| 5 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?
There's a lot of dramatic hyperbole today. A character not gaining +2AC because he didn't get Expert Heavy Armor at level 13 isn't making said armor obsolete. If the +2AC is that important, you got bigger issues than wearing heavy plate as a wizard.
The thing is, they function perfectly as intended from 1 to 20, it's there black on white what their function is, which never changes. Just houserule scaling, it's more likely than them changing the whole foundation of proficiency to appeal to a wizards in plates who couldn't wait for the archetype book and need to squeeze every proficiency bonus and min-max AC gained.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That’s the impression I’m getting though from casually observing.
The current options let you wear armor your class otherwise wouldn’t allow, and the complaints are that your outside option can’t compete with classes to which the specific Proficiencies were built around nor does their own class enhance the armor they weren’t designed with.
The option for a full plate proficient barbarian was not the 1E core book.Armor Proficiency, Heavy : Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
I mistyped. A Heavy armour specializing Barbarian. My mind was stuck on the archetype (which I am not sure actually gives you much beyond the proficiency but i cannot remember) because the proficiency feat you mentioned exists in this edition as well...
So you can get heavy armour. But you don't NEED to as the extra heavy bonus is offset by the increased medium proficiency you get from your class. Sure it may seem like being forced away from certain choices but alternatively it can be seen as not being forced to pick others in the other direction...
| 3 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.
Spending a more important feat (thanks to feat chains for martials) and disabling fast movement for yourself, as well as that increased armour check penalty that cannot be gotten rid of.
Forgive me if I am not seeing it as a shining example of where you could do it core in PF1e without a downside :P
I wonder if the issue is mostly that "Trained proficiency" in PF2 is supposed to be as good as, if not better than, proficiency in PF1. Whereas "Expert/Master/Legendary" training are supposed to replace things like Weapon/Armor Training, [Foo] Focus, things like Trapfinding, etc.
So in effect "my wizard can't get expert training in plate mail" is not dissimilar to "my wizard can't get the armor training fighter class feature."
At issue is that people do get expert training in at least unarmored defense, but if your dex is 12 you're still going to have a higher AC trained in half-plate than expert in unarmored.
Spending a more important feat (thanks to feat chains for martials) and disabling fast movement for yourself, as well as that increased armour check penalty that cannot be gotten rid of.
Forgive me if I am not seeing it as a shining example of where you could do it core in PF1e without a downside :P
It's quite different. You don't get a -5 AC penalty (rough equivalent to -2 in P2E) once you hit level 13th.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.That’s the impression I’m getting though from casually observing.
The current options let you wear armor your class otherwise wouldn’t allow, and the complaints are that your outside option can’t compete with classes to which the specific Proficiencies were built around nor does their own class enhance the armor they weren’t designed with.
As far as I can tell people want to be able to replicate what can currently only be done through class feats (dedications) through spending only one general feats (with them scaling) OR maybe an extra general feat
And that is when a solution is proposed at all.
You just need to look at what was suggested in the homebrew thread - an incredibly unbalanced general feat that would be a no brainer for everyone
Now if I am wrong about the desire then can it be explained? What are the people arguing for greater proficiency actually prepared to exchange for this?
*
And I understand that Champion proficiency is too specific in many cases. But I find it impossible to believe that armour based archetypes will not come out
*
There are far too many of these threads. Couldn't there just be one called "I am not the biggest fan of the proficiency system" ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the +2AC is that important, you got bigger issues than wearing heavy plate as a wizard.
Thing is with the tighter math every plus is precious now in 2E. So, yes, the +2 AC is that important.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, E/M/L are high end enhancers for Classes, not basic level of competence at that level.
I will grant that more Master / Legendary. But pretty much every class gets expert in their armor / weapons by level 13. Expert is not a high end enhancer, it's needed to keep up with the power curve.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The current options let you wear armor your class otherwise wouldn’t allow, and the complaints are that your outside option can’t compete with classes to which the specific Proficiencies were built around nor does their own class enhance the armor they weren’t designed with.
Again, this is a very dishonest and reductionist argument. We're not asking to compete with Fighters or Champions. It is true we want them to change the Champion and Fighter archetype feat, because even that feat makes no sense.
However, I give up, there's no point to discussing it here. I guess everyone just like to play vanilla characters.
I thought PF2 was about being better than past, but I guess we're regressing back to AD&D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the +2AC is that important, you got bigger issues than wearing heavy plate as a wizard.Thing is with the tighter math every plus is precious now in 2E. So, yes, the +2 AC is that important.
I disagree unless you're building around AC, generally higher armor proficiency will lend itself to moving ability boosts to strength, making melee attacks hit more often. this -2 AC doesn't fade into the ether into nothing.
However, I give up, there's no point to discussing it here. I guess everyone just like to play vanilla characters.
also very reductionist, I have no issue playing a wizard with heavy armor prof as they are now. I even plan to play it sometime.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The current options let you wear armor your class otherwise wouldn’t allow, and the complaints are that your outside option can’t compete with classes to which the specific Proficiencies were built around nor does their own class enhance the armor they weren’t designed with.Again, this is a very dishonest and reductionist argument. We're not asking to compete with Fighters or Champions. It is true we want them to change the Champion and Fighter archetype feat, because even that feat makes no sense.
However, I give up, there's no point to discussing it here. I guess everyone just like to play vanilla characters.
I thought PF2 was about being better than past, but I guess we're regressing back to AD&D.
If that interpretation is dishonest than what exactly are y'all asking then?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The current options let you wear armor your class otherwise wouldn’t allow, and the complaints are that your outside option can’t compete with classes to which the specific Proficiencies were built around nor does their own class enhance the armor they weren’t designed with.Again, this is a very dishonest and reductionist argument. We're not asking to compete with Fighters or Champions. It is true we want them to change the Champion and Fighter archetype feat, because even that feat makes no sense.
However, I give up, there's no point to discussing it here. I guess everyone just like to play vanilla characters.
I thought PF2 was about being better than past, but I guess we're regressing back to AD&D.
It would be nice if you didn't call people dishonest and their views reductionist just because they disagree with you. It is not really polite because calling someone dishonest is pretty much calling them a liar. Something which you have no way of knowing
*
And since the discussion is about the level 13+ power curve can I ask about how your level 13 Pathfinder 2 game is going? What experiences do the characters wearing armour without the expert proficiency have? Are they getting crit all the time and dying? How many have died so far due to this?
*
What level would you be happy becoming expert in an armour not "designed" for your class? I guess 13? And would you take another feat to allow it - although that would mean level 15
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the +2AC is that important, you got bigger issues than wearing heavy plate as a wizard.Thing is with the tighter math every plus is precious now in 2E. So, yes, the +2 AC is that important.
So it's an optimization/power-gaming issue then. Weird how no one seems to open with that and covers that up with "It's for roleplay."
I think in the end, if you start building into say, full plate for your caster, by the level 13th, you should be invested in it enough that a +2AC isn't a dealbreaker. If it's for roleplay. At least armors don't have failure chance anymore, and you can negate checks with str, which shouldn't be hard since you don't need dex as much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the +2AC is that important, you got bigger issues than wearing heavy plate as a wizard.Thing is with the tighter math every plus is precious now in 2E. So, yes, the +2 AC is that important.I disagree unless you're building around AC, generally higher armor proficiency will lend itself to moving ability boosts to strength, making melee attacks hit more often. this -2 AC doesn't fade into the ether into nothing.
also very reductionist, I have no issue playing a wizard with heavy armor prof as they are now. I even plan to play it sometime.
However, I give up, there's no point to discussing it here. I guess everyone just like to play vanilla characters.
Exactly. Everything is a trade off, but if you want to aim for the AC route that still should be an option. Admittedly one you might be trading something more optimized for. Not making an optimized character, but making a unique character who is allowed to build in various directions, even if it cost them a bit more, should be an option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that interpretation is dishonest than what exactly are y'all asking then?The current options let you wear armor your class otherwise wouldn’t allow, and the complaints are that your outside option can’t compete with classes to which the specific Proficiencies were built around nor does their own class enhance the armor they weren’t designed with.Again, this is a very dishonest and reductionist argument. We're not asking to compete with Fighters or Champions. It is true we want them to change the Champion and Fighter archetype feat, because even that feat makes no sense.
However, I give up, there's no point to discussing it here. I guess everyone just like to play vanilla characters.
I thought PF2 was about being better than past, but I guess we're regressing back to AD&D.
I have a partial answer. YOUR *interpretation* cannot, by default, be dishonest. It can be wrong. Or mistaken - In someone else's opinion
But not dishonest. That is nonsense
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the +2AC is that important, you got bigger issues than wearing heavy plate as a wizard.Thing is with the tighter math every plus is precious now in 2E. So, yes, the +2 AC is that important.So it's an optimization/power-gaming issue then. Weird how no one seems to open with that and covers that up with "It's for roleplay."
I think in the end, if you start building into say, full plate for your caster, by the level 13th, you should be invested in it enough that a +2AC isn't a dealbreaker. If it's for roleplay. At least armors don't have failure chance anymore, and you can negate checks with str, which shouldn't be hard since you don't need dex as much.
Yes it is very weird I agree. If roleplay if the big driver then the mechanical bonuses are not worth jumping on an internet forum and complaining about. Pure and simple. You just have fun playing your concept regardless
All signs point towards it being much harder to fall behind by making "roleplaying" choices in 2E unless you are trying really hard (14 or lower in main stat for example)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. Everything is a trade off, but if you want to aim for the AC route that still should be an option. Admittedly one you might be trading something more optimized for. Not making an optimized character, but making a unique character who is allowed to build in various directions, even if it cost them a bit more, should be an option.If the +2AC is that important, you got bigger issues than wearing heavy plate as a wizard.Thing is with the tighter math every plus is precious now in 2E. So, yes, the +2 AC is that important.I disagree unless you're building around AC, generally higher armor proficiency will lend itself to moving ability boosts to strength, making melee attacks hit more often. this -2 AC doesn't fade into the ether into nothing.
also very reductionist, I have no issue playing a wizard with heavy armor prof as they are now. I even plan to play it sometime.
However, I give up, there's no point to discussing it here. I guess everyone just like to play vanilla characters.
right and if that's your goal, it's still there, be a champion or fighter. if you want that spell casting but need that high AC it'll pretty much be done by giving up being an amazing spell caster. everything you said is still possible.
you just have to prioritize certain things, you don't necessarily get everything you want when you want it, and might not be able to get it all together at once. you're perfectly able to make unique characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite different. You don't get a -5 AC penalty (rough equivalent to -2 in P2E) once you hit level 13th.Spending a more important feat (thanks to feat chains for martials) and disabling fast movement for yourself, as well as that increased armour check penalty that cannot be gotten rid of.
Forgive me if I am not seeing it as a shining example of where you could do it core in PF1e without a downside :P
You don't get that big a penalty in real terms. Lets say you are a Wizard wearing + 2 Plate with 10 dex at level 12. Why do you have 10 dex? Because you are raising your Int, Str, Con and Cha at levels 5 and 10. Could you focus on Dex instead? Sure, but then you shouldn't wear plate.
At level 12 you would be:
Unarmored = 10 (Base) + 12 (level) + 2 (Trained) + 0 (Dex) + 2 ( 2 Potency Explorers Clothing) = 26 AC
Plate = 10 (Base) + 12 (level) + 2 (Trained) + 0 (Dex) + 8 ( 2 Potency Full Plate) = 32AC
At level 13 you would be:
Unarmored = 10 (Base) + 13 (level) + 4 (Expert) + 0 (Dex) + 2 ( 2 Potency Explorers Clothing) = 29 AC
Plate = 10 (Base) + 13 (level) + 2 (Trained) + 0 (Dex) + 8 ( 2 Potency Full Plate) = 33AC
At level 14 you would be:
Unarmored = 10 (Base) + 14 (level) + 4 (Expert) + 0 (Dex) + 2 ( 2 Potency Explorers Clothing) = 30 AC
Plate = 10 (Base) + 14 (level) + 2 (Trained) + 0 (Dex) + 8 ( 2 Potency Full Plate) = 34AC
If you choose to grab the Champion Multiclass feat you pump your AC by 2 while wearing armour at level 14, but assuming you are Dex 10, just being trained in armour is still better than unarmoured.
It's quite different. You don't get a -5 AC penalty (rough equivalent to -2 in P2E) once you hit level 13th.Spending a more important feat (thanks to feat chains for martials) and disabling fast movement for yourself, as well as that increased armour check penalty that cannot be gotten rid of.
Forgive me if I am not seeing it as a shining example of where you could do it core in PF1e without a downside :P
You don't get that big a penalty in real terms. Lets say you are a Wizard wearing + 2 Plate with 10 dex at level 12. Why do you have 10 dex? Because you are raising your Int, Str, Con and Cha at levels 5 and 10. Could you focus on Dex instead? Sure, but then you shouldn't wear plate.
At level 12 you would be:
Unarmored = 10 (Base) + 12 (level) + 2 (Trained) + 0 (Dex) + 2 ( 2 Potency Explorers Clothing) = 26 AC
Plate = 10 (Base) + 12 (level) + 2 (Trained) + 0 (Dex) + 8 ( 2 Potency Full Plate) = 32ACAt level 13 you would be:
Unarmored = 10 (Base) + 13 (level) + 4 (Expert) + 0 (Dex) + 2 ( 2 Potency Explorers Clothing) = 29 AC
Plate = 10 (Base) + 13 (level) + 2 (Trained) + 0 (Dex) + 8 ( 2 Potency Full Plate) = 33ACAt level 14 you would be:
Unarmored = 10 (Base) + 14 (level) + 4 (Expert) + 0 (Dex) + 2 ( 2 Potency Explorers Clothing) = 30 AC
Plate = 10 (Base) + 14 (level) + 2 (Trained) + 0 (Dex) + 8 ( 2 Potency Full Plate) = 34ACIf you choose to grab the Champion Multiclass feat you pump your AC by 2 while wearing armour at level 14, but assuming you are Dex 10, just being trained in armour is still better than unarmoured.
So you are saying it is a +1 *bonus* from 12 to 13 with 4 points of superiority for the armoured option. Surely that is worth the one general feat?
So where did -2 come from?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if you didn't call people dishonest and their views reductionist just because they disagree with you. It is not really polite because calling someone dishonest is pretty much calling them a liar. Something which you have no way of knowing
Very simple:
* dishonest : we do not ask to be equal to Fighters and Champions. We're asking to have the General feat scale together with the feats a class provides for free. Which will never even match the level Fighters and Champions reach, and we are not asking that it does. Furthermore, this leads me into:* reductionist : by saying that giving class-matching proficiency in weapons and armour the character uses General feat is encroaching on Fighter and Champion design spaces, you are treating them as if those proficiencies are class defining - reducing them to mere proficiency bonuses they provide.
And since the discussion is about the level 13+ power curve can I ask about how your level 13 Pathfinder 2 game is going? What experiences do the characters wearing armour without the expert proficiency have? Are they getting crit all the time and dying? How many have died so far due to this?
Why would it be important at all?
What level would you be happy becoming expert in an armour not "designed" for your class? I guess 13? And would you take another feat to allow it - although that would mean level 15
Yes. If I get armour proficiency, I would simply expect that armour scales the same as the armour proficiency provided by my class. Otherwise we're back into tax feat territory.
If it's for roleplay. At least armors don't have failure chance anymore, and you can negate checks with str, which shouldn't be hard since you don't need dex as much.
There is a difference between powergaming and building characters optimally for the character idea you want.
***So you are saying it is a +1 *bonus* from 12 to 13 with 4 points of superiority for the armoured option. Surely that is worth the one general feat?
So where did -2 come from?
you're -2 compared to if you had the dex that your armor wants. the difference between trained(level+2) and expert(level+4).
yes this ignored that heavy armor totals = 6 while lesser armor is 5. there's a lot that's ignored on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if you didn't call people dishonest and their views reductionist just because they disagree with you. It is not really polite because calling someone dishonest is pretty much calling them a liar. Something which you have no way of knowingVery simple:
* dishonest : we do not ask to be equal to Fighters and Champions. We're asking to have the General feat scale together with the feats a class provides for free. Which will never even match the level Fighters and Champions reach, and we are not asking that it does. Furthermore, this leads me into:
* reductionist : by saying that giving class-matching proficiency in weapons and armour the character uses General feat is encroaching on Fighter and Champion design spaces, you are treating them as if those proficiencies are class defining - reducing them to mere proficiency bonuses they provide.
Except, proficiencies and how they scale in both of these classes are part of their progression and its base chassis. For Fighters and Champions, yeah, they are part of the identity of the class, and how they function and why their feats work the way they do.
It's a plain fact that those proficiencies matter a lot to them, and isn't reductionist at all.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if you didn't call people dishonest and their views reductionist just because they disagree with you. It is not really polite because calling someone dishonest is pretty much calling them a liar. Something which you have no way of knowingVery simple:
* dishonest : we do not ask to be equal to Fighters and Champions. We're asking to have the General feat scale together with the feats a class provides for free. Which will never even match the level Fighters and Champions reach, and we are not asking that it does. Furthermore, this leads me into:
The current options let you wear armor your class otherwise wouldn’t allow, and the complaints are that your outside option can’t compete with classes to which the specific Proficiencies were built around nor does their own class enhance the armor they weren’t designed with.
* reductionist : by saying that giving class-matching proficiency in weapons and armour the character uses General feat is encroaching on Fighter and Champion design spaces, you are treating them as if those proficiencies are class defining - reducing them to mere proficiency bonuses they provide.
They are class defining though, especially for those two mentioned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the +2AC is that important, you got bigger issues than wearing heavy plate as a wizard.Thing is with the tighter math every plus is precious now in 2E. So, yes, the +2 AC is that important.So it's an optimization/power-gaming issue then. Weird how no one seems to open with that and covers that up with "It's for roleplay."
I think in the end, if you start building into say, full plate for your caster, by the level 13th, you should be invested in it enough that a +2AC isn't a dealbreaker. If it's for roleplay. At least armors don't have failure chance anymore, and you can negate checks with str, which shouldn't be hard since you don't need dex as much.
Yes it is very weird I agree. If roleplay if the big driver then the mechanical bonuses are not worth jumping on an internet forum and complaining about. Pure and simple. You just have fun playing your concept regardless
All signs point towards it being much harder to fall behind by making "roleplaying" choices in 2E unless you are trying really hard (14 or lower in main stat for example)
I'm personally building around dual wielding Spiked Gauntlets. They're weaker than other weapons rogue can use, but it's my rp niche and I'm not being "punished" for willingly choosing a subpar option. If I wanted to rp a Eldritch Knight, I could go half-elf and by level 14 I'd have Expert in: Martial/Simple/all armors, and trained in all advanced at the cost of 3 class feats and 1 ancestry feat.
I mean, I get wanting to optimize. I'd like for my Spiked Gauntlets to do more damage than a basic kick, but at the same time, it's not fair to go around saying that the devs wrote things poorly or things are wrong because there's currently no good way to make the weapons stronger, dunno if that makes sense but eh. Casters can now use heavy armor easier than before. And unlike before, they aren't starved for feats. They can get both metamagic feats and heavy armor proficiency without fear of spells fizzling and somehow that's still not good enough because...+2 ac at level 13th.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was reviewing the proficiencies given by dedications and i noticed something a bit weird.
why does no dedication provide medium armor and why does rogue provide light armor when fighter does not? I do find that a bit strange.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was reviewing the proficiencies given by dedications and i noticed something a bit weird.
why does no dedication provide medium armor and why does rogue provide light armor when fighter does not? I do find that a bit strange.
1) There's not currently a master of medium armor style class.
2) In the Playtest Fighter gave both Armor and Weapon proficiencies, it was waaaaaay too good.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What level would you be happy becoming expert in an armour not "designed" for your class? I guess 13? And would you take another feat to allow it - although that would mean level 15Yes. If I get armour proficiency, I would simply expect that armour scales the same as the armour proficiency provided by my class. Otherwise we're back into tax feat territory.
This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was reviewing the proficiencies given by dedications and i noticed something a bit weird.
why does no dedication provide medium armor and why does rogue provide light armor when fighter does not? I do find that a bit strange.
1) There's not currently a master of medium armor style class.
2) In the Playtest Fighter gave both Armor and Weapon proficiencies, it was waaaaaay too good.
doesn't ranger get master? (or is that not what you meant)
Also, that's a shame, I just recently got back into tabletop so i stayed away from the playtest.
|
|
I was reviewing the proficiencies given by dedications and i noticed something a bit weird.
why does no dedication provide medium armor and why does rogue provide light armor when fighter does not? I do find that a bit strange.
1) There's not currently a master of medium armor style class.
2) In the Playtest Fighter gave both Armor and Weapon proficiencies, it was waaaaaay too good.
doesn't ranger get master? (or is that not what you meant)
Also, that's a shame, I just recently got back into tabletop so i stayed away from the playtest.
I think Barbarian gets Master too, but yeah sorry, meant "master" as that was one of their main things, like Paladin or Monk.
I was reviewing the proficiencies given by dedications and i noticed something a bit weird.
why does no dedication provide medium armor and why does rogue provide light armor when fighter does not? I do find that a bit strange.
Champion dedication gives all armors, including medium.
I think Barbarian gets Master too, but yeah sorry, meant "master" as that was one of their main things, like Paladin or Monk.I was reviewing the proficiencies given by dedications and i noticed something a bit weird.
why does no dedication provide medium armor and why does rogue provide light armor when fighter does not? I do find that a bit strange.
1) There's not currently a master of medium armor style class.
2) In the Playtest Fighter gave both Armor and Weapon proficiencies, it was waaaaaay too good.
doesn't ranger get master? (or is that not what you meant)
Also, that's a shame, I just recently got back into tabletop so i stayed away from the playtest.
I might end up home brewing that they provide training and have an expert feat for their armor as well. they don't feel any less medium armor than rogue feels light to me. :P
might do it for fighter too (just up to medium and separate feat maybe, or maybe a separate feat that just gives armor training prof for all 4)
we'll have to see what becomes of the archetypes I suppose.
Champion dedication gives all armors, including medium.I was reviewing the proficiencies given by dedications and i noticed something a bit weird.
why does no dedication provide medium armor and why does rogue provide light armor when fighter does not? I do find that a bit strange.
oh i'm aware, just found it strange none gave light & medium only. until i checked i thought ranger did this, but was wrong. :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually WOULD like to see the Champion MC feat give up to Master armor proficiency, while allowing a general feat that bumps your out of class proficiencies to expert. But that's just my own taste, and I doubt it would actually satisfy anyone else on this thread.
I expect it would just move the goalposts; instead of complaining that their caster doesn't get expert armor, they'd complain that their rogue is now locked into light armor because that's the armor they get master proficiency for.
I'm a little curious why they went this route, actually, since Starfinder lets you get weapon expertise in out of class weapon proficiencies that you pick up along the way. I wonder if there has been issue with that.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting armor proficiency outside of what your own class grants you kinda sucks and here’s why.
In PF1, heavier armor existed so that you didn’t have to invest in DEX. It didn't necessarily net you the highest AC and you very rarely got a permanent increase to any stat. When you did increase a stat, it could only be to one - which you'd want to stack on your best stat. DEX was still a god stat, but if you were playing a STR character or were a bit MAD then not needing to max out your DEX was helpful. Point buy was the norm, so making characters with lots of stats at the extreme meant there were more opportunities to take advantage of the savings from heavy armor.
In the PF2 playtest, armor basically followed the same rules as PF1, but the way stats were distributed changed dramatically. ABC generation enforces a decent spread of stats. This means it's very hard to start off with anything less than 12 in a stat unless you're intentionally dumping it, and DEX was still very useful. You now get simultaneous boosts to four unique stats every five levels - it means even secondary and tertiary stats are going to be increasing throughout a character's career. This resulted in a problem where characters would grow out of medium or heavy armor despite their best efforts, because DEX was rarely one of the two stats you didn't want to increase for any class. And lighter armor was just strictly better so long you are meeting the DEX cap, heavy armor only had penalties so switching to something lighter got you the same AC but with a faster movement speed, better TAC, and less ACP. The only way this could be overcome in the playtest was to be either a Fighter or Champion, who got extra bonuses specifically for heavy armor to make it not godawful. It was just that bad.
For the final release of PF2, armor got a pretty serious rework. Heavy armor now grants you the highest possible AC, full stop. Additionally, all or most of the penalties for wearing armor have been removed... so long you've met the STR requirement. Bulwark essentially lets you treat your DEX as 16 for the purposes of reflex saves, which drastically mitigates DEX's importance to a heavy armor user down to where even INT or CHA might be more attractive.
Generally speaking, I'm fine-ish with this. Splint and Half-Plate are kind of in an awkward limbo where you'd really need to balance some stats to justify using them over either medium armor or Full Plate, but it's arguably fine to have a DEX of 14 or 16 and still wear Half-Plate since it's still +1 AC higher than if you were wearing Scale Mail or Studded Leather Armor. There are valid reasons for a Fighter or Champion to choose nearly any set of armor, whether that be for property runes, STR requirements, how much they value movement speed versus AC, et cetera.
But all that assumes that a character is equally proficient in all those types of armor. A difference of +2 AC is pretty dramatic, that entirely outstrips the AC bonus from heavy armor versus medium and compensates for up to a whopping 4 points of Dexterity for medium versus light.*
This is the problem. Light, medium, and heavy armor are only balanced against each other IF you're already equally proficient with all of them. So spending multiple feats in feat taxes just to use a different type of armor seems pretty out of whack, because you’re spending resources on a sidegrade.
A Wizard that invests into getting heavy armor isn't really breaking the system, instead of pumping up DEX for their AC they gotta pump up their STR so they don't become too chonky to get to safety. The increased Bulk from their boosted STR is either going to be negligible or non-existent, you only get 1 extra Bulk per STR mod and that's immediately cancelled out by armor (and actually cam get worse if that Wizard opts to carry a proper martial weapon instead of a knife).
We know this is OK, because through 1-12 for most classes this was actually deemed OK by Paizo. It is only at level 13 and later that this stops functioning properly, and there's really no good arguments here.
A potential argument against fixing this is that armor or weapon proficiency is a niche that should be protected for just the Champion or Fighter. Now, I love Paladins and Fighters, I play them all the time, I've always preferred their aesthetics even when I'm shoehorned into another role (ie I'll prefer to play heavily armored clerics when playing casters, I like more brutish rogues wearing heavier armor). But both the Fighter and the Champion are not going to have their niche threatened by other classes also using martial weapons and heavy armor. Those two gets legendary in its respective specialty, something that's impossible for all other classes no matter what. They also get exclusive mechanics for armor, that exist just for their sakes. And, most importantly, they have a load of other class features and feats that are vastly more important to their identity – Champions are about channeling the power of Fantasy Jesus to beat up bad guys and heal and protect friends, Fighters are now truly martial artists with a suite of special moves that combo into one another to debuff, control, and maneuver while dealing lots of damage.
But Pathfinder is fundamentally a game about customization, and a clear goal of PF2 was to allow people to be creative with their characters without feeling like they have to do a certain thing in order to meet the numbers. And failing to make different tiers of armor viable sidegrades for different classes does mean that someone wanting to be creative is going to fail to meet the numbers. Someone that wants to make a Wizard wear heavy armor should be able to do so, at the earliest possible level without going back to that awful PF1 paradigm of the Stormwind fallacy where you're expected to suck a little bit in order to do something flavorful.
So, what's the solution?
First, what the solution is not: the Champion Archetype. It’s available at level 2. And that’s about it for the benefits. It requires a CHA of 14 and a Good alignment as well as a worshiped deity, along with an anethema. Which is a lot of baggage for someone that just wants to wear heavier armor. It also does not scale, instead using a feat tax all the way at level 14 to just bump it up to Expert – enough perhaps to get a Wizard where they wanted to be after spending the whole of level 13 potentially in their robes, but not so much for any class that should be expecting Master rank for their class armors eventually, like literally all the martial classes.
Additionally, it’s an Archetype feat, meaning you have to take a grand total of three feats (the dedication plus two archetype feats) before you can select another. Meaning you can’t effectively multiclass, unless you really wanted to play a Champion multiclass anyways. A Wizard that wants to MC into a Fighter and look the part is going to need to wait all the way until level 8 before they can both use martial weapons AND wear armor. That’s b+%+~!!+, it should not take that long to do something so basic. Oh, and they would have to have a 14 in STR, DEX, and CHA to meet all the requirements. Even by PF2 standards, that’s really excessive and very nearly ruins the point of wearing Full Plate at all. The dual stat requirements are nonsense anyways, but that’s another topic.
My proposed alternative: since the different categories of armor are sidegradess, a general feat that grants you all armor proficiencies and has them scale properly would be fine. A general feat is actually pretty strong, it's really the only kind of feat that truly gives you unconditional +1's and +2's to things. This is a feat that has to stack up against stuff like Incredible Investiture which lets you equip more magic items, it has to compete with getting +2 initiative at all times, it has to compete with a permanent +5 movement speed increase (which impacts exploration mode as well), it has to compete with making all your untrained skills be rolled at a bonus of 1/2 or your full level, it has to compete with ancestry feats.
There is some really stiff competition for general feats, and I don't believe an improved Armor Proficiency feat would really be a must-have unless you're specifically building for it.**
What this does do is make more unorthodox builds come online much earlier – at level 3. General feats are delayed quite a bit which is annoying, but there are ways to get a general feat at level 1. It removes yet another feat tax from the game, you’re no longer expected to spend 3 of the 5 general feats you’ll typically get per character nor will you need to wait until level 7 or 11 to get into the correct costume.
Yeah, it does basically the same thing as the Champion dedication but better. Here’s the thing though: the Champion dedication should scale automatically with your class, and the Champion dedication already sucks. It is OK for it to read “you get the Armor Proficiency general feat, or another general feat if you already have it” but it should probably be more than just a glorified armor stand. And honestly, most of the dedication feats are giving you the rough equivalent of something a bit better than a general feat and some skill training.
Right now the dedication requires you to take on a deity and an anathema, but you don’t actually get anything from that. You can flip your god the holy bird and there’s nothing they can take away from you since they granted you jack. Getting some mild form of holy powers like a watered-down Lay on Hands would be nice and provide some sort of incentive to not immediately and ceaselessly mock your own god beyond GM fiat.†
Weapon proficiencies should be scaling by default just like armor, no matter how you got the proficiency.†† There should be no situation where a class loses its ability to effectively use a weapon they’ve been using because the proficiencies granted by their class outscaled it. Same applies to feats like Canny Acumen, they should be boosting a “weak” save as though it were a “strong” save. It should boost your proficiency up to a maximum of whatever your highest save is, or if boosting Perception it should only let you match the progression of a class that started with Expert proficiency.
Now, all this is based on the early days of playing. We do not yet know the true value of armor proficiency, we don’t know its value in the overall meta of the game, et cetera. Maybe the benefits of heavier armor, even absent the benefits of armor specialization, actually turn out to be really powerful for some reason because dumping DEX becomes super important for optimized builds. Maybe Fortification runes are reason enough to consider getting at least Medium armor proficiency no matter your class. Maybe ignoring the STR penalties is actually not that big an issue and wizards having easy access to tin cans means they all wear it despite having 8 STR.
There might be valid arguments against easier access to armor proficiencies, but I have not seen any in the thread yet beyond statements of personal preference about what a class “should” look like or whether Fighters and Champions are really just their gear. I would rather the discussion focus on the actual value of the armor itself and whether it actually needs to be on such a high shelf for balance reasons, because then it makes it a lot easier to decide how to handle this for houserules or future errata.
* If you've got Expert in Light Armor and Trained in Medium, even if you have a DEX of 12 you'll still have the same AC wearing Studded Leather Armor as you would Breastplate, but without the higher STR requirement (or if you ignore the STR requirement, a nasty suite of penalties) and a whole 2 less Bulk. The Medium armor does have armor specialization effects, but the only classes that can use them are Fighters and Champions and their archetypes do not provide any options for other classes to gain them. The only remaining reason to even consider using Medium armor at that point would be for the sake of qualifying for the Fortification property rune. But then you're just attempting a hail mary check and dealing with the increased bulk and STR requirements and using up a property slot when you could have just boosted DEX and avoided getting hit or critted at all. Also, Light armor has exclusive access to Invisibility runes, which are useful regardless of your AC.
** Medium and heavy armor is no longer a thing you just automatically want because of the ease of increasing even tertiary stats (why heavy armor was almost always downgrade in the playtest), and the buffs to medium and heavy armor are only applicable if you invest in STR, which defeats the point of any DEX savings. For most non-martial classes, DEX is still going to be the superior defensive option, because the armor is lighter (cancelling out STR's increased bulk), it applies to more broadly applicable skills (including Stealth, which is probably going to be the second most common form of initiative behind Perception), and it boosts your Reflex saves. If you're not interested in playing against type, having immedate and early access to medium and heavy armor doesn't really mean you'll have a reason to use them. Maybe you'll take the feat to get light armor if you've only got unarmored defense, but that's already possible right now (at least for levels 1-12).
† The level 14 Diverse Armor Expert archetype feat is really hard to salvage, as it really shouldn’t be in the game at all. It doesn’t scale, it’s a feat tax, it’s just yuck. I would rename it Diverse Armor Master, put it at level 18, and have it require Expert proficiency in all armors, and have it grant you Master proficiency if you didn’t already have it. That roughly aligns with when all martial classes get Mastery in their defenses (19), doesn’t interfere with their own automatic scaling, and this would allow classes like the Wizard to bump their defenses up a whole tier to match without competing with capstone feats.
†† Weapons are a bit more complicated to talk about because they’re not quite as interchangeable. Unlike armor, their traits tend to be diverse and provide positive benefits rather than consistent and easily understood penalties, and there are entire fighting styles that are only really viable with a single particular weapon. It’s a bit harder to talk about how the Fighter dedication feat should be reworked and what its relationship should be with the General feat Weapon Proficiency. It’s just a lot easier to get a proficiency in a particular kind of weapon and have that scale properly because of Ancestry feats, and there’s certain weapons like the Gnome Flickmace that are arguably OP given the ease with which you can treat it like a martial weapon despite not actually being a gnome with a STR penalty.
I actually WOULD like to see the Champion MC feat give up to Master armor proficiency, while allowing a general feat that bumps your out of class proficiencies to expert. But that's just my own taste, and I doubt it would actually satisfy anyone else on this thread.
I expect it would just move the goalposts; instead of complaining that their caster doesn't get expert armor, they'd complain that their rogue is now locked into light armor because that's the armor they get master proficiency for.
I'm a little curious why they went this route, actually, since Starfinder lets you get weapon expertise in out of class weapon proficiencies that you pick up along the way. I wonder if there has been issue with that.
Isn't Starfinder meta basically that if you're not using long-arms, you're doing things wrong, with exception for Operator?
Maybe they want to make sure the classes vary a little more in weapons and armor? Just a guess.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this as simple as changing the language of the character class advancement similar to the below for Alchemist?
Current:
"Light Armor Expertise 13th
You’ve learned how to dodge while wearing light or no armor. Your proficiency ranks for light armor and unarmored defense increase to expert."
Possible:
"Alchemist Armor Expertise 13th
You’ve learned how to make better defensive use of your armor. Choose one: Your proficiency ranks for light armor and unarmored defense increase to expert or you may increase a single other trained armor feat to expert instead."
This gives players a meaningful choice and shows that there is a divergence from the standard. You want to be an alchemist in heavy armor, that is fine, and this reflects that you spent no time training in unarmored or light armor. You have come to rely on your heavy armor, and it shows. This should work with any class, trade the auto class option for whatever you are building into.
Weapon specialization already takes this into account beautifully I think. (Even though it queues off a so-so Alchemical Weapon Expertise in this chain)
Current
"Weapon Specialization 13th
You’ve learned how to inflict greater injuries with the weapons you know best. You deal 2 additional damage with weapons and unarmed attacks in which you are an expert. This damage increases to 3 if you’re a master, and to 4 if you’re legendary."
Maybe something like this in a future unchained or advanced book if not fit for vanilla?
A lot of these "standard class features" feel like they have a foot half in the past and half in the future.
There might be valid arguments against easier access to armor proficiencies, but I have not seen any in the thread yet beyond statements of personal preference about what a class “should” look like or whether Fighters and Champions are really just their gear.
I almost read all of this, but oh boy was it long.
basically, I think those against have been saying, this probably won't be an issue the longer PF2e is out, and currently you CAN do some things you just have to do VERY specific things to make it work and that's probably fine for now.
I mostly just have an issue with maybe how hard it is to get training in a armor prof(not expert or whatever most of this thread has been about), but otherwise everyone can just get champion.
If anyone is looking for proper wording on how to word homebrew higher prof feats, look to the Rogue's Ruffian Racket.
You’re trained in Intimidation and medium armor. You
can choose Strength as your key ability score. When you
gain light armor expertise, you also gain expert proficiency
in medium armor, and when you gain light armor mastery,
you also gain master proficiency in medium armor.
I don't think people are against homebrew, just that a lot of what's being thrown around didn't necessarily need to be in the CRB.
I think weapon proficiency is instructive. You can gain proficiency with all martial weapons with a feat (I'm ignoring wizards for simplicity). Or you could take adopted ancestry plus another feat (two feats total) and treat battle axe, pick, and warhammer as simple weapons and dwarven waraxe as martial. You can spend a dwarven ancestry feat at 13th level to auto-scale dwarven weapons. That is, three feats to auto-scale a handful of martial weapons and an advanced weapon.
It takes two feats to get training in all martial weapons and one advanced weapon. To make the ancestry weapon familiarity feats worth anything, you have to require at least four feats to auto-scale all martial weapons and one advanced weapon. The feat choices should also play well with ancestry weapon familiarity feats because "you can just retrain" is a lazy game design solution. I propose one good solution is to treat ancestry weapons as a "group" and to require when you use martial weapon proficiency to train beyond simple weapons, to choose one group of weapons instead of getting all martial weapons. Classes that get some martial weapons (like rogues) can also be treated as having one group of weapons trained. Only after having two groups of weapons trained can you take weapon proficiency to train all martial weapons. Same for the auto-scaling feat, which should be available at any level, but only matters by 7th or 13th level, depending upon the class (so you can retrain into it when needed). Also, ancestry weapon expertise should be available at 7th level for all ancestries.
Assuming there is a similar design goal with armor, you should have the ability to advance armor commensurate with the training granted by your class, just as you can with weapons via the ancestral weapon familiarity feats. Unlike martial weapons, medium armor is not strictly better than light armor, but heavy armor is (at least for AC) strictly better than light and medium armor (unarmored can be strictly better than any other armor, but every class has unarmored training, so it doesn't matter). The light to medium armor comparison is more similar to a ranged/finesse to melee weapon comparison, because ranged/finesse rely more on DEX and melee rely more on STR, just as you rely more on DEX for light armor and more on STR for medium armor. Heavy armor is like a "martial from simple weapon" upgrade.
If we treat light/medium armor similarly to martial weapons, anyone who takes light armor training should be able to treat it as unarmored and anyone who takes medium armor training should be able to treat it as light armor if you take an "auto-scaling" feat, just as you would expect with ancestry weapon familiarity.
However, there should be another feat stuck in between medium armor and heavy armor because heavy armor is better. I'm toying with the idea of the first time you take heavy armor your dex cap is reduced by 1 (making heavy armor no better than medium) and the second time you get heavy armor you get a dex cap as shown in the CRB.
Alternatively, you could break the armor feats up into 6 feats: Light Armor, Medium Armor, Heavy Armor, Light Armor Auto-Scaling, Medium Armor Auto-Scaling, Heavy Armor Auto-Scaling. It has the advantage of simplicity, but medium armor probably costs 2 more feats than it deserves and heavy armor probably costs 1 more feat than it deserves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if you didn't call people dishonest and their views reductionist just because they disagree with you. It is not really polite because calling someone dishonest is pretty much calling them a liar. Something which you have no way of knowingVery simple:
* dishonest : we do not ask to be equal to Fighters and Champions. We're asking to have the General feat scale together with the feats a class provides for free. Which will never even match the level Fighters and Champions reach, and we are not asking that it does. Furthermore, this leads me into:
* reductionist : by saying that giving class-matching proficiency in weapons and armour the character uses General feat is encroaching on Fighter and Champion design spaces, you are treating them as if those proficiencies are class defining - reducing them to mere proficiency bonuses they provide.
And since the discussion is about the level 13+ power curve can I ask about how your level 13 Pathfinder 2 game is going? What experiences do the characters wearing armour without the expert proficiency have? Are they getting crit all the time and dying? How many have died so far due to this?Why would it be important at all?
What level would you be happy becoming expert in an armour not "designed" for your class? I guess 13? And would you take another feat to allow it - although that would mean level 15Yes. If I get armour proficiency, I would simply expect that armour scales the same as the armour proficiency provided by my class. Otherwise we're back into tax feat territory.
If it's for roleplay. At least armors don't have failure chance anymore, and you can negate checks with str, which shouldn't be hard since you don't need dex as much.There is a difference between powergaming and building characters optimally for the character idea you want.
So you missed what I said about accusing people of lying when they are forming their own opinion. Someone’s opinion cannot be a lie if it is what they believe. Just because you disagree it doesn’t make them dishonest
*
And as for my “logical fallacy” - I raised that point because your “logical argument” was no compelling at all. It seems very maths based and there are posts on this thread that suggest that the maths is actually wrong anyway (unless I misinterpreted). It also wants too much for too little a cost (at least based on the current benchmarks)
So I requested anecdotal evidence because believe it or not it is a not a logical fallacy when actually playing a game. Otherwise the playtest would not have existed because logical arguments and theories would be all that was needed
But your ignoring of my point on actually playing to see if this is really an issue reveals a lot. Namely that you are complaining about something potentially being and issue in theory whilst having no idea how much of an impact it truly has.
*
And you want a general feat to scale when the only other one that does only scales at level 17 - so there is very limited precedence for scaling general feats that boost proficiency
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting armor proficiency outside of what your own class grants you kinda sucks and here’s why.
I didn't have a dog in this fight but man that was one heck of a well written post.
You convinced me anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's for roleplay. At least armors don't have failure chance anymore, and you can negate checks with str, which shouldn't be hard since you don't need dex as much.There is a difference between powergaming and building characters optimally for the character idea you want.
If the +2 proficiency bonus makes the heavy armor useless at 13 for your character, that's less optimizing/roleplay and more powergaming.
I feel like optimizing is more of, doing the best with what you got.
This is more akin to "Change the rules to fit my agenda."
/s While at it, can we make spiked gauntlets 1d8 because it's punishing to me that they aren't as optimal as other simple weapons I can use.
Actually it's going to be 1 better than heavy armour until level 15 because your character is unlikely to start with 18 dex if you are planning on using heavy armour.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it's going to be 1 better than heavy armour until level 15 because your character is unlikely to start with 18 dex if you are planning on using heavy armour.
All this for +1AC?
I feel like enabling "heavy armored [class]" is better done by class archetypes or subclasses than just a general feat options.
Since "what do we give the Wizard" should be a function of "what are all of the standard concepts people have for a wizard which we can fit all on one class" and "heavily armored wizards with halberds" is not one of those standard concepts. It's not an invalid concept, which is why it should be an archetype or a subclass or something, but it's not something we need to build into the default wizard.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A classless system wasn't what they were going for, and would strive too far from the identity of what they want.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Higher Proficiencies are not precisely a 'bonus' or beyond what's expected. Higher than Expert are, but the game's math assumes Expert attacks at 11th and Expert in armor at 13th, as is shown by all classes getting those bonuses at that level or earlier.
So not getting Expert in heavier armor is a real mechanical problem and potentially damaging to many concepts.
Now, that said, I'm not actually sure what solutions there should be beyond the structure already created (ie: an Archetype that grants a 14th level Class Feat).
But that Archetype certainly doesn't need to be quite as fundamentally thematically restricted as Champion is.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that Archetype certainly doesn't need to be quite as fundamentally thematically restricted as Champion is.
And it won't be once more than one book exists.
There has to be a baseline starting point to grow from, and I don't think "Heavy Plate Wizard" should be expected to be part of that baseline, because nothing about Pathfinder has ever implied it would be.