| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, in your opinion, what purpose do these general feats serve in this edition?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.
general feats are like little perks to customise your character a bit, but not big enough to totaly change what your character does. Like "i'm a little faster", "i have a bit more initiative", "i carry a bit more stuff", and etc
using the above, "weapon training" general feats seems more to me like "i also know how to use a longsword" rather than "i specialize in using a longsword"
it's like a perk rather than defining characteristic of your character. If you do want to have a character that he's really competent with something outside of his class, then you'd have to either study similar to a class that deals with that thing (archetype) or (in case of adopted) learn from ages old traditions of races that are experts on said weapons.
to put it into perspective, i can't just say "i want to be a fighter, but i also want to Fly, why isn't there a...
I think the irony of what you just said is that the new Skill feats allow you to do quite a bit, and while I don’t think full blown flying is a choice, you can get fairly lucrative aerial acrobatics.
A General feat can purchase that..
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i can't just say "i want to be a fighter, but i also want to Fly, why isn't there a...
This is kind of a bad analogy, though. A fighter gaining the ability to cast Fly would be learning an entirely new skill that doesn't really replicate or mimic anything built into their class chassis.
That's not really remotely equivalent to a rogue switching to a longsword, because being able to attack in combat is something rogues are already able and expected to be able to do. It's not even a new 'tier' of weapon either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, in your opinion, what purpose do these general feats serve in this edition?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.
general feats are like little perks to customise your character a bit, but not big enough to totaly change what your character does. Like "i'm a little faster", "i have a bit more initiative", "i carry a bit more stuff", and etc
using the above, "weapon training" general feats seems more to me like "i also know how to use a longsword" rather than "i specialize in using a longsword"
it's like a perk rather than defining characteristic of your character. If you do want to have a character that he's really competent with something outside of his class, then you'd have to either study similar to a class that deals with that thing (archetype) or (in case of adopted) learn from ages old traditions of races that are experts on said weapons.
to put it into perspective, i can't just say "i want to be a fighter, but i also want to Fly, why isn't there a...
I guess you’re right. I’ll just go invest into being a Human and reach a better result than MC into Fighter; at even less of a feat cost. Gives me plenty of room to get Master in Spellcasting and fly around all day long. : )
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
I've converted 2 characters completely on my own and helped players convert 10, and should be converting another 3 in the near future. I'm very excited for these latest conversions, because the ranger, fighter, and sorcerer all got really amazing upgrades.
I haven't built an original character yet, though reading the Player's Guide for Age of Ashes has me amped for something in a dragon totem barbarian. Most of these conversions were from the playtest though, which was certainly less pronounced than when we converted from PF1 to the PT.
Reactions have generally been positive. For the most part options have only improved, as has how good a character inherently is at a thing. I can't name a specific complaint I've come across or anything from my players yet, but we were also enjoying the hell out of the playtest rules, so.
The only class I'm a little miffed with is the Champion, as mentioned up thread. Though some of that is they just need to print more feats for it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
To change gears to Ranger, i just took a nice long look at it and just wow. The Captain is right with just how much more impressive it is from the PT, and personally, from 1e in general. Unless i missed something important i believe the Ranger’s Edges work with Melee as well, in which wow. I thought Fighter was the King of TWF, but Ranger seems to be able to hold his own just fine. I’ve never actually found myself wanting to play a ranger so much before.
Of course, to each their own in the event Ranger doesn’t end up being your thing.
This discussion made me go back and forth a lot, but I think ultimately I'm going to go with my initial Houserule plan of letting the things that give you Trained in a weapon(s) or armor(s) (Fighter/Champ Dedication, ancestral weapon feat, Weapon/Armor Proficiency) just cause those things to advance at the same rate as what your class gives you. No level 12/14 follow-up class feat required for MC, no level 13 ancestry feat required for ancestral, no getting screwed for using general feat (though I may restrict weapon prof to one weapon or more likely one group if it isn't already).
I just really think that's what will work best. Weapons, upgrading from simple to martial isn't a huge boon compared to the cost. Armor, the different armor types still have perks I think, especially if you don't have the Str to negate ACP. I'll probably give Paladins and maybe Fighters a speed penalty reduction for armor when they hit a certain point so they still have something over others. And classes have a lot more to distinguish them than just being good with simple AND martial weapons or not.
And not doing so I feel like would just cause more trouble easily.
The Ancestry feat specifically at least, also bestow Critical Specialization (at least in the playtest, I've not gotten my book yet, that will be early next week) which is a MAJOR boon on top of just +2, being able to stick someone to a wall or knock them on their butt is pretty great. Would you also allow that without the feat? Or is that something automatic now?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Draconic Sorcerers get their Dragon wings heightened to 10 minutes eventually. Which translates to all day given their refresh mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flicking through caster classes and not sure what sorcerers get that make them give up 1st class feat.
Their bloodline focus spell is the most 1 to 1 comparison. Compare to the Wizard, who gets a focus spell if they're a specialist, and a bonus feat if they're a universalist (and that feat can be used for a focus spell choice).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting note for Hand of the Apprentice: you make a spell roll with any weapon you are trained in, so we have found a use for Wizard's taking the general feat to be simply trained in a weapon of your choice. Grab trained proficiency in whatever, once per fight you can throw it at full spellcasting proficiency (boosted with a True Strike, perhaps) and even get the critical specialization effect on a crit. At 14th level, if you took the correct feats, you can do it twice per fight (or 3-4 if you use familiar/bond abilities to recharge during the encounter).
Interesting note for Hand of the Apprentice: you make a spell roll with any weapon you are trained in, so we have found a use for Wizard's taking the general feat to be simply trained in a weapon of your choice. Grab trained proficiency in whatever, once per fight you can throw it at full spellcasting proficiency (boosted with a True Strike, perhaps) and even get the critical specialization effect on a crit. At 14th level, if you took the correct feats, you can do it twice per fight (or 3-4 if you use familiar/bond abilities to recharge during the encounter).
That has some interesting potential.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got my books yesterday. I was up way too late just screaming in triumph as all that playtesting finally paid off. I feel like a lot of our suggested improvements went into the book. I'm certainly going to have a ball building characters and converting my favorite Playtest character Hama over. Also anyone else feel like a little of them is in this book? Or is that just Playtest fatigue?
Interesting note for Hand of the Apprentice: you make a spell roll with any weapon you are trained in, so we have found a use for Wizard's taking the general feat to be simply trained in a weapon of your choice. Grab trained proficiency in whatever, once per fight you can throw it at full spellcasting proficiency (boosted with a True Strike, perhaps) and even get the critical specialization effect on a crit. At 14th level, if you took the correct feats, you can do it twice per fight (or 3-4 if you use familiar/bond abilities to recharge during the encounter).That has some interesting potential.
Greatpick here I come. (d12 on crit, +1 die on crit, +2 damage per die on crit)
Build choices to enhance this :
School: Universalist
Feat 1: Hand of the Apprentice (required)
Feat 1 or Arcane Thesis: Familiar (for 1/day focus return)
Feat 4: Bespell Weapon (+1d6 damage, mental if triggering off True Strike, force if Hand of the Apprentice)
Feat 8: Universal Versatility (for the +1 focus pool)
Feat 14: Bonded Focus (recover 2 focus when Refocusing)
I was wrong about 4 per encounter being possible, that would require 2 in your pool, the familiar ability, and a bond feat that is only available to specialists, so doesn't work for this build. So 1/encounter base until level 14, with the ability to spike it +1 once per day whenever you acquire your Familiar, potentialy as early as level 1 if you're a Human. But you'll only be tossing staffs until you acquire those beefier weapon proficiencies anyway.
Lots of investment, but much stronger than the Evocation power that also gives a ranged attack option.
Edit: Note that one weakness of two handed weapons is that the wizard, unlike the sorcerer, can't avoid a free hand for material components, even with Eschew Materials.
To change gears to Ranger, i just took a nice long look at it and just wow. The Captain is right with just how much more impressive it is from the PT, and personally, from 1e in general. Unless i missed something important i believe the Ranger’s Edges work with Melee as well, in which wow. I thought Fighter was the King of TWF, but Ranger seems to be able to hold his own just fine. I’ve never actually found myself wanting to play a ranger so much before.
Of course, to each their own in the event Ranger doesn’t end up being your thing.
Ranger is really good. Only thing I want to see at this point is some sort of urban ranger feat that drops the 'natural' clause from all of its terrain and camo stuff.
The wildshape druid is interesting in that it looks like the Wild order has a really hard time getting a second point of focus (three feats on other orders!). It's actually more efficient to start Storm or Leaf (bonus focus, start with 2), and then at 2nd level pickup Wildshape via Order Explorer. Then you're better off than the Wild order druid as long as you can live without Wild Morph order spell.
Spell Mastery
General
1st-level Wizard
Prepare some spells without a spellbook
This is the 1st Ed. feat.
Has anyone found the 2nd Ed. version of this feat?
Spell Mastery
General
1st-level Wizard
Prepare some spells without a spellbookThis is the 1st Ed. feat.
Has anyone found the 2nd Ed. version of this feat?
Doesn’t exist.
Doesn’t exist.Spell Mastery
General
1st-level Wizard
Prepare some spells without a spellbookThis is the 1st Ed. feat.
Has anyone found the 2nd Ed. version of this feat?
Thanks!
Mystery solved.
The wildshape druid is interesting in that it looks like the Wild order has a really hard time getting a second point of focus (three feats on other orders!). It's actually more efficient to start Storm or Leaf (bonus focus, start with 2), and then at 2nd level pickup Wildshape via Order Explorer. Then you're better off than the Wild order druid as long as you can live without Wild Morph order spell.I noticed this myself as I have a wild druid in my game and I just couldn’t find a way to get him enough focus points. Like at level one you have both wild shape and wild morph but only 1 point. Feels like you should have two given you have two powers.
Might have been an error. It probably won't break anything if you give them two.
Might have been an error. It probably won't break anything if you give them two.The wildshape druid is interesting in that it looks like the Wild order has a really hard time getting a second point of focus (three feats on other orders!). It's actually more efficient to start Storm or Leaf (bonus focus, start with 2), and then at 2nd level pickup Wildshape via Order Explorer. Then you're better off than the Wild order druid as long as you can live without Wild Morph order spell.I noticed this myself as I have a wild druid in my game and I just couldn’t find a way to get him enough focus points. Like at level one you have both wild shape and wild morph but only 1 point. Feels like you should have two given you have two powers.
It's the same for the Animal order, and those are the two they were probably worried about from a power perspective. It's just that other orders can buy in with little problem and still end up with more focus. So a poorly thought out attempt at balance rather than an error per se.
On the weapon proficiency scaling issue, as I said on the other topic, I'd rather have no options to go out of my class-imposed choices, than have some which only work up to a certain level.
I'm not arguing about making a new feat that unlocks weapons for our characters: the option is already there, the cost of using different weapons has already been decided, and it's that of a general feat.
And jumping to the next tier, martial weapons, has been set at the same price: another general feat.
Why should that work at low levels, but stop working later?
I'm also against having to pick another feat at level 11 or 15 just to fix the math: that's exactly what we have been identifying as "boring" and "just a tax" for years now.
It's not that our Wizard, or Druid, is getting any gamebreaking benefit there: weapons are pretty well balanced with each other.
So I spend my feat to be able to use a sling and I end up being as good with that as I am with a crossbow. Until level 11, when I get better with the crossbow but not with my sling: time to trash it and retrain the feat.
Why? It's absolutely unnecessary!
I’ve made peace with it for now. It won’t happen in a lot of cases and you could always introduce a Feat later that applies to a singular weapon.
The issue with the General now that I see the actual feat (thank god finally!) is that it grants proficiency in a wide spread amount of weapons, which is good but in a different way.
Maybe long term Archetypes branching out class list proficiencies is the way to go, but in the meantime if there’s a weird instance where a player wants to grab that weird off pick weapon I’ll figure it out then.
The critical specialization aspect that comes online is interesting as well.
Also super intrigued about that Xenocrat weapon aspect, actually a pretty creative way for a wizard to get to use his proficiency without having it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me gush about DCs for a second. Now I was actually a big fan of the DC tables in the Playtest for many purposes, but there was one big exception: static tasks. No, I understood that climbing a tree doesn't scale with level. It was set at a specific level and stayed at that level.
But that meant needing to reference a table which listed the DC for static events to confirm what level it was, double check the standard assumed difficulty for said level (IE, hard vs medium) and then double check the DC table, which of course was thrown out of the printed rulebook and replaced with the updated version. This basically involves cross referencing several different things and checking numbers which don't really stick in your head.
Now, the static DC table is absurdly easy to remember, and those specific DCs are not just associated with easy rounded numbers, but specific game terms that touch every part of the game's math-- the UTEML scale. Better yet, the skills section of the rulebook lists specific examples of UTEML level tasks after each skill usage. So when I look up "How do the rules for climb work" I also get "here are some immediate frames of reference for what the DC should be."
Then we have the level based DCs, which are very straightforward. Just plug the level of the creature/character/item in. Easy peasy.
Oh, but sometimes a DC should be harder, be it a simple DC or level DC. Well, the adjustments table has you covered there too. My players recently saw an indistinct aquatic shape down a whole and dropped a rock down said hole to see what would happen. After the rock hit the water, they heard a terrifying roar, each having to make will saves. One of my players rolled nature to identify it, and I consulted my GM screen. The creature, a Bunyip, is level 3 and thus has a DC of 18 to identify. I decided that trying to recognize it without getting a good look at it based off almost the roar alone would make this task very hard for a +5 adjustment, bringing the total to a 22. Which was exactly what my player managed to roll!
The playtest tables were a solid step, but the final product has been extremely well refined and is much more intuitive to use.
As far as proficiencies go, Martials can get Master proficiency in spellcasting. However, even with Fighter dedication, non-Martials cannot get over Expert proficiency in weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as proficiencies go, Martials can get Master proficiency in spellcasting. However, even with Fighter dedication, non-Martials cannot get over Expert proficiency in weapons.
I think the difference here is that a multiclassed spellcaster has at most 8 levels of spells with 2 slots per level (plus four cantrips), whereas everyone can attack 3 times every round.
Multiclassing into spells has to have more oomph than multiclassing into weapons, since you don't get many spells.
As far as proficiencies go, Martials can get Master proficiency in spellcasting. However, even with Fighter dedication, non-Martials cannot get over Expert proficiency in weapons.I think the difference here is that a multiclassed spellcaster has at most 8 levels of spells with 2 slots per level (plus four cantrips), whereas everyone can attack 3 times every round.
Multiclassing into spells has to have more oomph than multiclassing into weapons, since you don't get many spells.
Except that hypothetical third attack is at a big disadvantage. You are not selling it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as proficiencies go, Martials can get Master proficiency in spellcasting. However, even with Fighter dedication, non-Martials cannot get over Expert proficiency in weapons.I think the difference here is that a multiclassed spellcaster has at most 8 levels of spells with 2 slots per level (plus four cantrips), whereas everyone can attack 3 times every round.
Multiclassing into spells has to have more oomph than multiclassing into weapons, since you don't get many spells.
That’s called a Double Standard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another way of looking at it: legendary spellcasting is the baseline expectation for endgame spellcasting- wizards, sorcerers, druids, bards, and 50% of all clerics get it with no special investment. By contrast Rogues, Barbarians, Monks, Rangers, and Champions all top out at mastery with appropriate weapons.
Letting someone with feats get one step below the top level of 4.5 of the classes in the category is a different kettle of fish from letting someone, with feats, equal 5/6 of the Martials.
You can also get +1-3 weapons, and likely started with a 16 in the weapon attack stat.
Spells don't get those bonuses, and it's more likely that you started with a 14 in the casting stat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s called a Double Standard.
"Expending a spell slot" and "swinging a weapon" are just fundamentally different things, and so should not be treated equally in the rules. Pretty much all they have in common is "they cost actions" and "they might do damage."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
letting someone, with feats, equal 5/6 of the Martials.
I feel like a martial getting the ability to equal themselves isn't that crazy of an idea.
That’s called a Double Standard.As far as proficiencies go, Martials can get Master proficiency in spellcasting. However, even with Fighter dedication, non-Martials cannot get over Expert proficiency in weapons.I think the difference here is that a multiclassed spellcaster has at most 8 levels of spells with 2 slots per level (plus four cantrips), whereas everyone can attack 3 times every round.
Multiclassing into spells has to have more oomph than multiclassing into weapons, since you don't get many spells.
A double standard treats similar things differently. This is treating different things differently.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s called a Double Standard."Expending a spell slot" and "swinging a weapon" are just fundamentally different things, and so should not be treated equally in the rules. Pretty much all they have in common is "they cost actions" and "they might do damage."
Yes, allowing people to poach from caster up to Master but not to Fighter, is a Double Standard. Why you feel this should be the case doesn’t really matter. I simply feel otherwise.
As for the ‘legendary proficiency’ part: Monk gets the ability to roll no lower than a 10 on all unarmed strikes, and Ranger either has the lowest MAP or the highest precision damage in the game. I feel those more than make up for a missing +2, but that’s just my opinion.
Honestly, the "master spellcasting proficiency" feat is an 18th level feat. If we had "master of weapons" be an 18th level feat in the fighter dedication, that would probably be fine.
Of course at 18th level this is competing with stuff like "reprepare spell" and "indefinite wild shape."
Honestly, the "master spellcasting proficiency" feat is an 18th level feat. If we had "master of weapons" be an 18th level feat in the fighter dedication, that would probably be fine.
Of course at 18th level this is competing with stuff like "reprepare spell" and "indefinite wild shape."
Skipping on an 18th level class feat for that master MC spellcasting feat is indeed a very hard choice to justify.
Skipping on an 18th level class feat for that master MC spellcasting feat is indeed a very hard choice to justify.
I feel like it mostly exists for those characters who for whatever reason are not jazzed about their 18th level options. Like I can see a barbarian opting out of perfect clarity, brutal critical, or vicious evisceration.
Like 18th level monks are choosing between forceful on all UAS, etherealness as a focus power, refocus for 3, and "free action escape restraints". Good options, but not as beefy as like "permanently quickened for using compositions" that the maestro bard gets.
Honestly, the "master spellcasting proficiency" feat is an 18th level feat. If we had "master of weapons" be an 18th level feat in the fighter dedication, that would probably be fine.
Of course at 18th level this is competing with stuff like "reprepare spell" and "indefinite wild shape."
That said, Human Ancestry feats solve the issue for the time being, and i’m Sure Archetypes will bring one solution to the issue if they treat it like the Grey Maiden.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pleased that aasimar and tiefling (as I assume the other plane-touched races will be) are just humanoid instead of outsiders based on the bestiary.
Disappointed that there doesn't seem to be an option for urban terrain for ranger anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disappointed that there doesn't seem to be an option for urban terrain for ranger anymore.
Same, the lack of urban terrain and the 'natural' clause added to skills like camo is a pretty big bummer. Hoping for a feat or archetype or something to address that somewhere down the line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they just wanted to do it right, not just slap Urban onto Terrain list and let it work with Survival.
But really create a deeper Urban Ranger with social/investigator/vigilante theme abilities and so on.