategy involves Mage Armor or Bracers and high Dex), I was just noting there are characters it's good for.
...
You'll note that my example was Full Plate, which makes the comparison AC 28 to AC 31 (and a higher level Mage Armor can be matched by magic armor).
That's 3 Feats, I'll absolutely grant, but that's not an unpayable price. Heck, as a Human you could have this going at what, 3rd level?
3 Feats require at least 6th level, even for Human? Anyway, 3 feats is a huge investment. You only ever get 5 General feats, 6 with a human.
Of course, for a Barbarian things are slightly different, but they also get Master proficiency with their armours, no?
So yeah. Sure, you can make it, but you are spending significant character resources to not give you that much. And don't forget, even if you have STR for it, it still takes up Bulk.
My point is, why did they have to limit it this much? Would it be *that* much OP if they made proficiency feats scale with your default proficiencies?
Human can get it at third level, and can get as many as 11 general feats total, although that would be a terrible choice because you'd be using tons of higher level ancestry feats on first-level general feats.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3 Feats require at least 6th level, even for Human? Anyway, 3 feats is a huge investment. You only ever get 5 General feats, 6 with a human.
Humans get 7 easily, and two at 1st level (and thus three at 3rd), since they have a Heritage and a Feat each granting one. Which is where I was going with this.
Since this indicates you lack the book, I'll also note that Dex + Armor totals 5 in the final game (based on posted spoilers), so your analysis of the Breastplate may be a point off pretty easily (it could be +3 AC on its own).
Of course, for a Barbarian things are slightly different, but they also get Master proficiency with their armours, no?
I did note this as much less true for those who got Master in armor.
So yeah. Sure, you can make it, but you are spending significant character resources to not give you that much. And don't forget, even if you have STR for it, it still takes up Bulk.
Eh. Bulk is relevant, but much less so at high Str.
My point is, why did they have to limit it this much? Would it be *that* much OP if they made proficiency feats scale with your default proficiencies?
Here, I don't disagree. Indeed, I specifically noted I agreed with this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is core, paizo is almost certainly reserving design space for archetypes imo.
Having it too open now could limit them in the future.
The ideal solution would likely have been a universal class feat pool imo.
So a general feat to gain training, the universal pool to make it scale with other class features.
I think it is worth noting that it just has to be viable, not optimal. Optimal should be reserved for archetypes and classes imo.
Humans get 7 easily, and two at 1st level (and thus three at 3rd), since they have a Heritage and a Feat each granting one. Which is where I was going with this.
Since this indicates you lack the book, I'll also note that Dex + Armor totals 5 in the final game (based on posted spoilers), so your analysis of the Breastplate may be a point off pretty easily (it could be +3 AC on its own).
Indeed, no book of my own yet. :'(
I did note this as much less true for those who got Master in armor.
Yeah, I was agreeing with you, just wanted to call it out due to also needing less investment (only one Feat).
Eh. Bulk is relevant, but much less so at high Str.
Sure, but you are basically wasting the high STR bonuses.
Here, I don't disagree. Indeed, I specifically noted I agreed with this.
Yeah, maybe best if we drop the discussion then :D
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels worth noting that most classes don't get Expertise in whatever their default armors are until 13th level and you can get expert in the rest with the 14th level Champion multiclass feat. That's a bit of a weird gap, but not much of one, especially when you consider rune swapping is thing.
Similarly, casters don't get weapon expertise until 11th level. The fighter multiclass lets you get expertise in all martial weapons at 12th. And the Ancestral Weapon Expertise feats pop up at 13th level-- but you probably don't need those anyway, because Ancestral Weapon Familiarity feats allow you to treat weapons with your ancestry tag on them as one step simpler. So for example, a halfling sorcerer treats their halfling slingstaff as a simple weapon, so they become an expert in at level 11 alongside all the other simple weapons. The only class this doesn't seem to apply to is the wizard, who doesn't get proficiency in all simple weapons.
So there are a few weird gaps, but nothing the system can't let you cover with the right investment. And this isn't until late levels. The general feats do seem a little left out in cold, but you can always retrain them.
You have to get pretty esoteric before you start running into issues in practice-- like a wizard who doesn't want to take the fighter dedication, or an elf who doesn't want to use elven weapons. And again, you won't be seeing any issues for the first 11-13 issues of play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having thought about this quite a lot, I don't think a 15th level general feat that upgrades trained to expert for one weapon group or armor type would be out of line. That would allow any class to at least get to baseline levels in any equipment eventually, and allows, for example, non-monk non-fighter razortooth goblins to use their bite at higher levels if they want.
I do think anything stronger than that would be too much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, you won't be seeing any issues for the first 11-13 issues of play.
Rogues that invest in a non-list Martial weapon have to deal with the discrepancy at 7th, when they would normally get Expert in a weapon and instead are stuck with Trained with those not on their list.
It does get extremely rough at 11th+ for pretty much any class that does not stick to the normal proficiency list.
And IMO "It stops working at 11th" in an edition that was supposed to breath new life into the higher levels of play, is not exactly ideal.
Having thought about this quite a lot, I don't think a 15th level general feat that upgrades trained to expert for one weapon group or armor type would be out of line.
It's a severe hamper to any class if it takes until 15th level for that to come online.
For one, that's still worse than most Master trained classes.
Two, that's two levels behind when a Master trained class would get Master in their standard weapons. It's 4 levels behind for the casters. Hardly is going to be worth the investment for just about anyone.
Three, that's now a two feat cost to add proficiency to your pool when as many have mentioned these choices are not particularly "unbalanced". That's a pretty hefty tax.
Adding them to your class pool needs to come sooner than 15th if it's going to matter at all. That's basically table scraps.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The major benefit of being able in use spells instead of skills was that it opened up many more party builds. Skills are great and I love highly skilled characters, but someone usually gets frustrated because during character creation you hear some variation of 'We need a tracker, a trap guy, a knowledge guy, a lie detector...' and etc. Being able to ignore some of those roles and pick the skills you want for your character because the wizard wants to spend all their spell slots being 'Johnny Swiss Army Knife' instead of loading down with powerful wizard control and buff spells is frankly a win/win situation.
This is where the PF2 version is 'best of both worlds' in a lot of ways. They give large enough bonuses that you don't need someone focused to succeed, but since they're adding a bonus they work even better paired with a specialist.
Let's give an example: Discern Lies in the PF2 playtest (and the final version, actually) gives a +4 bonus to Perception for spotting lies. That's a huge bonus and allows anyone to be as good a lie detector as someone really focused on it would be, meaning you can use it to sub in for having someone like that...but it's even better stacked on top of someone already good at it. Knock (at least in the playtest) works similarly, adding +4 to either Thievery or Athletics to open a door.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, you won't be seeing any issues for the first 11-13 issues of play.Rogues that invest in a non-list Martial weapon have to deal with the discrepancy at 7th, when they would normally get Expert in a weapon and instead are stuck with Trained with those not on their list.
It does get extremely rough at 11th+ for pretty much any class that does not stick to the normal proficiency list.
And IMO "It stops working at 11th" in an edition that was supposed to breath new life into the higher levels of play, is not exactly ideal.
Having thought about this quite a lot, I don't think a 15th level general feat that upgrades trained to expert for one weapon group or armor type would be out of line.It's a severe hamper to any class if it takes until 15th level for that to come online.
For one, that's still worse than most Master trained classes.
Two, that's two levels behind when a Master trained class would get Master in their standard weapons. It's 4 levels behind for the casters. Hardly is going to be worth the investment for just about anyone.
Three, that's now a two feat cost to add proficiency to your pool when as many have mentioned these choices are not particularly "unbalanced". That's a pretty hefty tax.
Adding them to your class pool needs to come sooner than 15th if it's going to matter at all. That's basically table scraps.
The problem is that if it's not 15th, it has to be 11th, and that seems too soon.
I also disagree that it should be possible for any class to get full proficiency in any piece of equipment; that for one gives too much homogeny and for two risks becoming a feat tax where investing in whichever proficiency becomes the optimal build.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, you won't be seeing any issues for the first 11-13 issues of play.Rogues that invest in a non-list Martial weapon have to deal with the discrepancy at 7th, when they would normally get Expert in a weapon and instead are stuck with Trained with those not on their list.
It does get extremely rough at 11th+ for pretty much any class that does not stick to the normal proficiency list.
And IMO "It stops working at 11th" in an edition that was supposed to breath new life into the higher levels of play, is not exactly ideal.
Having thought about this quite a lot, I don't think a 15th level general feat that upgrades trained to expert for one weapon group or armor type would be out of line.It's a severe hamper to any class if it takes until 15th level for that to come online.
For one, that's still worse than most Master trained classes.
Two, that's two levels behind when a Master trained class would get Master in their standard weapons. It's 4 levels behind for the casters. Hardly is going to be worth the investment for just about anyone.
Three, that's now a two feat cost to add proficiency to your pool when as many have mentioned these choices are not particularly "unbalanced". That's a pretty hefty tax.
Adding them to your class pool needs to come sooner than 15th if it's going to matter at all. That's basically table scraps.
The problem is that if it's not 15th, it has to be 11th, and that seems too soon.
I also disagree that it should be possible for any class to get full proficiency in any piece of equipment; that for one gives too much homogeny and for two risks becoming a feat tax where investing in whichever proficiency becomes the optimal build.
How is 11th ‘too soon’? It’s the level Caster’s get Expert and Rogue already has Expert by that time. It’s one thing if Fighter MC allowed other classes to get up to Master Prof, but atm it doesn’t. I do feel Archetypes will fill this role to some extent from how Grey Maiden worked, but we’ll have to wait to see.
___________________
EDIT:
@DMW - A problem i’ve Always had with the ‘spells replace skills’ idea is that you have to know the spell; have it prepared; be in the situation it’s useful; sacrifice the other options available for the slot; invest money if you need to learn the spell or buy a scroll and probably more while the Rogue or Bard can do it with just a skill investment.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one non-advanced weapon (or unarmed strike) at the proficiency your Class grants as an 11th level Feat is fine. This runs some risk of trapping you into weapon choices, but honestly you still have all your Class granted weapons so it doesn't seem too bad.
For armor, I'm not as sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main thinking with 11th being too soon is that the Ancestry feats that give better proficiency are all 13th, and I think those should remain optimal for characters of that ancestry who want those weapons, rather than being crept out by an 11th level General feat.
And again, if you have a feat wizards can take that gives them expert with any gear the same level they get expert with their class gear, it risks becoming a feat tax.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main thinking with 11th being too soon is that the Ancestry feats that give better proficiency are all 13th, and I think those should remain optimal for characters of that ancestry who want those weapons, rather than being crept out by an 11th level General feat.
Eh. You could always take one then the other via retraining.
And again, if you have a feat wizards can take that gives them expert with any gear the same level they get expert with their class gear, it risks becoming a feat tax.
To be clear, my suggestion is for a separate Feat that requires you to be Trained already. So to have a Greatsword Wizard, you need three General Feats invested in this by 11th (one for Simple Weapon Proficiency, on for Martial Weapon Proficiency, and a third that does what I'm suggesting).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that if it's not 15th, it has to be 11th, and that seems too soon.
Why?
If it happened at 11th level, Rogues would still be getting Expert in whatever weapon they selected 4 levels later.
What exactly does having matching proficiency with a Martial Weapon that a Rogue paid with a General Feat to even get say to you that you would consider it "too soon"?
It's not even good if it's 11.
I also disagree that it should be possible for any class to get full proficiency in any piece of equipment; that for one gives too much homogeny and for two risks becoming a feat tax where investing in whichever proficiency becomes the optimal build.
If by "full proficiency" you mean "match proficiency of their base class" then it's not even "any piece of equipment" so much as it is equipment they have to logistically invest in, which the ones taking the Feat did.
And it doesn't really make people "homogeneous" if no one invests in it at all.
If it upgraded to Class pool at 11th, I don't even know that it would get picked. It's not particularly optimal to select a General Feat that has poor value for about 50% of your career.
Rogues don't even get the ability to Sneak Attack with weapons outside their list.
armor I'm less sure about
But didn't we just establish that most of the armors are balanced against each other and it comes down to "flavor"?
A Rogue with high Dex isn't going to become massively overpowered because he has Heavy Armor on, because his Class already enforces most of the needs to Dex anyways.
Even in the case of the STR Rogue, does it really amount to a "massive power", or is it just a way to build a STR Rogue that has a comparable AC to any other Rogue?
The classes enforce a lot of the things that these restrictions on Proficiency increases are doubling up on.
If you want to cap proficiency increase outside of Class to Master and say and limit it to only Martial/Simple weapons, then alright.
Lest we forget mr. Barbarian can get Master proficiency in Spellcasting if he MCs but he can't get Master Proficiency in Heavy Armor. #logic
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that if it's not 15th, it has to be 11th, and that seems too soon.
Why?
If it happened at 11th level, Rogues would still be getting Expert in whatever weapon they selected 4 levels later.
What exactly does having matching proficiency with a Martial Weapon that a Rogue paid with a General Feat to even get?
I also disagree that it should be possible for any class to get full proficiency in any piece of equipment; that for one gives too much homogeny and for two risks becoming a feat tax where investing in whichever proficiency becomes the optimal build.If by "full proficiency" you mean "match proficiency of their base class" then it's not even "any piece of equipment" so much as it is equipment they have to logistically invest in, which the ones taking the Feat did.
And it doesn't really make people "homogeneous" if no one invests in it at all.
If it upgraded to Class pool at 11th, I don't even know that it would get picked. It's not particularly optimal to select a General Feat that has poor value for about 50% of your career.
Rogues don't even get the ability to Sneak Attack with weapons outside their list.
My problem with it being 11th level is that then that general feat is as strong as higher level class and ancestry feats. Which doesn't seem appropriate as general feats feel as if they should be weaker or at least have to be higher level to achieve the same benefit. Admittedly, that's more a feel issue than a balance one (to me).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, you won't be seeing any issues for the first 11-13 issues of play.Rogues that invest in a non-list Martial weapon have to deal with the discrepancy at 7th, when they would normally get Expert in a weapon and instead are stuck with Trained with those not on their list.
Not really. Ancestral weapon feats pick up the slack here. Notably, humans can reduce any single weapon from martial to simple, and the other ancestries get their own list of to choose from. Technically, all characters can take adopted ancestry if they want the flexibility of the human as well.
I'll also note that rogues already have their weapon access curtailed by their sneak attack feature, so there isn't actually a ton of overlap between "martial weapons my proficiency falls behind in" and "stuff I can sneak attack in." What there is can often be covered by the aforementioned ancestry feats. Side note: I'm pretty sure said ancestry feats can let you sneak attack with a martial melee weapon on a ruffian build, which is neat.
If anything, the issue seems to be that general feats eventually become duds. You're better off using a general feat to snag ancestral paragon than weapon/armor proficiency in some cases, and that's counter-intuitive and gets into weird trap territory.
It's a severe hamper to any class if it takes until 15th level for that to come online.
For one, that's still worse than most Master trained classes.
Two, that's two levels behind when a Master trained class would get Master in their standard weapons. It's 4 levels behind for the casters. Hardly is going to be worth the investment for just about anyone.
Let's keep in mind that casters don't get master in any weapons or armor at all, and most martials don't get master in their armor until 19th level.
Seems to me that a 15th level general feat that nets you +1 AC (taking heavy armor to your highest armor proficiency) wouldn't be outrageous? I mean I would be pretty tempted to take it at least, though legendary skill feats would make it tough.
It feels worth acknowledging that having higher AC from their heavy armor proficiency seems to be an intentional advantage the fighter and champion are supposed to have though, as compared to the barbarian getting resistance and temporary hit points or the ranger getting concealment against all enemies.
Also, for a lot of characters fighting naked seems to be a viable option anyway by these levels-- it is enough time to get your dex up to 18th at least. And if you didn't want to put any boosts into dex, full plate would be worthwhile even if you had to lose a point of AC-- Bulwark gives you +3 to reflex saves after all. If I was a barbarian multiclassing into Champion of Gorum or Torag or something, I'd certainly tough out the single level of slightly worse AC to keep that before I get the Champion feat at 14th.
I'd expect the equivalent weapon feat could maybe be bumped down to 11th level though. That lets martial weapon using casters keep their weapons on hand without interruption.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. Ancestral weapon feats pick up the slack here.
I would disagree that "Ancestral weapons" solve this problem.
There are a great many number of weapons that do not fall into "Ancestral" and forcing someone into a Human/Elf/Dwarf just to get a weapon is not "picking up slack".
I'll also note that rogues already have their weapon access curtailed by their sneak attack feature, so there isn't actually a ton of overlap between "martial weapons my proficiency falls behind in" and "stuff I can sneak attack in."
In the context of an "assist" weapon in a TWF scenario, it would still be useful.
For instance, a Rogue that fights with a whip/net/etc and dagger being able to use his net effectively and then his dagger for Sneak Attack.
If anything, the issue seems to be that general feats eventually become duds. You're better off using a general feat to snag ancestral paragon than weapon/armor proficiency in some cases, and that's counter-intuitive and gets into weird trap territory.
Precisely. I thought feat traps were a bad thing we were trying to avoid though.
Let's keep in mind that casters don't get master in any weapons or armor at all, and most martials don't get master in their armor until 19th level.
The quote you mention is in reference to Weapons.
The level requirements should reflect the proficiency mentioned is all I'm saying.
Level 15 is awful for weapons. It might be fine for Armor.
My problem with it being 11th level is that then that general feat is as strong as higher level class and ancestry feats. Which doesn't seem appropriate as general feats feel as if they should be weaker or at least have to be higher level to achieve the same benefit. Admittedly, that's more a feel issue than a balance one (to me).
Why is it as powerful as a Class/Ancestry Feat?
In both cases if you draw a direct comparison, it is weaker.
Fighter MC grants severely more weapons. The next one grants Expert in all Martial/Simple.
Ancestries grant up to Master and add it directly to your pool.
Both of those do it earlier than level 11.
So, again, I ask how would these be "equal"?
And remember General Feats can select Skill Feats, which do scale with level, so when a player chooses this weapon with no scaling proficiency, they are trading a Skill Feat that will likely scale much better for something that does not.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one non-advanced weapon (or unarmed strike) at the proficiency your Class grants as an 11th level Feat is fine.
Agree, but why not unarmed strike too? Throw in a clause that lets unarmed strikes work with weapon focused traits so unarmed champions and rangers and etc. can actually function too.
I've seen a pretty decent number of "How do I build an unarmed X" in the advice forum and various other 3.5/PF forums I go to and I kind of hate that the answer to the PF2 version of that question is to not even bother trying because unarmed essentially just doesn't work if you aren't a monk.
Ancestral weapon feats pick up the slack here.
They do, but it feels kind of goofy that it's harder for a Wizard to grab a new simple weapon than an elven curve blade. Or that a rogue can never get full proficiency in any out-of-class martial weapon but master in an advanced ancestral weapon is just a couple feats away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one non-advanced weapon (or unarmed strike) at the proficiency your Class grants as an 11th level Feat is fine.Agree, but why not unarmed strike too? Throw in a clause that lets unarmed strikes work with weapon focused traits so unarmed champions and rangers and etc. can actually function too.
I've seen a pretty decent number of "How do I build an unarmed X" in the advice forum and various other 3.5/PF forums I go to and I kind of hate that the answer to the PF2 version of that question is to not even bother trying because unarmed essentially just doesn't work if you aren't a monk.
Ancestral weapon feats pick up the slack here.They do, but it feels kind of goofy that it's harder for a Wizard to grab a new simple weapon than an elven curve blade. Or that a rogue can never get full proficiency in any out-of-class martial weapon but master in an advanced ancestral weapon is just a couple feats away.
Personally I would use Gauntlets for Unarmed Champ. Unarmed dmg only gets better with monk stances; it’s enchantable; free-hand trait means a Ranger can still use range and melee w/o using interact for weapon switch and you get up to master in using simple weapons which gauntlets are. That’s just for this specific case though.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Midnight, it's fairly clear we are coming at this from different points of view.
For example, I find the fact that only humans and elves can be both a monk and a master of longswords to be a feature instead of a hindrance; it makes race a more meaningful choice and gives definition between the same build with different races.
To me it's in the same category as the fact that an elven monk is most likely going to be 10 feet faster than any other monk - I really like how different races play differently in a more meaningful way than they did in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Midnight, it's fairly clear we are coming at this from different points of view.
For example, I find the fact that only humans and elves can be both a monk and a master of longswords to be a feature instead of a hindrance; it makes race a more meaningful choice and gives definition between the same build with different races.
I do not think we are.
Races can be meaningful choices while also having General Feats be meaningful choices.
If you're trying to argue that getting proficiency with multiple weapons and Master level at that (and some of them are Advanced Weapons ) added to your Class pool is somehow "worse" than adding the weapon to your pool at 11th level (5 levels later), then I'd like to hear why.
This does not devalue Elves/Dwarves.
It only makes backwards choices of going the Adopted Ancestry to achieve weapons more likely.
If the only thing that gives races "meaningful choice" is weapon usage, then I'd say that's a failure not a success.
Elves being faster is great and makes sense.
Elves being the only way for a Wizard to wield a longsword Expert or above, does not. Heck, the Wizard can't even use another simple weapon at Expert without a Fighter MC or racial feat. It's literally impossible.