| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The proficiency scaling only bother me in regard to armor, nothing else.
While my reading of the rules is still fresh compared to 1e, I will admit, it doesn't seem like a big deal to allow all one's armor proficiencies to scale at the same rate. They still have to invest feats to even get those armors, and there are enough other incentives to have high Dex that they would be giving something else up to choose this route.
Alternatively, creating a feat that allows all your cross-class proficiency to scale up would also work for me, although maybe with some other slight tack-on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why should I spend two feats for expert proficient with all armor or all weapons, when I only care about one category of armor or one weapon?
If it's a feat that tighter in scope, effecting only a single category of armor, or a single weapon, why shouldn't it grant more than a feat that effects all armors or weapons?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please stop using language like being “punished”? The concept is patently ridiculous.
If you take a less desirable option for reasons of good roleplay, good for you for putting character above optimization. That has been true in every edition, especially with only one Rulebook released.
Feels like there's been a lot of hyperbole around proficiencies in PF2. Even though any caster can become proficient in all martial/simple weapons at level 14 with two class feats into Fighter archetype, or all armors with two feats into Champion archetype.
It feels like a weird thing to complain about. Here's the framework, I made a choice that's not optimal but it fits my niche and the system screwed me over for not making it as viable as I think it should be.
I personally got stuck on using Spiked Gauntlet because of the aesthetics, but I shouldn't complain that it does less damage than martial weapons and my character learns to use rapier as well as the gauntlets without actually using the rapier.
Why should I spend two feats for expert proficient with all armor or all weapons, when I only care about one category of armor or one weapon?
If it's a feat that tighter in scope, effecting only a single category of armor, or a single weapon, why shouldn't it grant more than a feat that effects all armors or weapons?
The feats aren't narrower though, they grant all light then all medium, then all heavy just like the class features or the archetype feats. I'm guessing the devs didn't want people to pick a single weapon/armor and make it become a meta to pick only those. People are already talking about how picking the gnome flickmace is obviously the min-max and if you don't, you're punishing yourself.
I kind of get you. I want to use breastplate on my rogue because of the aesthetics inspired from Dragon Age 2 iconic armor. But I know that unless I go ruffian, it's gonna be weaker than studded leather at later level. That's a personal choice and it's not devs punishing me. What if they made made the One Armor Proficiency cost two class feats to scale, would that still be viable? Possible houserule?
Why should I spend two feats for expert proficient with all armor or all weapons, when I only care about one category of armor or one weapon?
If it's a feat that tighter in scope, effecting only a single category of armor, or a single weapon, why shouldn't it grant more than a feat that effects all armors or weapons?
A feat that only grants proficiency in a single type of weapon do exist in the Weapon Familiarity Ancestry feats.
However if you are suggesting a General Feat that grants say expert proficiency in single type of weapon, I'd suggest that was of similar power level to a feat that granted you 2 1-3rd level slots of a single school of magic. A bit good really and in excess of the power level of General Feats.
Trading off specificity for additional power is an old trick in RPGs and is generally poorly balanced as flexibility rarely rewards you enough to overcome the Tao of "Stuff I was Gonna Do Anyway"
Champion's a bit of an issue due to thematic limitations. We really need another Archetype that's less thematically locked down to do the same thing with armor.
I definitely think we'll get something else that does a similar job, we even saw something like it in Grey Maidens in the playtest. Space in the corebook was at a premium though and the intention was to have those additional 10 archetypes available at launch in the Lost Omens book. That said, if its core to the concept right now, hold your nose and grab Champion, I'm sure something else will be along in a few weeks/months you can retrain into.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. It never ceases to amaze me how people can view anything that interferes with them doing whatever they want as "punishment".
2. Retrain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man y'all are dumb if you think a Wizard is investing a bunch of feats into wearing full plate because he's just that determined to break the game with hyper-optimization
Like casting mage armor is as good or better than any light armor in many circumstances.
No it isn't. Its absolutely worse in all circumstances.
At first level, mage armor gives at best an AC of 10+3(prof)+3(dex)+1 =17
Same as leather. Studded leather gives an 18.
Mage armor burns a spell slot to give a worse AC
As you get higher level, you need to dump more into dex (at 5th, 10th and 15th, at which point you reach mage armor's cap) and higher level spellslots just to keep up.
When expert unarmored proficiency comes online, the light armor bonus is exactly equal to the difference in proficiency, but runes are still better than burning high level spell slots (and they don't stack).
So it might behoove a high level caster to switch to explorers clothes with runes and get the higher dex cap, but mage armor is never part of the equation. There isn't any point in setting one of your highest level spells on fire every day at 11th level.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really about powergaming. I'd say the same to a martial who wants casting. "There's a way and it's called MC Archetype."
Anyone can put a level 2 and 12 class feat to become Expert in simple and martial weapons, and trained in all advanced weapons.
I don't want to be trained in all of that. I'm not planning to stand in as a Fighter in frontline. I just want to use a different weapon that what Gary Gygax imagined 50 years ago.
Or 2 and 14 feats to become Expert in all armors. But that's more power gaming than wanting a general feat to scale on par with multiclass archetypes?
3 general feats. But first, if that's all you think you get from a multiclass archetype, then the archetype is the problem, not the general feats.
If anything it's less power gaming because you're giving up Class Feats instead of General Feats which tend to have less overall impact, hindering your power levels a little.
It is powergaming because you are taking a multiclass archetype to get its mechanical bonuses rather than because you have RP reason. I have RP reason for building my character to use heavy armour; I have no wish to also include praying the whole day with it.
What's the alternative, scaling general feats? Rewriting fighter and champion archetypes two weeks after release of the new books?
Yes. Because they are obviously badly done. Just because they are newly released doesn't mean they are good and immune from change.
Also, remove the advanced weapon Ancestry feats. Again, superheavy feat taxes for little reason.Currently at launch, "mechanically good" with weapons or armor is the purview of martials.
This is a dishonest and completely incorrect way to represent my position. I don't want to be as good as martials. I want my character to be as good at using the weapon I spent my General feats on as the character is at using the dagger he never uses for anything except cutting up meat.
This is currently sitting at +2 starting at 13th level. Am I crazy in thinking that's not too big of a deal?
Yes, you are. This is the "tight math" edition. +2 is more than most spells provide as a bonus.
I feel like playing a fun concept is "mechanically fine."
It is not. I've played weak RP-only characters to enjoy sitting on the side while the rest of my party carries the load due to my character being hobbled by RP decisions during character building.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3 general feats. But first, if that's all you think you get from a multiclass archetype, then the archetype is the problem, not the general feats.
To be fair, I didn't know about fighter/champion proficiencies, or that you can skip right to them until threads like these about wanting master proficiency in things that don't get them. I might pick fighter for the strikes that give grabbing and flat footed effects.
It is powergaming because you are taking a multiclass archetype to get its mechanical bonuses rather than because you have RP reason. I have RP reason for building my character to use heavy armour; I have no wish to also include praying the whole day with it.
With that logic, the issue here is powergaming since you can use the heavy armor on a wizard with one feat, but people are complaining it's not as strong. Ie, the issue is "its mechanical bonuses rather than because you have RP reason". Kind of ironic, now that they finally removed arcane spell failure.
Not really about powergaming. I'd say the same to a martial who wants casting. "There's a way and it's called MC Archetype."Anyone can put a level 2 and 12 class feat to become Expert in simple and martial weapons, and trained in all advanced weapons.I don't want to be trained in all of that. I'm not planning to stand in as a Fighter in frontline. I just want to use a different weapon that what Gary Gygax imagined 50 years ago.
Or 2 and 14 feats to become Expert in all armors. But that's more power gaming than wanting a general feat to scale on par with multiclass archetypes?3 general feats. But first, if that's all you think you get from a multiclass archetype, then the archetype is the problem, not the general feats.
If anything it's less power gaming because you're giving up Class Feats instead of General Feats which tend to have less overall impact, hindering your power levels a little.It is powergaming because you are taking a multiclass archetype to get its mechanical bonuses rather than because you have RP reason. I have RP reason for building my character to use heavy armour; I have no wish to also include praying the whole day with it.
What's the alternative, scaling general feats? Rewriting fighter and champion archetypes two weeks after release of the new books?Yes. Because they are obviously badly done. Just because they are newly released doesn't mean they are good and immune from change.
Also, remove the advanced weapon Ancestry feats. Again, superheavy feat taxes for little reason.
Currently at launch, "mechanically good" with weapons or armor is the purview of martials.This is a dishonest and completely incorrect way to represent my position. I don't want to be as good as martials. I want my character to be as good at using the weapon I spent my General feats on as the character is...
There is a thread on the homebrew forum trying to create a feat to overcome this. On that apparently +2 is not really a big deal. So it either is or isn't...
And: "obviously badly done" is hyperbole of the highest order. Not least because there is no way you have played a game from level 1-14 whereby all of this becomes relevant in terms of the archetypes.
It is most certainly not "obvious" at all since there is a debate going on. It is obvious to you but not to others.
There is a clear discrepancy on scaling Proficiencies between Martial MC and Caster MC. I fear that it comes from casting proficiencies applying to limited resources (aka spells) while martial proficiencies apply to unlimited resources (weapon and armor).
No, it's more that weapons can give a +2 or +3 bonus on attacks, making the mechanical chances to affect a target's weak save (or AC with spell attacks) vs. hitting with a strike similar
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
generally i think one should only pursue the feats if they don't plan on getting enough dex where the armor makes the proficiency raises your armor. basically only get heavy armor if you don't plan on getting dex. sure you're easier to hit, but you also don't have to invest in dex at all.
like if lightarmor+2 is still worse than plate, go plate, otherwise it doesn't even matter that much.
Just wait for some archetypes and feats. It needs more investment than one general feat imo and there is more than just AC to consider as magical metal armour and armours made of special materials exist.
Orichalcum armour is the only way to get four property runes atm. Again, armour proficiency is more than just the AC value.
If you want to RP someone in the armour, well currently that is a small AC hit of 2 (1 for heavy). This is a heck of a lot lower for many classes that would want to get armour proficiency than in PF1e core.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think that if a player wants his character to wear heavy armor, he should choose a class that is listed as getting proficiency in it.
That seems really stifling to character concepts and RP
However if you are suggesting a General Feat that grants say expert proficiency in single type of weapon, I'd suggest that was of similar power level to a feat that granted you 2 1-3rd level slots of a single school of magic. A bit good really and in excess of the power level of General Feats.
Trading off specificity for additional power is an old trick in RPGs and is generally poorly balanced as flexibility rarely rewards you enough to overcome the Tao of "Stuff I was Gonna Do Anyway"
I'll grant that.
What about two general feats? First proficiency, and later Weapon Expert. Prerequisite of expert proficiency in any weapon. Choose one weapon you are trained in, you become an expert in that weapon.
Still two feats, and general feats which you receive less of, and more focused. Doesn't increase to anything higher than a class already grants. But doesn't have the ability requirements or dedication requirements of the fighter multi-class route?
Edit: I forgot about advanced weapons, so maybe not ANY weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Heavy armour is that important to the RP then the hit to AC should be considered acceptable just like all sub-optimal RP related choices in any version of Pathfinder
And perhaps there will be an archetype later that allows for armour upgrades without having to be tied to a deity. And if that is not worth trading some class feats for then it is not important enough to the concept
There has to be some trade off. And considering proficiency is fundamental to the class design it cannot be circumvented by a single general feat. This is not a mistake but a deliberate and conscious choice by the designers
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is weirdly difficult to build a heavy-armor user who is not a Champion or Fighter right now, without being deeply religious and taking the Champion Multiclass.
I don't think the way to fix this is improving the general feat, since General feats, I believe, are supposed to be the weakest option. Something like an archetype without the Champion's baggage would be good.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Heavy armour is that important to the RP then the hit to AC should be considered acceptable just like all sub-optimal RP related choices in any version of Pathfinder
Maybe, but why is that something that we should be celebrating? Why is "Let's punish people for wanting to play something different!" a good thing?
I would expect Hellknight to be one such multiclass but that one will obviously have thematic ties that are also unpopular for some - and have similar baggage
But I think there will be a general one too - juggernaut or something
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, why is it okay for these feats to function perfectly fine from 1st to 12th level, only for 13th level to be the expiration date?
What makes the math at 13th level demand that these feats become obsolete?
Hang on, the feat works fine after 13th, it doesn’t stop working, however if you want 2 more AC while wearing your full plate, you just take the 14th level feat that raises your proficiency to expert. Or not and live with being 2 lower AC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the way to fix this is improving the general feat, since General feats, I believe, are supposed to be the weakest option.
For one thing, I don't believe that this is really true - firstly because the minimum value of a general feat is 'any skill feat that you qualify for', and there's some pretty nice ones, and secondly that also I feel that the weapon/armour proficiency feats are notably weaker than other general options, both in what they actually end up doing for you and in the fact that some classes need to take them several times to get the full benefits from them.
And for another, even if general feats are supposed to be very weak, I think that 'spending three feats to become a worse character than if you didn't bother' is a bit too low of a power level. If the heavy armour proficiency scaled at the rate of your normal proficiencies, the plate wizard would be, at the cost of three general feats, +1 AC compared to a dexterity wizard, but at least -1 Reflex saves (since Bulwark only gives +3) and -5 feet of speed. Not needing DEX for AC is largely negated by needing STR instead, so the total return on investment here is '+0.33 AC per feat with additional drawbacks', rather than '-0.33 AC per feat with additional drawbacks' as it currently is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Heavy armour is that important to the RP then the hit to AC should be considered acceptable just like all sub-optimal RP related choices in any version of PathfinderMaybe, but why is that something that we should be celebrating? Why is "Let's punish people for wanting to play something different!" a good thing?
It’s not punishing people for playing something different, its putting higher costs on something that has advantages, If you wear full plate you can drop dex and focus on your strength instead and get benefits to help out your reflex save and be generally higher AC than if you didn’t take the feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, why is it okay for these feats to function perfectly fine from 1st to 12th level, only for 13th level to be the expiration date?
because there's nothing that makes them inherently not okay...?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Heavy armour is that important to the RP then the hit to AC should be considered acceptable just like all sub-optimal RP related choices in any version of PathfinderMaybe, but why is that something that we should be celebrating? Why is "Let's punish people for wanting to play something different!" a good thing?
you're not being punished, you're just not being rewarded for playing a fighter or champion(because you're playing something else), which is a different thing.
Hang on, the feat works fine after 13th, it doesn’t stop working, however if you want 2 more AC while wearing your full plate, you just take the 14th level feat that raises your proficiency to expert. Or not and live with being 2 lower AC.At that point, you may as well have not taken the feat at all. So why is 13th level, of all levels, the expiration date for such feats?
Because it’s better than your unarmoured AC? If you no longer want to wear heavy armour you retrain the feat, or you invest another feat and improve your AC or you keep wearing your heavy armour because your Dex is 10 and its still better AC than being unarmoured.
13th level is picked out because thats the level your defenses rise in some classes so the feat to match that increase is at 14th level so you can take it after that happens.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't like this idea that people think they are being "punished". Like it is a malicious intent of the designers. It is a very negative stance and not true either.
They would not have sat there and thought "how do we punish those people who want wizards in full plate". Instead they have:
- removed armour check penalty making it feasible
- given champion multiclass as a route to get it whilst being a full caster
- opened up the route of going figher/champion with wizard multiclass to be a full armoured wizard
Just one example, I know and I don't think one of the original ones but there are still actual options there
The Captain's position is better - other classes are rewarded with the ability. Classes not getting access it not them being punished.
But that seems to be the sticking point
One solution I have considered is if a player would gain a class feature increase in proficiency at level n, and a feat which would improve that proficiency appears at level m>n, we could let players just "buy the level m feat in advance", where they would get the increase right away but would be out their level m feat.
Like Sorcerers get simple weapons to expert at level 11, with the "Expert martial" fighter dedication feat coming on at 12, and the "ancestral weapon expert" feat coming on at 13. I have no issue with letting people gain the benefit of the higher level feat a level or 2 in advance, much like how class archetypes can be taken at level 1 despite costing a level 2 feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That seems more like unintentional fallout of the proficiency subsystem than a deliberate masterstroke of planned design.
There is nothing about the Armor Proficiency feat that makes it a-okay at 12th level, but deserving of expiration at 13th.
that seems awfully hyperbolic when you think about the number of ability score increases you have at that point and how because of the feat you've needed to spend 0 on dexterity.
-2 AC isn't the end of the world, especially if you spent 4 ability score increases that would have gone into dex on strength instead probably giving you an extra +2 to-hit and +2 to damage...
The Captain's position is better - other classes are rewarded with the ability. Classes not getting access it not them being punished.
I know I haven't been around for 3 years, but I did have this avatar first. :P
Let's take a look here, and assume that this character is a bard of some kind, with just enough Strength or Dex to meet the minimum for their armor, though with a maxed stat for their casting/striking.
Caster Bard
Level 12 light armor character.
Str 12, Dex 16, Cha 20. Chain shirt.
AC of 27 at level 12, AC of 29 at level 13.
If using a melee weapon, +19 to hit, +1 to damage
Melee Bard
Level 12 heavy armor character
Str 20, Dex 12, Cha 16. Breastplate.
AC of 27 at level 12 and 13.
If using a melee weapon, +21 to hit, +5 to damage.
Tank Bard
Level 12 heavy armor character
Str 20, Dex 12, Cha 16.
AC of 28 at level 12 and 13.
If using a melee weapon, +21 to hit, +5 to damage.
(Though likely higher if using a shield)
So if you avoid multiclassing, you trade off 2 points of AC for +4 damage, and investing the feat or two to have that same armor bonus until that point.
So if you're going to dump the "AC stat" and buy into medium or heavy armor, it's not so much to have a higher AC so much as it is to keep up. Is it weird that it doesnt scale up? Kinda, yeah. Is it a punishment? Hardly. You're trading away the stat that determines your ability to dodge attacks for something else. Damage, climbing, combat maneuvers, carrying capacity.
Yes, it would be nice if it scaled for the heavier armors. But it's not game breakingly bad.
That seems more like unintentional fallout of the proficiency subsystem than a deliberate masterstroke of planned design.
There is nothing about the Armor Proficiency feat that makes it a-okay at 12th level, but deserving of expiration at 13th.
I guess the only way we will know if it is planned or not is if:
a) a designer comes on to comment.
b) the APG has higher level general feats to further boost proficiency
However the following feats give one rank jump in proficiency at general level:
- skill training
- canny acumen
- incredible initiative (effectively)
- armour proficiency
- weapon proficiency
So this points to it be being planned design rather than unintentional. Whether it is "correct" design is the debate here but it does seem planned
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Canny Acumen is not a one rank jump, it scales from Expert to Master at 17th level.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is customize is controlled, you can do anything but there are decisions to be made, things to give up. It is much more about picking a class and dedication class to meet your needs then it is about picking a chain of feats.
I personal like these changes, it simplifies character creation and makes it more natural. No longer an I talking about chains of feats I need to accomplish what I want to do. I am taking about high level concepts, I want to be Wizard/Fighter which is very different then a Fighter/Wizard.
In my opinion it was a great step forward and I really hope they keep it up, this sort of "silo"ing will keep the game simpler and more approachable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Canny Acumen is not a one rank jump, it scales from Expert to Master at 17th level.
I missed that part but since this thread is focused on 13th level would those who think the armour and weapon feats should scale really be happy with it scaling up at 17th level to expert? Or even 15th?
My guess, and it is only a guess, is "No"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just checked on the Champion Dedication feat. Some extra hoops to jump though if you are using it to get armor and armor alone.
For instance, it requires and 14 Charisma to become good in armor somehow? And requires a champions code? Thankfully you can totally break that champions code with no penalty. You don't lose proficiency, just your champion focus powers and divine ally.
Similar idea for Fighter Dedication. Requires both a Str and Dex of 14 to take. That can be a bit difficult on some characters if you're, for instance, a clumsy ruffian, or weak wizard (presumably wanting a finesse or ranged weapon).
There's also just the idea that some classes aren't meant to have access to certain things by design. Like, yeah, if you're playing a weak wizard or whatever, then yeah... maybe you don't get to wear the armor the way the Champion or Fighter does.
And maybe that's explicitly by design.
And that's just fine.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also just the idea that some classes aren't meant to have access to certain things by design. Like, yeah, if you're playing a weak wizard or whatever, then yeah... maybe you don't get to wear the armor the way the Champion or Fighter does.
And maybe that's explicitly by design.
And that's just fine.
Maybe then don't include Weapon and Armour proficiency feats if you do not want the players to use them.
And maybe that was AD&D, and there's a reason almost no-one plays it anymore.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also just the idea that some classes aren't meant to have access to certain things by design. Like, yeah, if you're playing a weak wizard or whatever, then yeah... maybe you don't get to wear the armor the way the Champion or Fighter does.
And maybe that's explicitly by design.
And that's just fine.
Maybe then don't include Weapon and Armour proficiency feats if you do not want the players to use them.
And maybe that was AD&D, and there's a reason almost no-one plays it anymore.
I said "wear the armor the way the Champion or Fighter does" - you can still wear it, just not the same way.
Same with weapons. You can still use the weapon you want if you make the choice to do so, but the Fighter will be better at it, because being better than you with weapons is what the Fighter does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said "wear the armor the way the Champion or Fighter does" - you can still wear it, just not the same way.
Same with weapons. You can still use the weapon you want if you make the choice to do so, but the Fighter will be better at it, because being better than you with weapons is what the Fighter does.
Again with the dishonest framing of the original requests. Champions get Master armour proficiency by the time we're talking getting Expert, not to mention armour specialisation.
Nobody is asking to match the Champions or Fighters, even if we reduce them to mere Armour / Weapon proficiency bonuses. These reductionist arguments just show how little you think about these classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think little about any of the classes. I just don't agree with the other side of the debate, and think it's perfectly fine if sometimes things are just not the way you might want in a system.
You can house rule things to make them that way, but the designers clearly had an intent and that intent was "this feat only lets you go up to this level of proficiency".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just checked on the Champion Dedication feat. Some extra hoops to jump though if you are using it to get armor and armor alone.
For instance, it requires and 14 Charisma to become good in armor somehow? And requires a champions code? Thankfully you can totally break that champions code with no penalty. You don't lose proficiency, just your champion focus powers and divine ally.
Similar idea for Fighter Dedication. Requires both a Str and Dex of 14 to take. That can be a bit difficult on some characters if you're, for instance, a clumsy ruffian, or weak wizard (presumably wanting a finesse or ranged weapon).
No - 14 Charisma is not required to be "good in armour". It is required to follow the Champion pathway.
The only reason it is brought up is that *right now* it is the only way of improving armour proficiency beyond trained in an armour not designed for your class. And this is just an issue of it being core book only. The option for a full plate proficient barbarian was not the 1E core book. And an armoured (non bard) arcane spellcaster came out in Ultimate Magic as the Magus
A weak wizard will struggle with heavier armour for other reasons such as bulk and check penalties - clearly those were just hypothetical examples.
But that is one problem you stumble upon with maths based theorycrafting - scenarios that people will not do. Regardless of "concept" you are unlikely to get someone who plays a wizard with less than 14 strength and wears medium or heavier armour.
A Ruffian rogue with less than 14 Dex also seems like it could be an unpopular build choice given the dex skills it has access to.
The scaling proficiency system has made it so that heavy armour is not essential for AC. Given how heavier armour doesn't give much more of a bonus and adds lots to your bulk limit is it really going to be popular even if it is for thematic or concept reasons? I am sure a Rogue with high dex ends up 1 AC behind a fighter at level one in light armour (but this was worked out when I was using AON rather than the book)
Or is there something else that people want heavier armour for?
It seems like so they can drop dex to invest in other stats. Then in that case there will be a trade off.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 1e every class started at a different baseline and, from there, get to move in a direction they wanted (i.e. an alchemist taking medium armor).
In 2e, every starts at a different baseline and, as far as armor is concerned, get continually corralled back to that baseline.
These are two very different things. I love 2e's proficiency in all areas EXCEPT this one. It's an illusion of choice.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The option for a full plate proficient barbarian was not the 1E core book.
Armor Proficiency, Heavy : Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe then don't include Weapon and Armour proficiency feats if you do not want the players to use them.And maybe that was AD&D, and there's a reason almost no-one plays it anymore.
Except the feats are there for those who want to RP, it is a drop in power but not a large one.
And as I said before, there is more to an item than just the static stats. A bard taking breastplate of command for instance.
That would be enough to convince me to either take a general feat or retrain into it, -2 AC be damned.
Hey, if I assume I was going into medium armour from the start I only ever needed 12 dex, another benefit. So at level 13 I would have what 20AC rather than having... 20AC in studded or chainshirt.
It is a sub optimal decision with a minimal cost that allows people to roleplay while giving access to other items that they wouldn't otherwise have access to.