| 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.
I agree wholeheartedly. I feel like in general the more thematic options should be a more efficient way of doing something than the most general way of doing it.
So expert proficiency with a longbow should be unlocked via "fighter multiclassing" or "being an elf" before it could be via a general feat.
Since the difference between "a variety of weapons" and "just one weapon" is not significant, as characters generally focus on one weapon in particular.
Having to be deeply religious to get expert proficiency in armor not granted by your class needs fixing much more than anything with weapons.
The way I see it, the idea of racial weapons has been part of the system since 3.5; PF2e is just the first system where instead of saving you a single feat, races actually have significant tangible bonuses with their racial weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, the idea of racial weapons has been part of the system since 3.5; PF2e is just the first system where instead of saving you a single feat, races actually have significant tangible bonuses with their racial weapons.
The idea of racial weapons goes back much further then D&D 3.5
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good to know; I don't have much experience with anything before that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree wholeheartedly. I feel like in general the more thematic options should be a more efficient way of doing something than the most general way of doing it.So expert proficiency with a longbow should be unlocked via "fighter multiclassing" or "being an elf" before it could be via a general feat.
Since the difference between "a variety of weapons" and "just one weapon" is not significant, as characters generally focus on one weapon in particular.
Having to be deeply religious to get expert proficiency in armor not granted by your class needs fixing much more than anything with weapons.
Right but both of those examples require extreme measures by the player :
If you want to wield a weapon outside your class list, hope an Ancestry gets access to it and specifically play that ancestry or MC into Fighter and be chained to the 3 Feat requirements of that Dedication.
And not only that, but that effectively nets you Expert+ much earlier than the proposed level 11.
So now, it's more effective to grab Adopted Ancestry and spend Ancestry Feats to get what you want.
Is that really making Ancestries more distinct? Because I would argue it makes them less distinct by forcing a bunch of people that otherwise wouldn't play the ancestry at all or take the Adopted Ancestry feat to just pick those things to make their concept work.
Basically, when you can't supplement a simple concept with base mechanics, but you can supplement a simple concept with convoluted mechanics, shouldn't a more basic one exist?
This is all discounting the fact that the General Feat becomes a trap feat the level you gain Expert proficiency in whatever it is, since -2 is going to make a much bigger difference in this edition.
It's also a step back from PF1, where taking MWP actually made it scale appropriately.
Did people have a problem with MWP stepping on Elf toes then?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the difference between "a variety of weapons" and "just one weapon" is not significant, as characters generally focus on one weapon in particular.
Actually this has to be taken with a grain of salt this edition. Different weapons now do drastically different things based on traits and crits; this is one reason the fighter gets legendary with every single weapon other than Advanced. In general people may still end up sticking with one weapon, but the ability to switch weapons mid fight for a certain status effect is much more significant than it was in 1e. Switching from a Greataxe to a Greatsword could actually change the flow of a battle.
I agree wholeheartedly. I feel like in general the more thematic options should be a more efficient way of doing something than the most general way of doing it.So expert proficiency with a longbow should be unlocked via "fighter multiclassing" or "being an elf" before it could be via a general feat.
Since the difference between "a variety of weapons" and "just one weapon" is not significant, as characters generally focus on one weapon in particular.
Having to be deeply religious to get expert proficiency in armor not granted by your class needs fixing much more than anything with weapons.
And not only that, but that effectively nets you Expert+ much earlier than the proposed level 11.
Out of curiosity, where are you getting this? I don't have the books, but according the others in this thread, the followup feats that grant expert aren't available until level 12+.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's put it to the reasonableness-in-play test. If you had a player who took a feat to wield a spear instead of a staff, did so over however many levels, then suddenly found out that they're mechanically behind the curve because of their prior choice and should switch back to the staff; would you tell them tough luck?
There's no way I would tell them that they should have played a different race, or multiclassed fighter if they wanted to continue to play with a spear.
And if I had told them in advance, they would have never taken the feat. That's a pretty clear indication that it's a trap option and needs to be fixed.
If they tried to argue that they should be able to do all sorts of crazy kung-fu with the spear, or using a weapon not designed for their class features, like sneak attacking with a big weapon, then that's a different story. Of course that should take more investment, or straight up be impossible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, where are you getting this? I don't have the books, but according the others in this thread, the followup feats that grant expert aren't available until level 12+.
I do not have my book either, so I'm shooting with what I was given by others.
The Ancestral Weapons progress to Master.
Fighter I believe got the "Upgrade all weapons to expert" at level 4 (meaning level 8) from what I was told.
Regardless, good with "all martial weapons"/"advanced weapons" is significantly more valuable than just "I want to use a single weapon as if it were on my class list".
Added line could be:
"At level 11, add a single martial or simple weapon in which you are already Trained of your choice to your class proficiency list"
I feel like saying the above in any way steps on Fighter/Ancestry is a bit of a stretch to me. No one is going to bemoan their choice of Elf because someone that spent two General Feats on Wizard can now wield a longsword.
I would also argue, those that need to spend General's to do this are already at a disadvantage for those respective fighting styles.
It's not like the Wizard who just got access to a longsword via spending two general Feats is somehow "better" than a Fighter or Elf at swinging a longsword. He isn't. He just wields one like he would his other weapons (which he got for free).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, where are you getting this? I don't have the books, but according the others in this thread, the followup feats that grant expert aren't available until level 12+.
As I understand it, Ancestry feat granting expertise is at 13 (ancestry feats are 1, 5, 9, 13,17), while the fighter dedication has expert weapons available at 12. So a general feat giving expert weapons should not be available before 15th level.
However, a lot of proverbial ink is being spilled about making wizards, the worst class at weapons, good at weapons. A sorcerer with the initial ancestry feat can treat ancestral martial weapons as simple, a one feat investment for eventual expertise. It might be for the best to just acknowledge "wizards are not supposed to be good with weapons" barring an archetype which fixes this. I mean, "sorcerers are better with weapons than wizards" appears to be a deliberate design choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, where are you getting this? I don't have the books, but according the others in this thread, the followup feats that grant expert aren't available until level 12+.As I understand it, Ancestry feat granting expertise is at 13 (ancestry feats are 1, 5, 9, 13,17), while the fighter dedication has expert weapons available at 12. So a general feat giving expert weapons should not be available before 15th level.
However, a lot of proverbial ink is being spilled about making wizards, the worst class at weapons, good at weapons. A sorcerer with the initial ancestry feat can treat ancestral martial weapons as simple, a one feat investment for eventual expertise. It might be for the best to just acknowledge "wizards are not supposed to be good with weapons" barring an archetype which fixes this. I mean, "sorcerers are better with weapons than wizards" appears to be a deliberate design choice.
That is why the Magus was invented. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it, Ancestry feat granting expertise is at 13 (ancestry
feats are 1, 5, 9, 13,17), while the fighter dedication has expert weapons available at 12. So a general feat giving expert weapons should not be available before 15th level.
Correction, the Fighter Dedication at 12 grants Expert with all Martial and Simple weapons as well as Trained in Advanced Weapons
That is a monstrous difference.
Also, in the case of the Ancestries, they grant multiple weapons at that instance.
And I don't know that we should be talking about Ancestry Feats as if they are "definitely better" than General Feats. Class Feats, sure, but Ancestry is not nearly as cut and dry to me (especially because of Adopted Ancestry).
However, a lot of proverbial ink is being spilled about making wizards, the worst class at weapons, good at weapons.
I am going to refrain from using Wizards as examples from now on.
People just see the words "wizard" and "weapons" in the same sentence and tune out.
This applies to anyone that wants to use the General Feat. Anyone.
Presumably, that's the point of a General Feat, to open options to all characters.
This General Feat does not do that, and as Waterslethe mentioned it gets worse as you level.
| 2 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.
While I see where you're coming from, I think an unnecessary fixation on diversity for its own sake is potentially a pretty toxic design philosophy. Obviously you don't want to homogenize classes or ideas, but at the same time being able to do similar things with similar concepts isn't inherently bad either.
In some instances the result feels less like it's preserving the integrity of the game, enhancing game balance, or adding to flavor so much as it's just... telling someone they aren't allowed to roleplay a certain character. Obviously you can't allow everything anyways, but if the only reason to disallow a concept is to make someone else feel more special about being able to pull off the same thing I'm not sure that's really great. You've cut down on build diversity for what feels like pretty arbitrary or nonexistent gains.
Obviously this is a totally subjective thing, but I think on a philosophical level this is a design approach that can cause some issues down the road.
As I understand it, Ancestry feat granting expertise is at 13 (ancestry
feats are 1, 5, 9, 13,17), while the fighter dedication has expert weapons available at 12. So a general feat giving expert weapons should not be available before 15th level.Correction, the Fighter Dedication at 12 grants Expert with all Martial and Simple weapons as well as Trained in Advanced Weapons
That is a monstrous difference.
Also, in the case of the Ancestries, they grant multiple weapons at that instance.
And I don't know that we should be talking about Ancestry Feats as if they are "definitely better" than General Feats. Class Feats, sure, but Ancestry is not nearly as cut and dry to me (especially because of Adopted Ancestry).
However, a lot of proverbial ink is being spilled about making wizards, the worst class at weapons, good at weapons.I am going to refrain from using Wizards as examples from now on.
People just see the words "wizard" and "weapons" in the same sentence and tune out.
This applies to anyone that wants to use the General Feat. Anyone.
Presumably, that's the point of a General Feat, to open options to all characters.
This General Feat does not do that, and as Waterslethe mentioned it gets worse as you level.
Sure, they give access to more weapons, but they also cost different feats and STILL aren't online until at least level 12. I can't see any reason for a general feat to grant access to expert in any weapon sooner than a class feat (no less one that's nested in a dedication).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, a lot of proverbial ink is being spilled about making wizards, the worst class at weapons, good at weapons.
If specifically wizards bothers you you can change it to rogue or druid or any other class that doesn't get blanket proficiency.
If anything it's even worse for the rogue, because fighter MC caps at expert so the rogue can never get full proficiency with non-ancestral weapons.
I can't see any reason for a general feat to grant access to expert in any weapon sooner than a class feat
All classes have expert by 11. Making someone wait an extra 4 levels to catch up with the weapon with they want to use doesn't seem like it really adds anything to the system, it just makes the player in question feel bad for a few levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, they give access to more weapons, but they also cost different feats and STILL aren't online until at least level 12. I can't see any reason for a general feat to grant access to expert in any weapon sooner than a class feat (no less one that's nested in a dedication).
I mean call it 13th level then, but "earlier" and "later" contextually relevant to the amount they give.
If I said I'd give you twenty bucks tomorrow but 50 bucks on Friday, clearly Friday is better, regardless of how I invest the 20 bucks tomorrow.
The fact that casting proficiency is given out all the way to Master (a taught/innate power) but Weapons/Armor (the thing every class in the game has Weapon/Armor Specialization and Proficiency increases for) can't go past Expert even on an MC is silly to me anyways.
Does the Wizard getting "upgraded proficiency at level 11 in Quarterstaff" step on the Fighter MC Class Feat then? Because by that measurement, it does and that's already a thing.
Sure, they give access to more weapons, but they also cost different feats and STILL aren't online until at least level 12. I can't see any reason for a general feat to grant access to expert in any weapon sooner than a class feat (no less one that's nested in a dedication).Does the Wizard getting "upgraded proficiency at level 11 in Quarterstaff" step on the Fighter MC Class Feat then? Because by that measurement, it does and that's already a thing.
Those aren't the same measurement at all. One is a baseline class feature. The other is something you have to spend resources on. And not all of the resources are equivalently valuable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a reasonable option that helps everybody except the wizard and cleric would be to offer a general feat with the effect:
Choose a martial weapon, for purposes of proficiency treat it as a simple weapon.
For advanced weapons, each of them should be associated with a group (dedication) or a culture (ancestry feat) and you could offer a "treat as martial" feat for each.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those aren't the same measurement at all. One is a baseline class feature. The other is something you have to spend resources on. And not all of the resources are equivalently valuable.
They aren't the same measurement, but they express the value of the Fighter MC feat.
We're acting like that Feat is devalued significantly by the introduction of a General Feat that adds something to the Class pool.
If that were the case, we need to compare the Feat to it's actual value.
Currently, that MC Fighter feat on the premise of "getting Expert in a single Martial Weapon" is not as valuable since every Class will have at least Expert proficiency with their Class pool by that time.
That means the real "value" of that Feat comes from the other parts, which seem to go conveniently unaccounted for when discussing this Feat:
They grant Expert to all Martial Weapons which in this edition is a huge deal.
It also grants Trained in Advanced Weapons, which are by measurement better than most other weapons.
Yet we're glued to the tincy benefit of "oh but you get Expert in Longsword and it's a package deal soooo same thing".
Basically, would you count the second Dedication Feat for Wizard that allows Spells 0-3 the same as a Rogue's Minor Magic Talent?
Of course not.
So why are we doing that for the Fighter Feat?
I think a reasonable option that helps everybody except the wizard and cleric would be to offer a general feat with the effect:
Choose a martial weapon, for purposes of proficiency treat it as a simple weapon.
For advanced weapons, each of them should be associated with a group (dedication) or a culture (ancestry feat) and you could offer a "treat as martial" feat for each.
I would be happy there for sure.
In the case of Wizards/Clerics, you could just as easily make them pay an "extra" to get all Simple Weapons first (or make that a prerequisite).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a reasonable option that helps everybody except the wizard and cleric would be to offer a general feat with the effect:
Choose a martial weapon, for purposes of proficiency treat it as a simple weapon.For advanced weapons, each of them should be associated with a group (dedication) or a culture (ancestry feat) and you could offer a "treat as martial" feat for each.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
That said, I REALLY don't like the art. My first read through of the Bestiary was very disappointing, I just wasn't inspired by any of the representations. It seems they went away from WR's more whimsical art style to a more realistic style that smacks of 5e. I miss the unique feel of PF1.
I know it's just a matter of taste, but I personally love to hear that.
Although I always thought PF1's art was VERY well done, to me it was well done in a style that I'm not personally a fan of (the cartoony styles of D&D 4e, Warcraft/Hearthstone and such really rub me the wrong way).
I didn't mind PF1's art since it was so well done, but I definitely prefer D&D 5e's art. 5e's art isn't at the ultra-high level of Symbaroum, Trudvang, Shadows of Esteren and some other RPGs, but for a mainstream game it's really top notch IMO. Anyhow, that's just my 2 cents based on your comment, but I haven't actually gotten the PF2 books yet to see for myself.
I really would prefer more setting-immersive art, emulating a medieval or even ancient art style. There is this guy (or probably multiple people) who do illustrations in style of medieval Turkish or Persian "miniatures" which is mostly very flat with a focus on patterns in environment, but he does images inspired by modern culture like the Godfather film or The Shining. Of course, going that direction really demands either a single artist, or much fewer than they are used to, handle an entire project because it isn't as common as 'generic fantasy art'.
https://www.mysterytribune.com/turkish-artist-murat-palta-recreates-cult-mo vie-scenes-as-ottoman-miniature-art/
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously you don't want to homogenize classes or ideas...
So I think this brings up a good point. What is obviously desirable to one person is not so to another. There are people (like me) who would love to have the system do just that. Those of us who strongly prefer classless games, but are playing Pathfinder for various reasons. I think restricting choices into someone else's predefined idea of what a "sorceress" is is bad.
I get there are those people who like classes, who want to pick from a list of premade stuff instead of making their own, but that isn't everyone. Some of use would rather be playing something like Hero system where every ability is created by the players from the ground up and it's all ridiculously complicated. D&D 5e leans hard to the premade classes side. PF1 was somewhere in the middle, it has classes, but a lot of ability to customize your own version. I'm worried that PF2 looks to be leaning towards the class side, when I wish it would veer hard the other way, but obviously you can't please everyone with one game.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 was somewhere in the middle, it has classes, but a lot of ability to customize your own version.
It took ten years to get all of those options on the table.
It took a year to get the Oracle, Alchemist, Witch, and so forth.
It took about two years to get the Magus, Gunslinger, Samurai, Ninja, and the rules supporting all of that stuff.
It took six years to give us the Unchained Rogue.
If you look at just the PF1 core book... it's actually a fair bit more restrictive.
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.
Druids and Barbarians also advance their unarmed proficiency to unarmed.
Your proposed feat does seem pretty reasonable, though. It's a pretty late +2 that only helps those specifically having left behind higher numbers with something different.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, and maybe in a few years Pf2 will be a different game due to new options, but that wasn't my point. I meant that different people want different things from the system. Things that one person says are bad design choices another person thinks are good. It's not universal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Currently, that MC Fighter feat on the premise of "getting Expert in a single Martial Weapon" is not as valuable since every Class will have at least Expert proficiency with their Class pool by that time.
That means the real "value" of that Feat comes from the other parts, which seem to go conveniently unaccounted for when discussing this Feat:
They grant Expert to all Martial Weapons which in this edition is a huge deal.
It also grants Trained in Advanced Weapons, which are by measurement better than most other weapons.
Yet we're glued to the tincy benefit of "oh but you get Expert in Longsword and it's a package deal soooo same thing".
Basically, would you count the second Dedication Feat for Wizard that allows Spells 0-3 the same as a Rogue's Minor Magic Talent?
Of course not.
So why are we doing that for the Fighter Feat?
Not to dispute your broader point, which is good, I'm not a fan of your analogy. The big difference between comparing multiple spells and a single spell vs. comparing all martial weapons and one martial weapons is that by virtue of the costs of investing in magic item system, you're likely to only have one primary weapon. It's rarely worth enchanting multiple weapons to the same level, and rarely worth switch to a secondary weapon that's doesn't have the extra bonuses your main weapon has. That investment process encourages specialization, so all the other weapon proficiencies you also got don't matter. By contrast, spell options are inherently consumable, as you have limited spell slots and limited spells to fill them; anything that expands those options is of benefit for nearly any character, even if those extra options are only occasionally used, they're likely to merit more consideration than the backup weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to dispute your broader point, which is good, I'm not a fan of your analogy. The big difference between comparing multiple spells and a single spell vs. comparing all martial weapons and one martial weapons is that by virtue of the costs of investing in magic item system, you're likely to only have one primary weapon. It's rarely worth enchanting multiple weapons to the same level, and rarely worth switch to a secondary weapon that's doesn't have the extra bonuses your main weapon has. That investment process encourages specialization, so all the other weapon proficiencies you also got don't matter. By contrast, spell options are inherently consumable, as you have limited spell slots and limited spells to fill them; anything that expands those options is of benefit for nearly any character, even if those extra options are only occasionally used, they're likely to merit more consideration than the backup weapon.Currently, that MC Fighter feat on the premise of "getting Expert in a single Martial Weapon" is not as valuable since every Class will have at least Expert proficiency with their Class pool by that time.
That means the real "value" of that Feat comes from the other parts, which seem to go conveniently unaccounted for when discussing this Feat:
They grant Expert to all Martial Weapons which in this edition is a huge deal.
It also grants Trained in Advanced Weapons, which are by measurement better than most other weapons.
Yet we're glued to the tincy benefit of "oh but you get Expert in Longsword and it's a package deal soooo same thing".
Basically, would you count the second Dedication Feat for Wizard that allows Spells 0-3 the same as a Rogue's Minor Magic Talent?
Of course not.
So why are we doing that for the Fighter Feat?
I would argue that in PF1 that was true, but with Rune transfers and the variability and balance across weapons in PF2 I do not know that’s true anymore.
There’s a lot of incentives to use more than one weapon based on innate traits and damage type alone (armor on enemies now changes tactics due to specialization)
Not to mention there are almost no weapon dependent feats anymore (weapon focus, specialization) which incentives diversifying by not reinforcing choices.
The only thing that incentivizes weapon choice right now is your class weapon lists and personal taste/combat tactics. And that’s great. What’s not great is how immutable your list is and seemingly not a lot of support. It’s created really weird situations by not moving things to class pools or dropping them a tier (as PossibleCabbag suggested).
Given the arrival of armor specialization and weapon specialization, I would have expected the opposite.
In the playtest progression based proficiency increases weren’t even a thing, so including them but then not extending them to include weapon/armor general feats (even across MCing) is superweird.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
This cap of 5 is true except for a couple of exceptions.
- Padded armor has 1 AC and 3 Dex Cap for a total of 4, but as the very lightest of the light armors (L bulk) it is ideal for your average low-level non-sorcerer/wizard who hasn't gotten Dex to 18 and neither wants to spend meaningful money nor carrying capacity on something better (alchemists, casting-focused druids/bards/clerics). Sorcs/wizards will still be better off unarmored (explorer's clothes, 0 AC and 5 Dex Cap) because they're not proficient with light armor.- Heavy armors, where Dex Cap + AC Bonus total 6. They have the highest check (-3) and speed (-10) penalties and even with sufficient strength to bypass the check penalties, the speed penalty only gets reduced to -5.
As Michael Sayre wrote in some post somewhere this week (maybe it was even this thread), there may well be an optimal armor for a given character, but there isn't really one for all characters.
.
If you look at just the PF1 core book... it's actually a fair bit more restrictive.
Actually in PF1 I could get proficiency with any weapon that scaled with BAB appropriate to my class with a Feat and because of how BAB worked it scaled with my class.
This is not an example of missing content so much as it is an example of a chosen limitation.
By analogy, swashbucklers in PF1 got bonuses to using one-handed and light piercing weapons which are the iconic swashbuckler weapons. However, they could with a feat gain proficiency with a kusarigama or a butchering axe. Should the game not have provided mechanics to allow a swashbuckler to push swashbucklers towards "iconic swashbuckling weapons"? We expanded the set of "swashbuckler weapons" with slashing grace, but they still do not allow help the kusarigama or butchering axe.
I'm not sure "pigeonholing the basic version of a class with a few weapons" is a bad thing. Fixing this seems like a better use for archetyping than general feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By analogy, swashbucklers in PF1 got bonuses to using one-handed and light piercing weapons which are the iconic swashbuckler weapons. However, they could with a feat gain proficiency with a kusarigama or a butchering axe. Should the game not have provided mechanics to allow a swashbuckler to push swashbucklers towards "iconic swashbuckling weapons"?
I'm not sure "pigeonholing the basic version of a class with a few weapons" is a bad thing. Fixing this seems like a better use for archetyping than general feats.
I think Class abilities are locked down enough to support that though.
For instance, a rogue cannot sneak attack with a great sword. He can’t finesse one. It’s still a great sword.
So a Swashbuckler getting a different weapon, yeah they don’t get their Swashbuckler stuff, but if they spend a Feat they still get Full BAB with the weapon, get to make Full attacks, etc.
They don’t reach level 6 and then only get +5 because it’s a kursarigama.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think proficiency beyond trained is supposed to replace stuff like "weapon training", "greater weapon focus", "favored enemy", and "rage gives a big strength bonus." So instead of putting the "beyond BAB" stuff in thematic class features, we just isolate it and put it in proficiency increases.
I mean, fundamentally a level 20 character adds 22+Mods to attack with a weapon they are trained with, it's just that a cleric gets 24+Mods with their deity's favored weapon. It's hard to see anything smaller you could do that would actually encourage clerics to use the sacred weapon. I mean, if we let non-martials top out at 24+Mods with even non-thematic weapons, the fighter's schtick of getting 28+Mods for any weapon at all loses some steam, IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that in PF1 that was true, but with Rune transfers and the variability and balance across weapons in PF2 I do not know that’s true anymore.
There’s a lot of incentives to use more than one weapon based on innate traits and damage type alone (armor on enemies now changes tactics due to specialization)
Not to mention there are almost no weapon dependent feats anymore (weapon focus, specialization) which incentives diversifying by not reinforcing choices.
The only thing that incentivizes weapon choice right now is your class weapon lists and personal taste/combat tactics. And that’s great. What’s not great is how immutable your list is and seemingly not a lot of support. It’s created really weird situations by not moving things to class pools or dropping them a tier (as PossibleCabbag suggested).
Given the arrival of armor specialization and weapon specialization, I would have expected the opposite.
In the playtest progression based proficiency increases weren’t even a thing, so including them but then not extending them to include weapon/armor general feats (even across MCing) is superweird.
Transferring a rune (or swapping) is a day of downtime and 10% of the cost of the rune (or the more expensive rune, if swapping). If I'm a heavy weapon user, I might have a couple specialized tools in my kit, but most of my investment is still going toward whatever one weapon I'm going to use the most.
I'd argue the lists aren't that immutable, but I also think that as long as weapon proficiencies are a class feature, they should have some limitations on how easy it is to swap around. If wizards want fancy weapon proficiencies, it seems fine that they have to jump through some kind of system/setting-relevant hoop to do so, whether it's multiclassing, ancestral feats, or something else.
They've reduced the benefits of hyper-specialization into a single weapon, which is great, especially for the weapon user that picks up some amazing new item. They can evaluate the item on its own merits, not the pile of feats they dumped into getting better with the glaive or whatever.
...But, for someone in a class that didn't grant weapon proficiency in the first place and who hasn't MC'ed into fighter, if they can't use their piercing bow against a skeleton (or whatever) they still have their main schtick as a spellcaster or monk or whatever to fall back on. It's probably still not worth carrying around a bunch of specialized weapons most of the time instead of investing that money in the tools they use 90% of the time.
And remember, most of the time the difference between a simple and the most similar martial weapon is going to be a die size and/or an extra two traits or so. Anyone picking a class that's left out still gets some solid stuff to pick from. Wizards are the worst-case scenario, and they can still two-hand a staff for a d8 of bludgeoning whenever they want.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
.
If you look at just the PF1 core book... it's actually a fair bit more restrictive.
Actually in PF1 I could get proficiency with any weapon that scaled with BAB appropriate to my class with a Feat and because of how BAB worked it scaled with my class.
This is not an example of missing content so much as it is an example of a chosen limitation.
All you need is trained to get "BAB appropriate scaling" for almost every class. The tiny group being left behind are the folks who might get expert in a narrow set of weapons from their class, but only trained in their special investment. That's a total difference of a +2 bonus. "Not getting the benefit of expert" is not the same thing as "losing the benefit of trained" because that would entirely drop the proficiency bonus to 0 regardless of level (and therefore lose the "BAB appropriate scaling").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously you don't want to homogenize classes or ideas...So I think this brings up a good point. What is obviously desirable to one person is not so to another. There are people (like me) who would love to have the system do just that. Those of us who strongly prefer classless games, but are playing Pathfinder for various reasons. I think restricting choices into someone else's predefined idea of what a "sorceress" is is bad.
I get there are those people who like classes, who want to pick from a list of premade stuff instead of making their own, but that isn't everyone. Some of use would rather be playing something like Hero system where every ability is created by the players from the ground up and it's all ridiculously complicated. D&D 5e leans hard to the premade classes side. PF1 was somewhere in the middle, it has classes, but a lot of ability to customize your own version. I'm worried that PF2 looks to be leaning towards the class side, when I wish it would veer hard the other way, but obviously you can't please everyone with one game.
It has nothing to do with class/classless based system or enforcement. The problem is that a general feat that worked as intended in 1e has been ported over and now doesn’t work as intended.
I can say it doesn’t work as intended because there are workarounds that allow the same end result. The feat ends up turning into dead weight that every single class will retrain out of. Cabbage’s idea was pretty much what was being looked for and suggested; take X weapon that player isn’t trained in and add it as a class weapon for the cost of a general feat. The Nuance of if it should be allowed to freely pick any weapon could surely be up to debate, but as was pointed out some Ancestry feats allow you to be trained in Advanced and Martial weapons, so spending a very limited resource (1 general feat) for a return investment that doesn’t degrade over the course of an adventurer’s career is all that’s being asked and pointed out.
And remember, most of the time the difference between a simple and the most similar martial weapon is going to be a die size and/or an extra two traits or so. Anyone picking a class that's left out still gets some solid stuff to pick from. Wizards are the worst-case scenario, and they can still two-hand a staff for a d8 of bludgeoning whenever they want.
True, and I think directly synergistic traits are somehow "costed" higher, outside of which a multi-trait weapon may not often apply all it's traits to a given attack, reducing direct discrepancy even if pure martial can value flexibility to remain relevant... Somebody without that total dedication to weapon combat has other options.
All you need is trained to get "BAB appropriate scaling" for almost every class. The tiny group being left behind are the folks who might get expert in a narrow set of weapons from their class, but only trained in their special investment. That's a total difference of a +2 bonus. "Not getting the benefit of expert" is not the same thing as "losing the benefit of trained" because that would entirely drop the proficiency bonus to 0 regardless of level (and therefore lose the "BAB appropriate scaling").
Good point, I don't think the difference is so huge, although by the same token it isn't implausible a high level General Feat could exist to enable Expert for one Trained weapon.
Really I think the difference is other effects hinging on Expert, but IMHO the "gating by proficiency" isn't as massively used to the degree I expected. Maybe when they start doing Archetypes they could do Feats that only work with Expert Proficiency weapons, for example? Class Feats already assume Class baseline, and if you MC into them without matching proficiency it's un-necessary or over penalizing to apply Proficiency Pre-Req: you did pay the MC Feat Tax.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How did we arrive at “+2 isn’t a huge difference”?
This is the tight math edition right? The paradigm of the game rides on having an expected bonus for your level and critical success/failure hinging on -/+ 10
If legendary is a big deal compared Master and sacred for Fighter, then Trained is a big deal to be stuck with and poor compared to any class beyond level 11. You can’t have it both ways.
And if Trained was the expected progression, why do all classes get Weapon Proficiency increases, even Wizards?
Because enemies get increased armor proficiency.
Denying that isn’t “missing a +2” so much as it is getting a -2
Lest we forget this is actually a -4 for a Master weapon class that goes off their list. Which no one could even argue is not significant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good point, I don't think the difference is so huge, although by the same token it isn't implausible a high level General Feat could exist to enable Expert for one Trained weapon.
Really I think the difference is other effects hinging on Expert, but IMHO the "gating by proficiency" isn't as massively used to the degree I expected. Maybe when they start doing Archetypes they could do Feats that only work with Expert Proficiency weapons, for example? Class Feats already assume Class baseline, and if you MC into them without matching proficiency it's un-necessary or over penalizing to apply Proficiency Pre-Req: you did pay the MC Feat Tax.
This is also a good point. There are some interesting scaling class features (like weapon specialization damage bonuses) that call out extra benefits based on increased proficiency, and even include values for proficiencies (like legendary) that the class cannot get as printed in the core book. That's probably how I'd prefer those such future archetypes to work, rather than lots of hard gates.
I also think adding something to help bridge the high-level "trained to expert" gap, like MaxAstro's earlier suggestion, is just fine. It's not a huge difference, so closing the gap at a moderate cost also isn't a huge problem.
People were speaking in such broad generalities, though, that I feel like they were starting to forget that their core options aren't as limiting as they might sound like when compared in a vacuum. Simple weapons still cover almost all the bases.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How did we arrive at “+2 isn’t a huge difference”?
This is the tight man paradigm game with critical success and failure hinging on bonuses -/+ 10
If legendary is a big deal compared Master and sacred for Fighter, then Trained is a big deal to be stuck with and poor compared to any class beyond level 11. You can’t have it both ways.
And if Trained was the expected progression, why do all classes get Weapon Proficiency increases, even Wizards?
Because enemies get increased armor proficiency.
Denying that isn’t “missing a +2” so much as it is getting a -2
Lest we forget this is actually a -4 for a Master weapon class that goes off their list. Which no one could even argue is not significant.
At level 11, the proficiency bonus is +13 for trained vs. +15 for expert. It's not negligible, but it doesn't take you out of contention like untrained at +0. Going from +0 to +13 is huge. The next +2 is not huge.
I never made the claim that trained is a big deal to be stuck with, so I'm not trying to have it both ways. You brought up BAB, and one of the things BAB did was scale by level. I pointed out that trained gives you that, which is huuuuge. I don't even disagree that there should be a way to get to expert if they really want to, I'm just saying the absence isn't the big deal you're making it out to be. I've also pointed out that the difference between the weapons isn't huge. You can still get strong weapons without swapping, so if somehow that +2 were and end-all be-all dealbreaker, I don't think most builds are harmed much by sticking with their built-in proficiencies.
I'm trying to figure out what the actual impact of this rules interaction is for you. Like, do you have an example concept you're having trouble building that's impacted here? Is this all for some hypothetical player that really wants a katana but is a wizard and doesn't want to MC into fighter because they're picking up Champion for a blade ally or something? Like what's the deal?
What class gets Master weapon proficiency but is going so far off list they don't keep appropriate proficiency? Is that for one of the four advanced weapons, three of which are tied to ancestries? Is it for monks who just really want to use non-monk weapons, even though they won't work with any of the other monk abilities?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the general feat already gives "scaling bonuses" by virtue of the trained proficiency being a scaling bonus by itself, as opposed by untrained.
expert in weapons is akin to having weapon focus in a weapon, master is akin to having greater weapon focus, and legendary is akin to having weapon training on top of it.
at least that's how i see it.
i don't think it's "fair" that a single general feat allows someone to be as competant as someone getting their weapon from their class features.
if you do want to be as competant in martial weapons, then sure, go away and archetype into fighter, or find those races that have grown with those weapons and learn from them how to use it (adopted) and etc.
but i think that a single general feat is too cheap for expert proficiency with a weapon. I wouldn't mind if there existed a second feat to pick up that allowed that (like a feat chain), but it would have to be at around level 13 to be of equal standing with ancestry feats, and that runs into logistics problems.
So, in your opinion, what purpose do these general feats serve in this edition?
Going on a different track.
Will PF2 reduce the number of accidental TPKs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going on a different track.
Will PF2 reduce the number of accidental TPKs?
Probably hard to judge at the moment. However, with the ability to trade all of your available hero points to stave off death, it might be a real possibility that overall lethality is lower. Certainly more chances for a 'kidnap the entire knocked out party' type deal.
Probably hard to judge at the moment. However, with the ability to trade all of your available hero points to stave off death, it might be a real possibility that overall lethality is lower. Certainly more chances for a 'kidnap the entire knocked out party' type deal.Going on a different track.
Will PF2 reduce the number of accidental TPKs?
I had hoped that the "tight math paradym" and the "asymmetric monster design" would help with that. :(
A lot of PF1 TPKs resulted from bonus pile up against an inexperience player group.
Probably hard to judge at the moment. However, with the ability to trade all of your available hero points to stave off death, it might be a real possibility that overall lethality is lower. Certainly more chances for a 'kidnap the entire knocked out party' type deal.Going on a different track.
Will PF2 reduce the number of accidental TPKs?
I had hoped that the "tight math paradym" and the "asymmetric monster design" would help with that. :(
A lot of PF1 TPKs resulted from bonus pile up against an inexperience player group.
Well the bonus pile up is definitely gone. That will definitely help alleviate problems. Also, it's a lot harder to outright kill a player in 2nd edition through raw damage (dying at 10 damage over your max HP isn't a thing anymore; except perhaps for level 1 wizards but only if you knowingly throw a high damage enemy at them). And like I said, it's hard to tell at the moment since the book isn't even released yet. Most people don't have their books yet and might not have them for a week or two still. At least by tomorrow we'll have access to the rules through AoN.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had hoped that the "tight math paradym" and the "asymmetric monster design" would help with that. :(Probably hard to judge at the moment. However, with the ability to trade all of your available hero points to stave off death, it might be a real possibility that overall lethality is lower. Certainly more chances for a 'kidnap the entire knocked out party' type deal.Going on a different track.
Will PF2 reduce the number of accidental TPKs?
They seem to.
Mark Seifter (who is not an unbiased source) has reported a vast reduction in the number of unexpected deaths. The common scenario he has mentioned in the past is the increasing likelihood with higher levels in PF1 that a character is brought from above zero HP to -Con HP (and therefore dead) in a single hit. That's basically gone, because there is no "below zero" anymore.
It's super easy to die if you get knocked down more than once in a fight; the wounded condition is no joke. Anything still dealing damage to someone who's dying can rapidly kill them. Crits accelerate the dying process a little.
Save or die/neutralized effects are more nuanced. Generally the really bad stuff only happens on a critical failure/success, so they're more worth using for their base benefits and the fight-winning effects less reliable but still possible. Saving throws are balanced the same way armor is. Touch AC is gone, essentially replaced with saving throws.
You're not able to pile up 5 different kinds of bonuses, making the math weirder. You're less likely to have something that is auto-fail for your worst party member but auto-win for your best, which makes it easier to balance challenges across a party.
Because level is included in to-hit bonuses and save/armor DCs, encounter balance is more heavily dependent on level than, say D&D 5e. This also helps the overall predictability of how dangerous an encounter is.
All of that will likely add up to a reduction in GM-induced accidental TPKs. Players can still get themselves killed.
|
| 1 person 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.
Uh...I was saying that I thought Unarmed Strike should be an option, not that I thought it shouldn't be. Forgive me if that wasn't clear. I'm not sure adding other stuff onto the Feat for unarmed is necessary, but it was always my intent to suggest that your chosen 'weapon' could be unarmed strike.
Oh, my mistake.
Also: If Captain Morgan is still around. How many characters have you tried building? What did you think? Curious to hear how other people are feeling about the process of character building in this book right now.
You've talked a lot about good impressions, but has anything stood out that you aren't a fan of?