As for the main thrust of the thread, I used to be in the camp that all characters should be able to get expert in any armor or weapon of their choice, but having thought on it I think the math as it stands make sense.
With fighter dedication and racial weapon feats it's not super hard to get expert in whatever weapon you want (worst case scenario you take adopted ancestry (human) into their ancestry proficiency feat line which can be for any weapon).
Expert proficiency is honestly fine for a weapon-using character. Just expert proficiency will have you hitting on a ~12 against same-level enemies, and most spell lists have some kind of buff that can make up the difference - tossing Heroism on yourself, for example, will always have your to-hit equal to or better than a non-fighter martial of the same level.
As for armor being impossible to get expert in unless you're a champion, that's a more concerning issue, but honestly even then it's not as bad as it seems - if your dex is 3 or lower, wearing medium armor you're trained in is as good as going unarmored that you're expert in, and if it's 1 or lower, heavy armor is BETTER than going unarmored even if the first is trained and the second is untrained.
I think the issue is more one of the system *seeming* unbalanced, which honestly can be as bad as it actually being unbalanced from a game design perspective.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Sorry for being succinct.
Everyone is proficient (little p) in Shields in that they know how to use them, there’s not a TEML scaling Proficiency bonus attached with them. The alternative is that absolutely no one knows how to use shields, so which do you think is correct?
P. 277 gives the rules for shields, they only provide the AC bonus when you use the Raise Shield Action, it’s not constant like 1e.
Edit: heh, ninjaed while looking through the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With fighter dedication and racial weapon feats it's not super hard to get expert in whatever weapon you want* (worst case scenario you take adopted ancestry (human) into their ancestry proficiency feat line which can be for any weapon).
*(Except Unarmed Strike.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*(Except Unarmed Strike.)
I'm guessing the Student of Perfection archetype might have an "upgrade to expert" feat. Since that book was supposed to come out at the same time as the CRB, they might not have thought it was an issue.
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.I agree that it'd be too strong to make all martial weapons increase. But a feat that simply adds a single weapon to your class list doesn't seem too crazy. Or, have a different option than increasing my wizard weapon proficiencies. I think it's less the feats that are the issue and more the level 11 automatic proficiency increase.
I'm actually not a huge fan of that either, but it came about when the bonus from proficiencies jumped from +1 to +2. All classes have to get expert in everything they start with or else they just fall too far behind to be inherent parts of the class chassis. I really hated that change when it happened in the playtest because I felt like it meant that they were giving up on the idea that proficiency in things was more than just a numeric bonus, but I guess the problem was that that was all proficiency was going to be for somethings, like saves (extras are determined by class, not proficiency) and armor especially.
*(Except Unarmed Strike.)I'm guessing the Student of Perfection archetype might have an "upgrade to expert" feat. Since that book was supposed to come out at the same time as the CRB, they might not have thought it was an issue.
Had to search for that reference, but it does sound interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For weapon proficiency's it's easier to think of it like PF1's BAB because that's what it replaces but instead of Low, Medium and High we now have Trained, Expert, Master & Legendary.
If you were to multi-class Wizard10/Fighter10 in PF1 you would have the same BAB as a rogue at lvl20 but you lost half your spell levels.
In PF2 if you are a Wizard who invests in Fighter you can get your attacks up higher the other casters but still below a Rogue. However you still have the spells of a lvl20 caster.
The fighter picking up Wizard is different. They get higher ranks into casting but their casting is both delayed and with limited slots. Yes they have unlimited cantrips but unless it's for the purposes of resistances/weakness they won't be using them much in combat as their martial attacks do far more damage.
You can't get master in weapons in a full caster class, it's just too unbalanced. Level appropriate spells are better then martial attacks which are better then cantrips.
A martial with master spells is a master a couple of times per day.
A spellcaster with master martial attacks is a master all day.
I'm interested to see what they will do with the Magus. Reintroduce half-casters or give them focus powers & cantrips or something different entirely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like part of the argument against "master weapons on a caster would be too powerful" is that a lot of those those 18th level feats you'd give up for master weapons are super powerful...
Like a bard can get "permanently have one extra action for purposes of casting a composition" and a wizard can get "can reuse (repeatedly, with a 10 minute refractory period) spell slots below 5th level". I wouldn't take "+2 to hit with weapons" over either of those.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with "you should just spend two class feats in Fighter/Champion" or whatever is that it doesn't really address what the actual purpose is for Armor Proficiency and Weapon Proficiency general feats. They only seem to be useful for as long as you have no expert-level defenses, and every single class gets expert armor at some point, even wizards for unarmored. That +2 AC is a lot and will frequently overcome any benefit you may have gotten from investing in heavier armor. For weapons it's a bit less clear-cut as they offer more than just AC and additional penalties, but generally if a player is investing in Weapon Proficiency they don't want their overall damage to be dropping because they're now less likely to hit.
Meanwhile, Canny Acumen is also a general feat you can take right at level 1 to gain expertise in a save that will later scale to Master. It's still extremely awkward as there's this period where every class by level 9 has all their saves in at least Expert, leaving the feat completely and utterly useless to every single player character no matter what. But at least at level 17 you then get Master rank, which... eh? It's some scaling, I guess, even though there's eight whole levels spent with a dead feat? At least retraining the feat, unlike with Weapon and Armor proficiency, isn't very likely to completely derail someone's character concept, it's not fundamentally ruining the picture of the character someone had in their mind.
It seems there's more than a few general feats like this that just have these big holes where their only possible applicable niche is within a fairly narrow range of levels with the expectation that you WILL at some point retrain them because they won't scale with your character's level. That's fine for skill feats, as it's not a given that you'll fully invest in any one skill even if you're at level 20. But for stuff that involves proficiency, all characters of a given class WILL progress in their proficiencies at a given rate and completely overtake the feats you explicitly took out to set your character apart, and that seems like a big hole in the design. There simply should not be feats that spend 8 levels being literally useless for every single PC imaginable, someone who's spent a bunch of general feats to get heavier armor should not feel like they're getting a worse AC for using that heavier armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Game has been out for 4 days, and the power gamers are already scouring the chapters looking for the one perfect combo to give them a bonus higher than someone else at the table has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a weird note: all non-Fighters or Champions must be Good at some point in order to get a new armor proficiency to Expert, particularly heavy armor.
I say "at some point" for a reason. "You are bound by your deity’s anathema and must follow the champion’s code and alignment requirements for your cause. You don’t gain any other abilities from your choice of deity or cause." You need to be good and dedicate yourself to a god in order to take the Champion dedication, then you can go tell them to go f%!@ their holy selves. They have no supernatural powers to take away from you and Champions, and that's really the only things deities do to Champions who fall. It says nothing about you being unable to progress as a Champion or forbidding you from taking further Champion feats, so long they're not divinely powered. Anything beyond that is 100% your GM getting irritated with your silly nonsense.
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.
pg.472 Raise a Shield, it is an action anyone can take as long as they have a shield equipped.
This is the only way to gain an AC boost from a shield and every character has access to it.Shield proficiency does not exist this is true though. Thankfully nothing hooks into proficiency with how shields operate.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Of course. I am drawing the comparison because I have seen the argument applied to cantrips gained from Ancestries many times.
Now I can elaborate on the differences, but highlight the mentality of why they are similar:
They all increase at staggered rates that are appropriate to the Class that signify gaining progression.
That is to say, you gain increases in Proficiency to supplement the need to progress in a given stat because it is a necessity.
That is the reason all Classes gain proficiency with Weapons. Not just Fighters. Wizards get Expert proficiency in their starting Class weapons.
Barbarians get Expert reflex saves, Rogues get Expert fortitude saves, etc.
Those saves are "off" saves for them, they progress slower than their other saves and have less to offer, but they do progress.
This progression is basically "inflation" that has to occur, because if it does not then enemies will eventually have corresponding Proficiency that directly opposes your Proficiency in the respective opposition and beat you more than they would normally.
That is to say:
I do not increase my Weapon Proficiency at X level. Enemies get a Proficiency increase at X level, because enemies get Proficiency increases to AC relatively on point with PC Weapon Proficiency increases.
This is why getting Proficiency both "makes a difference" but also "is needed to keep up", because the Tier of Proficiency you have dictates your level of competence relative to the challenge.
Expert Prof Weapon vs. Trained Armor is strong
Expert Prof Weapon vs. Expert Armor is good
Expert Prof Weapon vs. Master Armor is poor
Expert Prof Weapon vs. Legendary Armor is weak
A Fighter is always the best at fighting, because they are always one tier ahead of everyone, even their respective appropriate level enemies.
A Wizard is always the worse at fighting, because they always are one tier behind everyone for their respective level.
The General Feat right now is a guaranteed retrain at level 11 for any Class or a guaranteed retrain at level 7 for Martials that are not Fighter.
Adding a "At level 13..." clause to the General Feat is not going to break the game. It's seemingly arbitrarily excluded, because as we just talked about the game has an expected progression of "Expert" for all Classes by a certain level.
If we were talking about PF1, where the game was not level dependent like PF2 is, then you would have a valid point in "saves/weapons/spells/etc" being different, but we're not talking about how these are "different", we're talking about how they're the same.
All of them progress automatically at certain levels. They do this because the bonus is +2/+4/+6/+8 and then also level. Enemies are getting these increases too, across ALL their stats (saves/spells/weapons/armor/etc.)
The only aspect of the game that uses Proficiency that does not have the same kind of Expected progression for tasks (or at least not as heavily enforced) is Skills. And the reason Skills are a lot more laxative is because they have a lot more investment channels (skill increases) and they have a lot more Feats that govern the Expert+ tiers of Proficiency.
Regardless of the aspect of any Proficiency piece above though:
The General Feat is a Trap and obvious retrain for any player once they reach the level their Class automatically progresses to Expert.
The above is true. Period. +2 difference is a huge difference and no weapon is going to be that much better within a single step (non-simple -> Simple or Simple -> Master) that it would ever make up for the +2 at the cost of a Feat. You can reallocate that Feat to just about anything else and get more bang for your buck.
Now if you don't care about this Feat or people that would take this Feat, then I would consider you an apologist. It's not a grievance that's going to ruin the game for me personally, and it will only come up when the Feat is actually taken (which I will advise people against until it is fixed) but it does exist and it is a trap and it doesn't really serve a purpose to limit it that way anyways.
Even if Archetypes solve the problem. Delete those feats. If it's truly "niche" protection, then don't offer them at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Midnightoker -
I largely agree with you. I personally think that the decision to make proficiencies go up by two instead of one was a bigger change in the playtest than was expected and that shifted a lot of little pieces. There are definitely feats in the game that you want to train out of at certain points.
I actually consider that a feature of the game, because I like the idea of characters changing over time. What I would love to see is more feats (all feats, but in this particular case we can focus on general feats) that do different things with your proficiencies rather than just grant new ones. So your character with a proficiency boosting feat at level 1 or two could retrain it when it no longer provides the numeric boost you want, into something that still speaks to your character concept. For example if you were a rogue who boosted your Fort save with a general feat early, there could be general feats that let you turn critical failures into failure for poison, or against necromancy effects.
I think the design space is still open for this kind of thing, but thus far such abilities have been class and ancestry dependent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Game has been out for 4 days, and the power gamers are already scouring the chapters looking for the one perfect combo to give them a bonus higher than someone else at the table has.
I think people have found a lot more bad options than "must have" ones. But I am getting a bad feeling that more people than Paizo expects will be taking the background that gives you the Hefty Hauler feat.
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.pg.472 Raise a Shield, it is an action anyone can take as long as they have a shield equipped.
This is the only way to gain an AC boost from a shield and every character has access to it.Shield proficiency does not exist this is true though. Thankfully nothing hooks into proficiency with how shields operate.
The classes that used to get proficiency with shields are getting a free Shield Block feat now, apparently.
And there might be opportunities to resolve the issue, and I have made (well in the process of two characters) two characters that I could not make at all for about 3-4 books into PF1.
Honestly, so far, it's the only true "feat trap" that I can see (well this one and the Armor one).
One might be "too many" to some, but it's certainly not to me. One of the bigger reasons I've been vocal on it is because to me it seems to appeal to new players more than it would to non-new players.
From PT to PF2 they didn't even have the progress based Proficiency increases (nor did Weapon Specialization/Armor Specialization even exist), and then they had the whole bonus increase as well. Lot of moving parts.
Hopefully new players get the sense that feats are designed for swapping out when they don't help build your character concept anymore. Rather than being essential parts of a character's identity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully new players get the sense that feats are designed for swapping out when they don't help build your character concept anymore. Rather than being essential parts of a character's identity.
If someone considers a weapon a part of their concept, that's going to be a bit heavy for them.
I'd be in favor of a General Feat of higher level that you could retrain this Feat into:
Specialty Weapon
Prerequisite: Expert Proficiency with your Class Weapons
Benefit: You can add one Simple Weapon that is not normally on your Class initial proficiencies to your list and treat it as if it were. If your Class list already includes all Simple Weapons, you may select a single Martial Weapon instead.
Now this means that a Wizard can never effectively use a Halberd, but they could add a Morningstar or some other Simple Weapon to their Class list.
It also means Rogues who go off list can now grab a new type of weapon, but of course they still can't Sneak Attack with a Great sword.
Archetypes can of course solve the problem, but Class Feats is a hefty price to pay, and robs you of Class concept just to get a weapon (seems a bit invasive to me).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like part of the argument against "master weapons on a caster would be too powerful" is that a lot of those those 18th level feats you'd give up for master weapons are super powerful...
Like a bard can get "permanently have one extra action for purposes of casting a composition" and a wizard can get "can reuse (repeatedly, with a 10 minute refractory period) spell slots below 5th level". I wouldn't take "+2 to hit with weapons" over either of those.
That wizard feat is actually super bad, because it only applies to spells without a duration, which is almost entirely blast spells. I checked last night and stared into the abyss for a while. Infinite fourth level and below blasting spells at 18th level is not obviously superior to cantrips.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ideally, if these feats were to be fixed, I would want them to scale at the rate the "strong" options are scaling.
So like if a Wizard took Armor Proficiency twice to get medium armor, from levels 7-12 they'd be be Trained in unarmored, light, and medium armor, and Untrained in heavy. At level 13, Wizards get Defensive Robes and their unarmored proficiency increases to Expert, so that same Wizard that took Armor Proficiency twice (out of the grand total of 3 they've gotten so far in their career and the 5 they'll ever get) would be Expert in unarmored, light, and medium and Untrained in heavy.
That's just the bare minimum to make the feat a non-trap option, it's still extremely feat intensive but at least all that investment in armor isn't rendered moot.
For saves, the point is basically to get a +2 to a save that isn't already your strongest save. So that's what it should do, just take you from Trained to Expert, Expert to Master, or Master to Legendary so long that the stat you've boosted isn't or won't become the highest save your character has.
I don't know of an elegant way to handle using Canny Acumen to boost Perception since everyone gets Expert in that eventually as well. It boosts your Perception one rank, but you may only take it if you were only Trained in it at level 1? It's a bit awkward.
Problem with "your general feat scales with your class proficiency" is that this renders completely useless the 12th level fighter dedication feat- since you could get the same result a level earlier with a low level general feat.
I get the sense that general feats are supposed to be the weakest kind of feat.
Hopefully new players get the sense that feats are designed for swapping out when they don't help build your character concept anymore. Rather than being essential parts of a character's identity.If someone considers a weapon a part of their concept, that's going to be a bit heavy for them.
Until the archetypes come out, I think that any charcter concept "defined" by a weapon that is not a holy weapon for that character, is probably a multi-class fighter. I understand that might not be the most exciting answer, but any wizard or sorcerer, or other half BAB class in PF1 is not using any weapon effectively in combat at higher levels without much more character limiting MC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem with "your general feat scales with your class proficiency" is that this renders completely useless the 12th level fighter dedication feat- since you could get the same result a level earlier with a low level general feat.
I get the sense that general feats are supposed to be the weakest kind of feat.
I am not sure I understand the design purpose of general feats anymore. Some of them are usefulish, like more HP or a bonus to speed, but they seem so far below archetype feats right now that a lot of them don't accomplish things that are particularly character defining. I think the usefulness of general feats will probably be something that requires the release of generic archetypes before it is going to be fully realized.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem with "your general feat scales with your class proficiency" is that this renders completely useless the 12th level fighter dedication feat- since you could get the same result a level earlier with a low level general feat.
I get the sense that general feats are supposed to be the weakest kind of feat.
Sure, but I think that puts more scrutiny on the fighter MC feat (and also the champion feat for armor, and also the [Ancestry] weapon expertise in a few cases, but the [Ancestry] weapon training actually handles it pretty well for most). As it stands the feat required to get expert proficiency is a feat tax, because classes and monsters are designed such that the granted proficiency through class features essentially form the BAB/AC-Equivalent of the class, and 2E was supposed to be trying to avoid such taxes. Not a perfect metaphor, but it'd be sort of like if in 1e you didn't get to add your BAB from a class that didn't get proficiency in a given weapon that you got through multiclassing, unless you picked up weapon proficiency anyway. A better solution would be to have all trained weapons and armor scale with the class, and do something similar to the "Resiliency" feats, where you get a limited bonus, so long as you only get expert in weapons (or armor for the champion), though that's difficult to do with the bonus stacking rules.
| 2 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.
Feats are power boosts though. That's what they do. Saying they're there to "not give a power boost" seems at odds with what most feats actually do. Getting to add damage to my attacks or increase my skill modifiers or reduce penalties or increase the daily uses of abilities are all objectively power boosts.
Feats are power boosts.
With fighter dedication and racial weapon feats it's not super hard to get expert in whatever weapon you want
Two class feats is a pretty steep price to pay just to get parity in a weapon your class doesn't normally have access to. The weapon might not even be meaningfully better than what you were equipping before.
And fighter dedication still doesn't let rogues get proficiency parity in non-class weapons.
And there's literally zero way to get expert in unarmed combat if it doesn't come from your base class.
I think the issue is more one of the system *seeming* unbalanced
The issue is just that Paizo made it ridiculously hard to gain weapon proficiencies in this game and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of... reason for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem with "your general feat scales with your class proficiency" is that this renders completely useless the 12th level fighter dedication feat- since you could get the same result a level earlier with a low level general feat.
I get the sense that general feats are supposed to be the weakest kind of feat.
You only ever get 5 general feats throughout your career (at least assuming 1-20, we don't yet know how common 20+ games are gonna be). You only get your first general feat all the way at level 3, and you don't get your next one until you've gone through over twice as many sessions to level 7. They didn't need to be weak, they're the rarest type of feat in the game (tied with ancestry feats).
As for fighters... honestly, their concept as an MC archetype kinda sucks. I'd be OK with just having the feats stack together because if you're spending general AND at least two class feats on getting your weapon proficiency up there then I feel like the player has sufficiently communicated that they want to be a fighty person. All the martials get at least mastery in their attacks, I feel a caster getting the same isn't a big deal given they'd have to spend even more resources to get the class features and feats actual martials get. Fighters are not just their BAB anymore.
Maybe make the Fighter archetype feat increase your rank from Trained to Expert, or if you're already Expert then Master in a particular type of weapon, so that at level 12 they're still only on par with Fighters. The very next level Fighters go back to being just better again at fighting, there'd still be no way to get Legendary for non-Fighters.
PF1 was level dependent. You had good, medium, and bad progression bonuses bases on level. So yes it was level dependent. Being trained in a variety of weapons and armor is class feature. Just like Rage and Backstab. I think what is hard for people is many of these feats were open in PF1/3.5. Like power attack and whirl wind. My argument is they never should have been. I think either the whole system is open or not. No classes everything is feat to select. This would include all spells. Or it is like it is in PF2. Classes give you access to certain training and feats. If you want to look at it the other way. When you multi class into a caster why do you top out at 3rd level spells. I think you should get access to 6th and 7th level spells. There needs to be a rule change to get that. That is what folks are asking when they say I should get Master level training in the weapons I want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you multi class into a caster why do you top out at 3rd level spells. I think you should get access to 6th and 7th level spells. There needs to be a rule change to get that. That is what folks are asking when they say I should get Master level training in the weapons I want.
Soo... I wonder if you'll change your position when you find out you can actually gain access not just to level 7 spells, but level 8 spells by multiclassing. :)
However, I think you're mistaking what most people here are asking. They do not really want Master proficiency, they are asking for Expert proficiency with all the weapons you become trained in, rather than only with weapons on the class list you never ever use.
|
It will most likely be a spell. PF1 had spells that made you proficient in weapons or even we could expect to see it in the Transformation spell if it ever makes a return. While in PF1 Transformation spell was to put it quite simply, not useful, I can see the PF2 version of Transformation actually being pretty nice with the proficiencies.
Are we sure that multi class gives you access to 8th level spells? I thought one of the developers was on indicating the max you would get is 3rd level spells. If it is indeed 8th level spells, then maybe I would reevaluate my view of locked things such as training. In essence you would have the majority of spells open to you if it is 8th level spells. So being trained in all weapons may be something to look at. If it is 3rd level spells then more of locked system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully new players get the sense that feats are designed for swapping out when they don't help build your character concept anymore. Rather than being essential parts of a character's identity.If someone considers a weapon a part of their concept, that's going to be a bit heavy for them.
I'd be in favor of a General Feat of higher level that you could retrain this Feat into:
Specialty Weapon
Prerequisite: Expert Proficiency with your Class Weapons
Benefit: You can add one Simple Weapon that is not normally on your Class initial proficiencies to your list and treat it as if it were. If your Class list already includes all Simple Weapons, you may select a single Martial Weapon instead.
Now this means that a Wizard can never effectively use a Halberd, but they could add a Morningstar or some other Simple Weapon to their Class list.
It also means Rogues who go off list can now grab a new type of weapon, but of course they still can't Sneak Attack with a Great sword.
Archetypes can of course solve the problem, but Class Feats is a hefty price to pay, and robs you of Class concept just to get a weapon (seems a bit invasive to me).
I like your solution, but I would prefer it just act as an auto-scaler. For example: If you are not proficient with all simple weapons, treat all simple weapons as class weapons. If you are proficient with all simple weapons, treat one martial weapon as a simple weapon. If you are proficient with all martial weapons, treat one advanced weapon as a martial weapon.
Something like that.
Are we sure that multi class gives you access to 8th level spells? I thought one of the developers was on indicating the max you would get is 3rd level spells. If it is indeed 8th level spells, then maybe I would reevaluate my view of locked things such as training. In essence you would have the majority of spells open to you if it is 8th level spells. So being trained in all weapons may be something to look at. If it is 3rd level spells then more of locked system.Look at the last lines, Master Spellcasting Feat.
Well, that does change things. The arguments I had was based on the assumption of a more locked system. So if 7th and 8th level spell slots are granted then there should be some more flexibility with training and maybe even some class feats.