I just cannot get over the weapon and armour proficiencies problem, specifically, the fact the only way to get even Expert proficiency outside your class is to take Fighter Archetype (there's also Ancestral feats but that's very limited).
It just makes no sense.
For one, even going into Fighter archetype won't get you that much; even investing 2 feats into your Fighter abilities will only get you to be as good with greatsword as you are with a staff without taking any special feats whatsoever - and you can't get any better.
This actually makes Fighter archetype be actually very weak.
Weapon and armour proficiencies also eat up the very limited General Feats and you still don't get to be as good with a club or crossbow - even if your character literally never picked up a club or a crossbow, much less used them continuously.
And finally, there's comparison with taking up caster Archetypes. Sure, you need a bit more feat investment, but you can get up to Master in Spellcasting; and these feats also give you spell slots.
To my eyes, a fix is simple; make the Fighter feat give you Master proficiency instead of Expert (at a later level), and simply make all proficiencies just adding the weapons to your "class list" that upgrade with your class.
This would require changing the advanced weapon feats for Ancestries, but again, they could give you Master or just move all weapons from the list into the proficient group (instead of merely shifting the weapons one category downwards).
NOTE1: For all those that are going to pop up here "you can houserule it", save it. I know I can houserule stuff, but I prefer playing with as little houserules as possible and this feels just bad.
NOTE2: I know this is a lot asking, but it would be great if some of the designers of the game could explain their reasoning for this much restrictiveness and weak sauce of the system.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
NOTE2: I know this is a lot asking, but it would be great if some of the designers of the game could explain their reasoning for this much restrictiveness and weak sauce of the system.
Ah yes, I think calling it weak sauce will certainly encourage and incentivise the designers to respond to your comments and questions.
The intention of the Multiclass archetypes is not to get your secondary power in the vicinity of the actual class it's coming from. It's to open options, not give a power boost.
... Seriously? Power boost? Vicinity of the actual class?
Somehow not having to multiclass into Fighter to get Expert proficiency is getting your secondary power in the vicinity of the actual class? Or do you mean spending feats to get Master proficiency in weapons means you're just as good as a Fighter? Wow. Just wow.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep reading his ^ post and I can't understand what he is trying to say is it just me?
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The intention of the Multiclass archetypes is not to get your secondary power in the vicinity of the actual class it's coming from. It's to open options, not give a power boost.
This. Most martial classes top out at Master level in weapon and/or armor proficiencies and spell casters top out at legendary in casting. Thus, the archetype feats are one step below that.
Also, take a look at War Priest which is the gish version of cleric. They top out at expert in weapon & armor profs and master in casting which similarly is one step below full martials and casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The intention of the Multiclass archetypes is not to get your secondary power in the vicinity of the actual class it's coming from. It's to open options, not give a power boost.This. Most martial classes top out at Master level in weapon and/or armor proficiencies and spell casters top out at legendary in casting. Thus, the archetype feats are one step below that.
Also, take a look at War Priest which is the gish version of cleric. They top out at expert in weapon & armor profs and master in casting which similarly is one step below full martials and casters.
Except we're not multiclassing into other martials, we're multiclassing into Fighter which ends at Legendary. Hence, one level below would be Master. Much like, you know, multiclassing into caster classes.
Furthermore, all martials get both weapons and armour at least at Master, and then finish with specialisation in something (Fighter gets Legendary weapons, Champion Legendary Armour, Barbarian gets in effect legendary damage, etc.).
I do advocate for the same principle applying for armour proficiencies too.
Also, at least Fighter is an ideologically neutral class. The fact I cannot get armour proficiencies without buying into the Champions ideological requirements also really, really bugs me. In fact, it is impossible to play even a moderately (Expert) proficient Heavy Armour Barbarian without buying into the crusading theology is really, really annoying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me just be clear: I love most of the rest of things done with this edition. The amount of customizability is impressive and enjoyable.
In a way, that is part of the problem. I can do wonders to customise my character but moment I touch weapons or armour it's like I slam head first into a Wall of Force out of nowhere.
It's bringing the bad memories of AD&D "I'm playing elf because I want my wizard use a sword" days.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The intention of the Multiclass archetypes is not to get your secondary power in the vicinity of the actual class it's coming from. It's to open options, not give a power boost.... Seriously? Power boost? Vicinity of the actual class?
Somehow not having to multiclass into Fighter to get Expert proficiency is getting your secondary power in the vicinity of the actual class? Or do you mean spending feats to get Master proficiency in weapons means you're just as good as a Fighter? Wow. Just wow.
Yes, a Bard or Sorcerer wanting to focus on weapons is a secondary thing, not the main power of the class.
The Martials thing is that they're good with weapons, the Fighter's things is that they're the best with them.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except we're not multiclassing into other martials, we're multiclassing into Fighter which ends at Legendary. Hence, one level below would be Master. Much like, you know, multiclassing into caster classes.
The legendary abilities of martials exist to make them shine comparitively against other martials, and are not intended to be for archetype cherry picking.
It is pretty obvious the design intent is if you want to be a master of weapons or armor then you need to be a martial class.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, at least Fighter is an ideologically neutral class. The fact I cannot get armour proficiencies without buying into the Champions ideological requirements also really, really bugs me. In fact, it is impossible to play even a moderately (Expert) proficient Heavy Armour Barbarian without buying into the crusading theology is really, really annoying.
This I agree with this, but that's because I don't like Champion being the heavy armor class, that was jarring, it doesn't have anything to do with the Multiclass design.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except we're not multiclassing into other martials, we're multiclassing into Fighter which ends at Legendary. Hence, one level below would be Master. Much like, you know, multiclassing into caster classes.
The legendary abilities of martials exist to make them shine comparitively against other martials, and are not intended to be for archetype cherry picking.
It is pretty obvious the design intent is if you want to be a master of weapons or armor then you need to be a martial class.
Pretty much this. Being excellent with weapons is one of the Martials thing, just like how they can only get a few spells if they Multiclass into a Caster.
Also, at least Fighter is an ideologically neutral class. The fact I cannot get armour proficiencies without buying into the Champions ideological requirements also really, really bugs me. In fact, it is impossible to play even a moderately (Expert) proficient Heavy Armour Barbarian without buying into the crusading theology is really, really annoying.This I agree with this, but that's because I don't like Champion being the heavy armor class, that was jarring, it doesn't have anything to do with the Multiclass design.
It has everything, because if it was possible to do it purely via General feats, this wouldn't be near the problem.
Pretty much this. Being excellent with weapons is one of the Martials thing, just like how they can only get a few spells if they Multiclass into a Caster.
Hardly few, since they can get all the way to level 8 spells with Master proficiency, with cantrips scaling too.
This means a martial multiclassing into caster has better to-hit with cantrips than a caster multiclassing into martial has with weapons.Essentially, martial classes get up to level 15 abilities of casters, while casters can at best get up to level 10 martial abilities (additional Expert proficiencies hardly count because they get Expert automatically in original proficiencies).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
For one, even going into Fighter archetype won't get you that much; even investing 2 feats into your Fighter abilities will only get you to be as good with greatsword as you are with a staff without taking any special feats whatsoever - and you can't get any better.
This actually makes Fighter archetype be actually very weak.Weapon and armour proficiencies also eat up the very limited General Feats and you still don't get to be as good with a club or crossbow - even if your character literally never picked up a club or a crossbow, much less used them continuously.
And finally, there's comparison with taking up caster Archetypes. Sure, you need a bit more feat investment, but you can get up to Master in Spellcasting; and these feats also give you spell slots.
If you’re a martial class, it’s certainly true that you get less from the Fighter Dedication feat than non-martial classes. But I Fighter multiclassing is still a pretty attractive option for many builds because many of the low-level Fighter feats are amazing -- noticeably better than those available to their martial competitors.
So, for example:
--1. Take a Giant Barbarian. Dual-wield large weapons. (Because your static boosts to damage are so high, you don't care about the slight loss in damage that comes from having a smaller weapon die.) Fighter multiclass to get Double Slice at lvl 4, and possibly Twin Parry or Quick Reversal later on.
Double Slice is amazing here, giving you two attacks with your enormous damage bonus with virtually no MAP penalty -- a huge boost to your DPR. And if you take Twin Parry you can spend your third action boosting your AC, or you can go the demoralizing route and spend your action on that.
Quick Reversal is likewise amazing. You have to put yourself into flanked positions, but given the Barbarian's mobility that's pretty easy. And it gives you two attacks with no MAP that only counts as one attack for latter attacks, and it only takes one action(!). So if you're between two enemies, you can do a Quick Reversal and a Double Slice and get four attacks at -0/-0/-5/-7 with your enormous damage boost instead of just -0/-5/-10.
--2. Take a Rogue. Snagging Strike gives you a nice way to make your opponent flat-footed until the start of your next turn, working for both your second and third attacks *and* all of your other party members (unlike the Rogue's Twin Feint which only gets you one attack against flat-footed). And Exacting Strike gives you a nice way to make your third attack worthwhile (turning your 0/-4/-8 into a 0/-4/-4).
--3. Take a ranged Rogue or Champion build. Point-Blank Shot and Double Shot are both extremely attractive, and probably well-worth exchanging some feats for.
To be clear I don't think any of these are mechanically *mandatory* -- each class also has attractive feats you can take instead. But there are certainly mechanically effective ways of multiclassing Fighters.
If you don't want to houserule, the solution is simple, start as a fighter and spend all your feats on Wizard multiclassing. Since weapons and armor proficiency seems to be something you really want.
I actually don't want it, at least not with Wizard. With Wizard, I just want to get Expert Longspear proficiency without Figther multiclassing.
With Barbarian I would like Expert Heavy Armour proficiency without having to go Champion.
Etc.
The proposal with making the Fighter / Champion increased proficiency feats give Master was simply to maintain having those feats under a system where grabbing General Armour/Weapon proficiencies feats lets you use those weapons up to your class proficiencies.
|
|
It has everything, because if it was possible to do it purely via General feats, this wouldn't be near the problem.My problem with it, I wasn't dismissing your problem.
Hardly few, since they can get all the way to level 8 spells with Master proficiency,At 20th level, which requires at the minimum 4 Class feats and being Legendary in the associated Knowledge Skill. They also only get 1 spell per level.
Probably not, since you use the ability modifier of the class, so a Sorcerer most likely has a much higher Charisma than a Fighter Multiclassed into Sorcerer.with cantrips scaling too.
This means a martial multiclassing into caster has better to-hit with cantrips than a caster multiclassing into martial has with weapons.
Essentially, martial classes get up to level 15 abilities of casters, while casters can at best get up to level 10 martial abilities (additional Expert proficiencies hardly count because they get Expert automatically in original proficiencies).
I really wouldn't use that paradigm as a way to compare stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with it, I wasn't dismissing your problem.
Mmm, I wasn't dismissing your problem with it, just pointing out that the reasonable solution is found easily enough if you don't limit to multiclassing.
At 20th level, which requires at the minimum 4 Class feats and being Legendary in the associated Knowledge Skill. They also only get 1 spell per level.
Sure, they're not equal to a full Wizard, wasn't even pretending. But even at 1 spell per level + 2 cantrips, that is still a nice chunk of spells.
Probably not, since you use the ability modifier of the class, so a Sorcerer most likely has a much higher Charisma than a Fighter Multiclassed into Sorcerer.
Yes, but a Sorcerer multiclassed into Fighter won't have as high Str/Dex as Fighter, hence his weapon attacks will also be lower.
I'm not claiming that Fighter multiclassing into Sorcerer will be a better Sorcerer. Just that they gain much more from doing so than Sorcerer ever gets from multiclassing into Fighter.
I really wouldn't use that paradigm as a way to compare stuff.
Why not? I'm not asking that multiclass allows you the full range of powers. Just to equalise the multiclass benefits.
However, what I really would want is a non-multiclass way to become proficient in a way that scales with your own proficiencies, instead of being forever stunted at trained.
|
|
Yes, but a Sorcerer multiclassed into Fighter won't have as high Str/Dex as Fighter, hence his weapon attacks will also be lower.But their spellcasting will be much better.
I'm not claiming that Fighter multiclassing into Sorcerer will be a better Sorcerer. Just that they gain much more from doing so than Sorcerer ever gets from multiclassing into Fighter.
That entirely depends on what each are going for and what spells vs Class Feats are taken.
Because comparing level to level is unequal in what all the Classes give, Fighter for example gets Master in a weapon group at 5th level, waaaay before anyone else.I really wouldn't use that paradigm as a way to compare stuff.Why not? I'm not asking that multiclass allows you the full range of powers. Just to equalise the multiclass benefits.
However, what I really would want is a non-multiclass way to become proficient in a way that scales with your own proficiencies, instead of being forever stunted at trained.
I don't disagree with this.
That entirely depends on what each are going for and what spells vs Class Feats are taken.
*sigh* You seem to misunderstand what I'm comparing for this specific point. Sure, Casters spellcasting is better than Fighters, but not as much as Fighters weapon to-hits are better than casters.
I don't disagree with this.
Then we're having a lot of discussions for nothing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh* You seem to misunderstand what I'm comparing for this specific point. Sure, Casters spellcasting is better than Fighters, but not as much as Fighters weapon to-hits are better than casters.
I'm not really seeing the issue there.
I don't disagree with this.Then we're having a lot of discussions for nothing.
*shrugs*
From what I've seen thus far, basically it functions similar to a Bloodrager, but not as good except for in the end game where you have a couple of higher level spells.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with letting casters get to master proficiency in Weapons or Armor is that they are every combat round usage proficiencies and it is really going to make rangers and barbarians in particular look pretty ho-hum as classes if I can be a wizard/cleric/druid/bard/sorcerer with master weapons or Armor. Whereas, a martial character getting master spell casting proficiency is not getting an additional +2 to things they will use every round of combat.
Now with archetypes and power creep, I wouldn't be surprised to see the ability to get to expert with a pretty broad range of weapons (even into the martial and advanced weapons) and armor eventually, even ones not on class lists, but I'd be shocked if any full spell casting class ever gets master.
As far as the argument that having master on a cantrip is going to match master on a martial weapon, I just don't buy that any character with master in both weapons and spells, even one without any additional martial feats, would not be better off finding a level appropriate, or even level -2 magic weapon that is not going to make for higher average damage with two weapon attacks than a single cantrip.
I think the primary balance point for primary caster's with weapons is the assumption that, in an average combat encounter round, a caster is best off casting at least 1 spell, and then possibly making one attack. While primary martial characters are probably looking to make at least 2 attacks and then maybe have one other thing they can do (maybe before they attack or maybe after). For that to work, the proficiency bonus that martial characters get over casters needs to be about in the +4 range with weapons (to cover most of the MAP penalty for the second attack). At low levels, attribute differences will make up half of that, but by level 10, it is primarily going to be coming from proficiency differences.
Armor really bothered me in the playtest, especially because it felt like you had to be a paladin to be a defense minded character and that felt like it left out a lot of classic tropes like dark knights and invincible dwarves, but I am betting that a lot of the narrative flexibility with armor will come back with archetypes. The math of armor (including penalties to skills and speed and the benefits of armor specialization) is pretty new to me so I haven't done the deep dive into the math on armors in PF2 yet, but in the playtest, light armor was so much better for every character except paladins that it would have been broken for anyone to get legendary proficiency in it. I will be trying to take a look at it over the next few days though because a lot has changed and it feels relatively subtle and the differences imbedded in the class features that go along with gains in armor proficiencies.
Generally if you are investing in Dexterity to get the best bonus you can upgrading Armor is something of a fool's errand. Light and Medium will net you 5 AC between Dexterity and Armor. Heavy Armor nets you 6.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point isn't about getting master proficiency as a caster.
The point is not getting expert with a weapon/armor of choice, despite already getting it with others.
The point isn't about getting master proficiency as a caster.
The point is not getting expert with a weapon/armor of choice, despite already getting it with others.
Weird, spellcasters who multiclass into a new tradition also don't get their top proficiency with the spells of their choice, despite already getting it with others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm looking into a house-rule feat, that's something like:
[Need a thematic name]
Pre-requisites: spellcaster
When you receive an increase in your spellcasting skill you can forgo that increase to boost your existing weapon OR armor proficiencies one step. This can't go above the level that your spellcasting ability would have been naturally at this level. Downgrade your future spellcasting trainings one step.
(Needs wordsmithing, obviously), but the intent is to let a caster give up one (or more) of their bumps in their casting for a martial themed increase. The feat itself does nothing. (So its weaker than a dedication in that regard). Its hard to formalize it correctly since so much of the game is 'your X increases to Y' not 'your X increases one step', purposefully by the designers to make it impossible to find an exploit that you can stack to get there faster than intended.
I'm still running numbers to see if it holds. Need to compare to pure caster, caster+fighter dedication, and warpriest at least to check how it balances out.
I think they are holding back from a universal weapons and armor to expert feat so that things like the pirate archetype and other classless archetypes can have have a special unique thing to grant (as a follow up feat to a dedication similar to ancestry feats). Once we see what these look like, it will probably be pretty easy to make one up for a specific thematic build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NOTE2: I know this is a lot asking, but it would be great if some of the designers of the game could explain their reasoning for this much restrictiveness and weak sauce of the system.Ah yes, I think calling it weak sauce will certainly encourage and incentivise the designers to respond to your comments and questions.
Options with purpose is like a buffet for the blind. Regardless of what you put on your plate you are gonna get full. In this system someone is walking with the blind patron and choosing what foods they can have, and they aren’t tasty combinations. They should have just cured their blindness and let them eat what the want. The restriction is built in already; it’s how full they get.
Clearly I’m hungry, but I’m sure you agree that if my character comes from a wizarding background that wants to focus monk qualities of defense over punching that should be an option. Raised up on the mean streets of the city before being hired on to the local military should offer armor proficency that improves with time of service not only weapon proficiency. At least the option to choose where you focus your training. “You, recruit, put on your armor we are going to war.” “I can’t, Captain, no one trained me during bootcamp, but I do know all the names of the weapons in the armory!”
I think the designers were on to something, but they are force feeding me iceberg lettuce without the options of romaine or spinach let alone to choose some delicious toppings like cheese, mushrooms, croutons, etc. Don’t even get me started on their dressing options.
Okay I’m done, I’ll go eat. Maybe I’ll find a buffet and exercise my creativity and freedom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it would dramatically impact power level if when your base class gained expertise with their weapons, they also gained expertise with martial weapon proficiencies gained via a dedication. It is kind of the point of MC into fighter to get weapon and/or armor training, so it would be annoying to MC specifically to become good with a maul and, at some point, you're back to being better off using a staff.
Treating armor the same way might be a little trickier, but is probably fine. I'm thinking of the dwarf monk MC as champion with armor advancing when unarmored does, but I haven't worked out whether that actually breaks anything.
I think they should have given the fighter an option at 1st level related to whether expertise is in weapons or armor, and that choice would determine in which they eventually reach legendary, as well. Champion doesn't need the armor niche to distinguish itself from fighter, but the heavy fighter without any religious convictions should be represented in the class, IMO.
I don't think it would dramatically impact power level if when your base class gained expertise with their weapons, they also gained expertise with martial weapon proficiencies gained via a dedication. It is kind of the point of MC into fighter to get weapon and/or armor training, so it would be annoying to MC specifically to become good with a maul and, at some point, you're back to being better off using a staff.
Treating armor the same way might be a little trickier, but is probably fine. I'm thinking of the dwarf monk MC as champion with armor advancing when unarmored does, but I haven't worked out whether that actually breaks anything.
I think they should have given the fighter an option at 1st level related to whether expertise is in weapons or armor, and that choice would determine in which they eventually reach legendary, as well. Champion doesn't need the armor niche to distinguish itself from fighter, but the heavy fighter without any religious convictions should be represented in the class, IMO.
Maybe I am wrong, but I highly doubt that increases to Expert proficiency in weapons or armor will be free or automatic increases as a part of other feats. It seems far more likely that Expert proficiencies will require an additional feat. That is how it works for fighter multi-class feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raised up on the mean streets of the city before being hired on to the local military should offer armor proficency that improves with time of service not only weapon proficiency.
This is what level does it makes you better with your weapon every time you level up. It is why gaining training is important and why Expert isn't just getting better, it represents a level of learning that goes beyond level. For PCs, this is represented by class specialization. For NPCs it is entirely story driven so mechanical rules are not really important.
If having options restricted by thematic elements like class and archetypes feels too limiting, it seems like you are probably looking for a classless system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I am wrong, but I highly doubt that increases to Expert proficiency in weapons or armor will be free or automatic increases as a part of other feats. It seems far more likely that Expert proficiencies will require an additional feat. That is how it works for fighter multi-class feat.I don't think it would dramatically impact power level if when your base class gained expertise with their weapons, they also gained expertise with martial weapon proficiencies gained via a dedication. It is kind of the point of MC into fighter to get weapon and/or armor training, so it would be annoying to MC specifically to become good with a maul and, at some point, you're back to being better off using a staff.
Treating armor the same way might be a little trickier, but is probably fine. I'm thinking of the dwarf monk MC as champion with armor advancing when unarmored does, but I haven't worked out whether that actually breaks anything.
I think they should have given the fighter an option at 1st level related to whether expertise is in weapons or armor, and that choice would determine in which they eventually reach legendary, as well. Champion doesn't need the armor niche to distinguish itself from fighter, but the heavy fighter without any religious convictions should be represented in the class, IMO.
I agree with you. My point was that it seemed like an unnecessary burden on the player to have to spend a feat to improve proficiency to expertise with a martial weapon they chose as part of a dedication when their simple weapons improve to expertise at some point anyway. In some sense, they have already spent a feat to get +1 damage with a weapon (because martial weapons, simplifying of course, give you +1 damage over simple weapons), so the second fighter dedication feat is kind of like enabling a wizard/fighter to continue to get +1 damage with a weapon after having already spent a feat to obtain that benefit. That's what I should have said instead of "I don't think it would dramatically impact power level..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon, Armor,Spellcasting, and Saves proficiencies are really the bulk of "what a class offers". So keeping people from just distributing these willy nilly is a good part of how we do niche protection- if you want to be a master with weapons, pick one of the six classes that gets that.
A lot of people have been bringing up the feat in the spellcaster dedications that grants master spellcasting. I have two responses. First is that spells and weapons are different, and should be treated differently- spells are a limited resource and have to have a more impressive spike than a weapon attack which can be used all day every day. But the other thing is that "master spellcasting" is an 18th level feat. I still haven't seen characters who will actually spend their 18th level feat on "+2 to hit with marial weapons" if that were an option; I have played a character who was going to spend their 18 level feat on "4 more spell slots and +2" (A Spirit instinct barbarian MC Pharasman Cleric in the playtest.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon, Armor,Spellcasting, and Saves proficiencies are really the bulk of "what a class offers". So keeping people from just distributing these willy nilly is a good part of how we do niche protection- if you want to be a master with weapons, pick one of the six classes that gets that.
How do armor/weapons at all dictate "niche" though?
A choice of weapon/armor does not interact with a Class niche at all, unless of course you're trying to argue that access at all "defines" a Class.
That would be true if that were associated directly with a role, but it really isn't. Spellcasting isn't even directly tied to a role, they can help dictate the role based on Spell selection in the case of choosing spells classified into groups of roles (healing spells for a healer, battlefield control spells for a BFC mage, etc.) but Spellcasting is significantly more involved than equipment when it comes to affect on Character role.
I have never seen anyone's "role"/"niche" change due to a weapon choice, unless you want to count someone that's picked up a completely different set of Feats to accompany that.
Weapons and Armor are things that every adventurer has. That by definition means they can't be "niche". The fact that they vary barely any across the options available (outside Advanced Weapons) lends even more evidence to that, trading up an average of 1 damage better or a few different traits isn't suddenly going to "change a niche/role".
The bulk of what a Class has to offer are in Class Feats and default Class Features (like Sneak Attack, Rage, Spellcasting, etc.).
And if Proficiency is such a protected role driven thing, then why does Spellcasting proficiency increase at all for non-primary Class casters?
It's literally an arbitrary distinction to classify Weapons/Armor one way, but Saves/Spells another, which is exactly what's being done in the case of someone going outside their class to gain Proficiency (whatever role it takes).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's literally an arbitrary distinction to classify Weapons/Armor one way, but Saves/Spells another, which is exactly what's being done in the case of someone going outside their class to gain Proficiency (whatever role it takes).
Rant ahead:
Preliminary Thesis: PF2 unified the mechanical structure of the proficiency system (how bonuses for checks are calculated). It made no effort to balance all proficiencies against each other in terms of value.
Maybe we have different definitions of arbitrary, but (focusing just on offense for a moment) spells and weapons are very different and are supposed to feel different in the pathfinder game system. That was a deliberate design choice, which is why proficiencies in them are treated as different things and not as interchangeable game elements.
With rare exception, casters are not going to be firing off 3 spells in a round. Spells are going to frequently do things to their targets even on a miss. Spells are going to be special resources that represent a significant expenditure for the entire party when used. Now not all of them fit all of those principles equally. Cantrips can be used every round, and for full caster classes, can be about as effective as a weapon attack because attack roll and damage will key off of the main caster class. In other words, the power level of the cantrip was intended to be "just good enough" to be worth using, while highest level spells are better than a weapon attack, and lower level spells move quickly into utility and back up/emergency/ targeted weakness categories.
Weapons are bread and butter, use all day, every day, every round, items. I believe the design for proficiency is that a wizard or other non-martial character, with a level -1 or 2 weapon, is making one attack roll a round that might be about as potent as a second attack by a martial character.
Martials as multi-class casters are sinking many feats into getting master level spell casting that is worth getting up to master.
Casters multi-classing into fighter, and choosing a lot of worthwhile fighter feats, are going to be ok at using a weapon, but it is not going to outshine what they can do with their spell slots.
Now one interesting thing to consider for now is that fighter MC feats (like most non-caster) end at level 12, because the assumption is that you would just keep taking advanced maneuver to gain access to their base class feats, because it is the feats, and not the proficiencies that make each martial class feel unique. While for casting classes, it is supposed to be primarily access to new spells that make your caster feel different from other casters.
Or to return to the thesis, some proficiencies are more valuable for what additional things you can do with them (like skills and spell casting), while some proficiencies are inherently valuable in and of themselves (saves, weapons and armor).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raised up on the mean streets of the city before being hired on to the local military should offer armor proficency that improves with time of service not only weapon proficiency.This is what level does it makes you better with your weapon every time you level up. It is why gaining training is important and why Expert isn't just getting better, it represents a level of learning that goes beyond level. For PCs, this is represented by class specialization. For NPCs it is entirely story driven so mechanical rules are not really important.
If having options restricted by thematic elements like class and archetypes feels too limiting, it seems like you are probably looking for a classless system.
Having options restricted by theme is not too limiting it’s exactly what I’m asking for, with the exception of not being limited to the limited themes they provided. What theme is the fighter multiclass archetype? I swing sword and I swing it better, maybe. So much more to a fighter, then what they offered. Why have the champion get armor training and not fighter? Their themes are lacking and crafted more from some back room game mechanics, which I get, but not at the expense of the them, of the story we try to create, and the path we choose to find through our adventuring. I’m sure we’ll all look forward to new class archetypes (pirate, samurai, angry dwarf with a hammer), but they had an option to allow the player to create their own theme with the multiclass archetype. There are far more players than designers and it’s not a far reach to think that the collective player creativity can exceed the designers. We players could have owned the MC Archetype and still have fun playing the archetypes the designers created.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, at least Fighter is an ideologically neutral class. The fact I cannot get armour proficiencies without buying into the Champions ideological requirements also really, really bugs me. In fact, it is impossible to play even a moderately (Expert) proficient Heavy Armour Barbarian without buying into the crusading theology is really, really annoying.This I agree with this, but that's because I don't like Champion being the heavy armor class, that was jarring, it doesn't have anything to do with the Multiclass design.
Hopefully there will be a Fighter Class Archetype which will allow them to swap from Legendary with Weapons, and Master at armor to Legendary at armor and Master at weaponry. That would hopefully help enable the concepts of characters with an immense defensive focus, but not having to be tied to a strict ideological framework.
Raised up on the mean streets of the city before being hired on to the local military should offer armor proficency that improves with time of service not only weapon proficiency.This is what level does it makes you better with your weapon every time you level up. It is why gaining training is important and why Expert isn't just getting better, it represents a level of learning that goes beyond level. For PCs, this is represented by class specialization. For NPCs it is entirely story driven so mechanical rules are not really important.
If having options restricted by thematic elements like class and archetypes feels too limiting, it seems like you are probably looking for a classless system.
Having options restricted by theme is not too limiting it’s exactly what I’m asking for, with the exception of not being limited to the limited themes they provided. What theme is the fighter multiclass archetype? I swing sword and I swing it better, maybe. So much more to a fighter, then what they offered. Why have the champion get armor training and not fighter? Their themes are lacking and crafted more from some back room game mechanics, which I get, but not at the expense of the them, of the story we try to create, and the path we choose to find through our adventuring. I’m sure we’ll all look forward to new class archetypes (pirate, samurai, angry dwarf with a hammer), but they had an option to allow the player to create their own theme with the multiclass archetype. There are far more players than designers and it’s not a far reach to think that the collective player creativity can exceed the designers. We players could have owned the MC Archetype and still have fun playing the archetypes the designers created.
I think the solution for your issue will hopefully be provided as soon as we get the GMG. If you were a player in my game and you described a archetype that you wanted to play, I would absolutely work with you to make a dedication feat and probably a couple of follow up feats that would eventually grant Expert proficiency in a martial weapon. Looking at the fighter archetype, I think that level 12 would be the right place for it.
The idea that my class weapons upgrade and nothing else bugs me too. Even if a new feat is introduced, that just means I need to waste a feat on a largely flavor choice. Let's say I want to play a wizard that uses a long sword. I take a feat to be trained. At level 11, suddenly weapons I've BARELY used I'm now an expert at. I can either use the long sword anyways, knowing I'm purposely wasting the expert attack bonus on my staff, or use a second feat so that I'm just as good with the long sword.
I think it sticks out because with all the feat options and class modularity, it's rare for a character to have an ability that the player doesn't want. The limited weapon proficiency increase feels like the unwanted class abilities from first edition that archetypes were needed to fix. I have a feeling that if increasing weapon/armor proficiencies wasn't automatic but could be traded out like other feats, it wouldn't be an issue.
Do you feel the same way about the spell casting feats? Because you definitely have to keep taking more feats to gain those class abilities. If the dedication feat gave you that much stuff, it would wildly overpower any other feat you might want to take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of it shouldn't monk archtype be changed from trained to expert.
So those who go into can actually use unarmed, I also rather monks get legendary in unarmed.
That's an issue I'm running into as I try to build a Wizard with some of the flavor of my Esoteric Magus from PF1. Wizards normally end up with Expert in their weapons, and with Fighter Dedication they can get Expert with all Simple and Martial weapons. Adding Ancestries on top of that can even get you Expert in some Uncommon weapons. But there doesn't seem to be any way to get Expert in Unarmed Strike. It's a bit odd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My big issue is that you can spend a general feat to become trained in an armor or weapon, but then there's no way whatsoever to scale that. It makes for a trap option early on. What starts out fine turns into absoute junk with the money spent investing in that armor being rendered useless.
If you can get to trained proficiency in something while even Fighters or Champions are only trained, then it shouldn't be a problem to be at least an expert or master as well. If you're spending possibly multiple general feats to accomplish this, than those feats should actually matter. A wizard that spends three general feats on getting to wear heavy armor should feel like their investment was rewarded, that their expensive heavy armor is worth wearing.
As for niche protection, oh well? The point of PF2 is customization. So long it's balanced, then "has armor" or "uses this kind of weapon" shouldn't be seen as infringing upon either the Fighter or Champion's niche. Both those classes have way more to them than simply being able to use weapons or armor.
I just cannot get over the weapon and armour proficiencies problem, specifically, the fact the only way to get even Expert proficiency outside your class is to take Fighter Archetype (there's also Ancestral feats but that's very limited).
It just makes no sense.
For one, even going into Fighter archetype won't get you that much; even investing 2 feats into your Fighter abilities will only get you to be as good with greatsword as you are with a staff without taking any special feats whatsoever - and you can't get any better.
This actually makes Fighter archetype be actually very weak.Weapon and armour proficiencies also eat up the very limited General Feats and you still don't get to be as good with a club or crossbow - even if your character literally never picked up a club or a crossbow, much less used them continuously.
And finally, there's comparison with taking up caster Archetypes. Sure, you need a bit more feat investment, but you can get up to Master in Spellcasting; and these feats also give you spell slots.
To my eyes, a fix is simple; make the Fighter feat give you Master proficiency instead of Expert (at a later level), and simply make all proficiencies just adding the weapons to your "class list" that upgrade with your class.
This would require changing the advanced weapon feats for Ancestries, but again, they could give you Master or just move all weapons from the list into the proficient group (instead of merely shifting the weapons one category downwards).
NOTE1: For all those that are going to pop up here "you can houserule it", save it. I know I can houserule stuff, but I prefer playing with as little houserules as possible and this feels just bad.
NOTE2: I know this is a lot asking, but it would be great if some of the designers of the game could explain their reasoning for this much restrictiveness and weak sauce of the system.
My question is, why aren't paladins, sorry "champions", proficient with shields? They get shield block and can take the shield as their divine bond but they remain untrained in their use especially making the shield a pointless item.
Do you feel the same way about the spell casting feats? Because you definitely have to keep taking more feats to gain those class abilities. If the dedication feat gave you that much stuff, it would wildly overpower any other feat you might want to take.I think it's different in that something I'm NOT using isn't increasing in your situation. I'm only increasing the spell casting when I want to. But under the current rules, my dagger proficiency is increasing and I don't want it/never plan to use it. It's a wasted bonus, which doesn't feel fun. I'd rather, like your spell casting scenario, have the option to get something else rather than a weapon proficiency increase I'll never use.
EDIT: I'm bad at quoting.
Having your class abilities rank up automatically is not really relevant to what you can get from multi-classing. All classes will gets boosts to some weapons that they choose not to use, by default of not being able to use every martial weapon or simple weapon at once. I get feeling left out about not being able to get Expert in the weapons that you want, yet, but like many people have pointed out, that will probably come with time. But expecting all martial weapons to advance automatically seems like it is asking for a bit much. If they are features that you get from feats and not innate class abilities, it seems like things that are going to have to increase from feats.
Everyone is proficient in Shields.
Incorrect. The book clearly says they are trained in all armours, martial weapons and simple weapons. Shields are not mentioned and this is also the case if you use the hero lab online, sure they can equip it with no minuses but they do not gain any AC bonus from them either.