| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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
Sure it can, if it ignores clear and explicit text. As I said, previously, "dishonest" part references the fact that you are consistently trying to claim we want to gain proficiency levels of Champions/Fighters via General feats.
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)
What current benchmarks? What maths? Math that you are spending from 1 to 3 feats to gain proficiency in heavier armour, the effort of which is negated due to gaining level 13 and Expert proficiency in weaker armours?
Please see the post of Helmic on how and why it is faulty to talk about Dex/Str optimisations and similar concepts.However, my argument relies not at all at math. It relies at the silliness (I have stronger words) of having my character advance proficiency in weapons they do not even own, while the weapon they are actually using stays at lower proficiency. Not to mention silliness of offering feats which are made redundant as a matter of course.
We talk about heavy armour. But consider just light armour. There is NEVER a case for getting just light armour proficiency for Wizards, because they will be rendered completely obsolete by advent of 13th level. And retraining is not the answer. Retraining should be reserved for RP-driven changes, not fixing the problems in the ruleset.
As for people who cannot tell the difference between optimising a character concept and powerplay, there is nothing I can say to you.
Also, as a sidenote, none of this is of particular interest to me directly, as I have no plans to play armoured wizard anytime soon even if the proficiency scaled. Even weapons I'm not hung up from a particular need - right now, magic in general and Wizards specifically seem so uninteresting that for the first time ever I'm building Barbarian characters. Non-scaling proficiency is just a silly gimping game mechanic and it bothers me that it is present in an otherwise excellent game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Well, yes. I'm not saying a new Archetype for this will never happen, I'm noting the need for it to happen.
I feel like enabling "heavy armored [class]" is better done by class archetypes or subclasses than just a general feat options.
I find myself in agreement with your literal words but not your meaning, in that I agree, archetypes should be better enablers of concepts than general feats, but I also think that still leaves room for general feats to pull off similar functions. Specifically, I wouldn’t mind if an archetype could accomplish with one or two feats what takes three to four general feats, and that the archetype goes a little further. Indeed, that’s almost what we have now; I mostly just quibble on where they should have stopped the available progression.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what's confusing people is that we're still stuck thinking in PF1, 3.5, 5e, an other similar RPG terms. In most RPG's, light armor is the least defensive but most agile, heavy armor is slow but tanky, and medium armor would be a compromise between the two.
In PF2, this is not how things work.
In PF2, there is a maximum of +5 AC you can get from your armor/DEX combo, before potency runes, proficiency bonuses, and all that other junk. Heavy armor is unique in that it can grant you +6 AC, but this is at a cost - -5 movement speed and significantly bulkier armor. To get the maximum +5 or +6 AC, you must make some sort of sacrifice - you'll need to invest in DEX to get +5 from Adventurer's Clothing, you'll need to invest in STR and DEX to get +5 from Breastplate (medium armor), and you'll need to really invest in STR to get +6 from Full Plate. Or, if you forgo STR requirements, you need to make fairly massive sacrifices to your speed, skill checks, and carrying capacity. There's not really a way to get maximum AC without some sort of investment, and no matter what you're more or less getting the same AC in the end.
It's not the type of armor that determines how tanky you are. It's your proficiency track for defenses.
I think the easiest way to illustrate this concept is comparing a level 20 Monk to a level 20 Wizard that's taken a Champion multiclass and wears heavy armor. If you just look at their armor proficiencies, you might first assume the Wizard is tankier, because they wear heavy armor. But the Monk has Legendary proficiency in unarmored defense, and has the 20 DEX to back that up. With +3 Adventurer's Clothing, they have 36 AC. The Wizard only has Expert proficiency in heavy armor and 18-20 STR so that they don't eat s!#~ from armor penalties, and has an AC of 33 - they're a whole 3 points behind the Monk after sacrificing an additional 5 movement for the sake of heavy armor. Or they could have 32 AC if they instead relied on their own unarmored defense, or light or medium armor to also move 5 feet faster and not deal with all that bulk.
The Monk is tanky as s@+!, despite not having any class features that make that obvious. And investing in heavier armor didn't make the Wizard any tankier (at least not without making further sacrifices). To further hammer this home, the Monk has a higher AC than a level 20 Fighter. The Fighter is arguably tankier because they can benefit from armor specializations to get a small amount of DR that's almost negligible at that level and because they have a larger hit dice, but their choice of armor does not give them a higher AC than a Monk running around unarmored, even though it's just a difference of one proficiency tier.
This is why I don't see gaining automatically scaling armor proficiency as unbalancing, it does not increase the AC your class could have (without further sacrificing speed and bulk for a single point of AC for heavy armor). Getting access to a new type of armor simply isn't as strong as it is in PF1 or D&D.
For the purposes of AC, your armor doesn't matter, your proficiency does.
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.
So to pick on Cabbage for a second (apologies!), I wouldn't see "heavily armored version of class" as a particularly inspiring archetype. I definitely think archetypes should vary what armor proficiencies they have by default because that's good flavor, but in terms of balance it's not terribly important and shouldn't be be considered a major part of that archetype's power budget
Rather, an actually tanky variant of the Wizard might scale to Legendary defenses - and only have unarmored defense. For flavor reasons, that Wizard should probably have heavy armor proficiency out of the gate, but really we're talking about a difference of 1 AC in exchange for sacrificing some speed and bulk.
I find this rather liberating, it enables all sorts of new concepts to now be valid. An multiclass archetype might be about upgrading your base class's proficiency tier to make them actually tankier. We can have squishy people in full plate and tanky people in speedos and still have that justified by a character's stats and a class's reputation.
It's just such a fundamental shift in how we think about armor and AC that it's not exactly intuitive. Now, again, this all depends on just how ignorable the STR requirements are, but those penalties do suck quite a bit, and if they aren't enough of a deterrent I'd rather just have them suck a bit more just to enable this different take. It just fits so well with PF2's overall concept, like how you can make any race hit equally as hard as a Fighter if you want twist the stats in a way that still makes sense, or how your choice of background is flexible while still needing to be somewhat related to your character's mechanics.
As for whether people think that's too much creative freedom, oh well. If your argument isn't that it's unbalanced, then I don't really care whether someone thinks wizards have to be tied down with a straightjacket to robes or Fighters to tin cans. I think if someone puts in that effort to justify why their character wears that kind of protection, they're all extremely cool and should come online as soon as possible with minimal sacrifices in the build, they should be equally effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I don't see gaining automatically scaling armor proficiency as unbalancing, it does not increase the AC your class could have (without further sacrificing speed and bulk for a single point of AC for heavy armor). Getting access to a new type of armor simply isn't as strong as it is in PF1 or D&D.
it isn't unbalancing, it just shouldn't be free. it's not about gaining an advantage.
how do I put this?
conceptually, a Wizard isn't someone who wears armor, but everything that is conceptually a wizard is given for free. everything you do beyond that concept you have to pay for, whether it be specializing in specific wizard stuff or getting other strange stuff. you're paying to break the concept.
if everything were free, it REALLY wouldn't matter.
I can't speak for everyone, but the reason a wizard in heavy armor is interesting in PF2e in general is because of how expensive it is(and still works, it no longer breaks casting, etc). it's what gives the idea value is it's rarity. The whole reason it's talked about at this juncture is because of how hard it is to pull off. If it was free, then there'd truly be no reason to be a armored wizard, at least other than for the sake of wearing armor.
and besides, I do enjoy some play being suboptimal and some play being broken.
just my opinion.
So one of the reasons you'd want your sorcerer in plate mail is "you're not interested in investing in dex". So if your concept/build involves "not investing in dex" isn't your AC trained in full plate way better than expert in unarmored?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Wizard who wants heavy armor and doesn't want to use the Champion multiclass is spending three general feats to get the proficiency. If you think that's free you have a very strange idea of what the word free means.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I don't see gaining automatically scaling armor proficiency as unbalancing, it does not increase the AC your class could have (without further sacrificing speed and bulk for a single point of AC for heavy armor). Getting access to a new type of armor simply isn't as strong as it is in PF1 or D&D.it isn't unbalancing, it just shouldn't be free. it's not about gaining an advantage.
how do I put this?
conceptually, a Wizard isn't someone who wears armor, but everything that is conceptually a wizard is given for free. everything you do beyond that concept you have to pay for, whether it be specializing in specific wizard stuff or getting other strange stuff. you're paying to break the concept.
if everything were free, it REALLY wouldn't matter.
I can't speak for everyone, but the reason a wizard in heavy armor is interesting in PF2e in general is because of how expensive it is(and still works, it no longer breaks casting, etc). it's what gives the idea value is it's rarity. The whole reason it's talked about at this juncture is because of how hard it is to pull off. If it was free, then there'd truly be no reason to be a armored wizard, at least other than for the sake of wearing armor.
and besides, I do enjoy some play being suboptimal and some play being broken.
just my opinion.
I don't think it should be quite free either, because I think having the classes start by default in their niche is helpful to establish baseline expectations, the norms to be subverted. But I don't think subverting that norm should be nearly as expensive as it is, I don't think a Wizard should be sacrificing multiple class feats just to keep up with something that isn't actually worth a whole class feat mechanically, nor should they have to wait all the way until level 11 to do it without spending class feats for only 2 whole levels.
The difficulty in pulling the concept off isn't really what makes it attractive to me, it's actually fairly common in fiction (battlemages from the Elder Scrolls series come to mind, evil wizards in particular tend to be tin cans, "military wizard" types that still are unarmed in lieu of fireballs but look like knights). One of PF2's design goal is that it should be relatively easy to pull of your character concept at lower levels with less system mastery than in PF1 or D&D. Heavily armored wizards being non-default I think is fair, but making that cost a general feat, given have I'm seeing in the math of the system, is a fair enough trade-off to where people who don't want to play against type aren't going to feel pressured to take it but those who do aren't feeling like they're sandbagging.
So one of the reasons you'd want your sorcerer in plate mail is "you're not interested in investing in dex". So if your concept/build involves "not investing in dex" isn't your AC trained in full plate way better than expert in unarmored?
Not really, unless again you've decided to just take that STR penalty straight to the face. If you forgo the DEX investment, it's just going to have to become a STR investment instead, which is arguably a less useful stat for a sorceror or wizard. The bulk of the armor completely negates any STR bonus to carrying capacity, especially if you add a Fortification rune on it and further increase the STR requirement and bulk, the Reflex bonus from Bulwark caps out at +3 when you could've gotten it higher with just lighter armor, you're moving slower (which can be an issue when you're trying to keep yourself in a safe position away from enemies).
It only really gains value if they want to do weapon damage, which is pretty tricky for them as it is and I don't see why armor should make that concept any more difficult to pull off. They'll still need to MC into a martial class in order to actually fight worth a damn in melee since they'll have no class features or feats that really make them do more than a basic Strike. It just means they wouldn't need to MC into two different Archetypes and wait until level 8 to pull it off.
I don't think it should be quite free either, because I think having the classes start by default in their niche is helpful to establish baseline expectations, the norms to be subverted. But I don't think subverting that norm should be nearly as expensive as it is, I don't think a Wizard should be sacrificing multiple class feats just to keep up with something that isn't actually worth a whole class feat mechanically, nor should they have to wait all the way until level 11 to do it without spending class feats for only 2 whole levels.
The difficulty in pulling the concept off isn't really what makes it attractive to me, it's actually fairly common in fiction (battlemages from the Elder Scrolls series come to mind, evil wizards in particular tend to be tin cans, "military wizard" types that still are unarmed in lieu of fireballs but look like knights). One of PF2's design goal is that it should be relatively easy to pull of your character concept at lower levels with less system mastery than in PF1 or D&D. Heavily armored wizards being non-default I think is fair, but making that cost a general feat, given have I'm seeing in the math of the system, is a fair enough trade-off to where people who don't want to play against type aren't going to feel pressured to take it but those who do aren't feeling like they're sandbagging.really what makes it attractive to me, it's actually fairly common...
I don't really think it should be a single feat either, at least in a vacuum. I think other archetypes should offer more armor or weapon proficiencies, I've said this earlier. Like I suggested ranger and barbarian should probably give medium armor, then you only need 1 general feat for heavy if so inclined. Just trained for all of this, I think general training should be easier, but I dislike a simple single feat simply giving training for everything, my prefered method would be more archetypes handing out proficiencies. However, i think higher proficiencies should in general be harder(even just getting expert).
but still it isn't really a question of balance, it's more of a question of buying into those additional concepts.
basically my issue is, it shouldn't be a single feat, even to just get access to training for all levels of armor. it's just boring that way. getting beyond trained shouldn't be a thing done outside of class feats or archetypes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the best way to handle this would be through sub-class style archetypes (think Eldritch Knight) as opposed to multi-class ones. Not everyone wants to be a champion.
I think the addition of more general armor feats would erode class identities and make things feel more generic. I'd also worry that those feats (particularly heavy) would become perceived as optimal and drift into feat tax territory.
The APG playtest is coming up soon, and I'm way more interested in the 60 new archetypes than the 4 classes. I do agree that build options are fairly narrow now and I'm hoping those new archetypes will really open things up from a design perspective.
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 dishonestSure it can, if it ignores clear and explicit text. As I said, previously, "dishonest" part references the fact that you are consistently trying to claim we want to gain proficiency levels of Champions/Fighters via General feats.
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)What current benchmarks? What maths? Math that you are spending from 1 to 3 feats to gain proficiency in heavier armour, the effort of which is negated due to gaining level 13 and Expert proficiency in weaker armours?
Please see the post of Helmic on how and why it is faulty to talk about Dex/Str optimisations and similar concepts.However, my argument relies not at all at math. It relies at the silliness (I have stronger words) of having my character advance proficiency in weapons they do not even own, while the weapon they are actually using stays at lower proficiency. Not to mention silliness of offering feats which are made redundant as a matter of course.
We talk about heavy armour. But consider just light armour. There is NEVER a case for getting just light armour proficiency for Wizards, because they will be rendered completely obsolete by advent of 13th level. And retraining is not the answer. Retraining should be reserved for RP-driven changes, not fixing the problems in the ruleset.As for people who cannot tell the difference between optimising a character concept and powerplay, there is nothing I can say to you.
Also, as a sidenote, none of this is of...
It is intensely hypocritical for you to complain about people being dishonest whilst claiming I am consistently saying you want fighter/champion proficiencies. I am not saying that and certainly not “consistently”.
I am challenging the idea that general feats should scale and to an extent the claim that this is all about flavour/RP/concept rather than it being a convenient smokescreen as mentioned elsewhere on this thread. I am not saying that you want feats to take a wizard proficiency to master or legendary in other armour
And I think you will find I have theorised solutions such as an extra general feat with a higher level entry point but this could have been on one of the other threads. But only one “solution” is wanted here is seems - the scaling general feat that matches existing proficiency.
*
By “benchmarks” I meant that it current costs a dedication fest from champion at 14 for expert armour and 12 (?) for expert weapons. Albeit all of them which is potentially where the higher value comes from - but game design is deliberately about not forcing you down one weapon or armour route which is why things like weapon focus are gone
Perhaps benchmarks as the wrong term but these feats have been discussed over and over as partial justification for why a 1at level general feat shouldn’t scale to eventually equal them - especially at an earlier level of entry
As to the “maths” i am referring to how all these points seems based on losing out on a +2 bonus. Someone posted how the heavy armour wizard is still better than the expert unarmoured unless I misread that. But perhaps you yourself never referenced the +2. But if you are not concerned about losing out on that then you really shouldn’t have many complaints as there are no active restrictions on using anything. They just aren’t as good
*
Completely obsolete at level 13 seems like hyperbole when it actually means “not as good”. You still get +2 for wearing heavy armour at level 13. That doesn’t go away.
*
I do agree that it is strange that you can advance in weapons you don’t own.
But others have pointed out that this is true of everyone as fighters can go through their career without ever using a flail or longbow but they still advance in them.
For a reason I can’t quite fathom this point made by others elsewhere was dismissed as a “straw man” . Not sure who dismissed it this way but that kind of dismissal seems quite off base.
Personally, I think the best way to handle this would be through sub-class style archetypes (think Eldritch Knight) as opposed to multi-class ones. Not everyone wants to be a champion.
I think the addition of more general armor feats would erode class identities and make things feel more generic. I'd also worry that those feats (particularly heavy) would become perceived as optimal and drift into feat tax territory.
The APG playtest is coming up soon, and I'm way more interested in the 60 new archetypes than the 4 classes. I do agree that build options are fairly narrow now and I'm hoping those new archetypes will really open things up from a design perspective.
I think that the playtest is only for the classes
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.
At least, unlike before, it is much easier to be a heavy plate wizard, even if you eat some of the penalties, you don't need to eat the arcane spell failure anymore.
Any idea what's the cost difference to get a Expert Proficiency adventurer's cloth/bracers of armor on par with trainer half-plate at level 13, since that's what wizard/sorcerers will be Expert in?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A new feat with "You become expert in light armor. If you already were expert in light armor, you gain expertise in medium armor. If you were expert in both, you become expert in heavy armor. Requires trained in X, etc. etc." as its text is super easy to write, and feels like a natural extension of the existing rules, but will not still give what few of you want.
This is not really a rules or math issue. This is not about how powerful wizards would be in their heavy armor, this is about the emotional reaction that wizard class is meant to use robes and only robes and that is it. And that is actually a valid response all and all.
A new feat with "You become expert in light armor. If you already were expert in light armor, you gain expertise in medium armor. If you were expert in both, you become expert in heavy armor. Requires trained in X, etc. etc." as its text is super easy to write, and feels like a natural extension of the existing rules, but will not still give what few of you want.
This is not really a rules or math issue. This is not about how powerful wizards would be in their heavy armor, this is about the emotional reaction that wizard class is meant to use robes and only robes and that is it. And that is actually a valid response all and all.
Any chance we could also get a feat that scales up weapon die, it's a little punishing that Spiked Gauntlets deal less damage than other weapons. Maybe scaling casting via general feats so I can cast spells at their relevant levels without being punshed for not multiclassing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it was a mistake to have either the armor or the weapon proficiencies be general feats. Combat related changes to character development occupy class feats and I think that is where these two proficiencies belong, either in Multiclass archetypes, or class subtype archetypes. I think their inclusion in the CRB was very much a “let’s provide an immediate feat to make all options possible, but make it distinctly worse than what will eventually replace it with specific builds.” This seems fine to me.
At work so can't crunch optimized numbers right now, but what's the AC math on a basic wizard in: Unarmored Expert(with dex optimized) and say, Heavy Armor Trained with (optimized str)?
How much of a loss are we actually talking about again?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the unarmored Wizard maxes Dex, they have a full +1 AC on the Heavy Armor guy (who invested 3 Feats in losing one AC). The difference between Expert Unarmored and Trained Light or Medium Armor is one greater (for -2 as opposed to unarmored). Of course, that's assuming Dex 20, which is a bit of a specific build on a Wizard. Of course, so's the Str 18 for Full Plate.
So, in effect, if you wear armor as a Wizard sans Champion Dedication at level 13+ you have invested a significant percentage of your General Feats into being actively worse at AC.
It may be mechanically worth it on an individual character with low Dex (and probably high Str), but it sure doesn't feel good. Which means there should probably be an alternative to this in some fashion.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need weapon or armor shape to be class-defining if you have interesting and effective class ability. I see too much of the class focus being put into proficiency, witch are just number-pumping, and too less on actually interesting class option.
5e manages to get "full-plate wizard with weapon" while keeping the fighter an interesting and univocally different experience. If pf2 can't get over the paradigm of "classes identity is the weapon you are wielding and armor you are wearing" or, from the other side "weapon and armor are dictated by class choice", then I don't see how it can be considered a superiorly customizable game experience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At work so can't crunch optimized numbers right now, but what's the AC math on a basic wizard in: Unarmored Expert(with dex optimized) and say, Heavy Armor Trained with (optimized str)?
How much of a loss are we actually talking about again?
That is incomplete comparison, because it ignores everything else, for example, the 3 feats a Wizard needs to invest into getting to be proficient with Heavy armour.
There is also a whole other shift in meaning between different other aspects; for example the Str optimised Wizard will actually be decent at doing maneuvers via Athlethics check and is slightly better in melee, but losses on ranged, Acrobatics, and Stealth.
If the unarmored Wizard maxes Dex, they have a full +1 AC on the Heavy Armor guy (who invested 3 Feats in losing one AC). The difference between Expert Unarmored and Trained Light or Medium Armor is one greater (for -2 as opposed to unarmored). Of course, that's assuming Dex 20, which is a bit of a specific build on a Wizard. Of course, so's the Str 18 for Full Plate.
So, in effect, if you wear armor as a Wizard sans Champion Dedication at level 13+ you have invested a significant percentage of your General Feats into being actively worse at AC.
It may be mechanically worth it on an individual character with low Dex (and probably high Str), but it sure doesn't feel good. Which means there should probably be an alternative to this in some fashion.
The full plate wizard hits a bit harder in melee, while the dex one hits more often with ranged if I got it right? So a melee oriented wizard might lean towards the heavy armor, while a ranged oriented one might lean towards the unarmored.
Of course, wizard/sorcerer are the extreme end since they start with no armor. A bard would need two general feats, while a ranger would need one general feat. A rogue would need one or two depending on Racket.
I suppose the heavy armor also comes with advantage of more materials than light and medium, I hear Ori-Plate is pretty nice to have. I suppose it also depends a bit on race. A human could start with medium proficiency at level 1 wizard. At level 9 he could pick up fighter dedication via ancestry, and then at 12th spend a class feat for expert martial/simple and trained advanced. A bit niche, but at the same time, not horrible to get a decent melee wizard/sorcerer unlike PF1?
One thing we didn't have before if I recall is ability to negate check and movement penalties with just str. Even a rogue can use heavy armor if he invests into it?
Edit:
That is incomplete comparison, because it ignores everything else, for example, the 3 feats a Wizard needs to invest into getting to be proficient with Heavy armour.
There is also a whole other shift in meaning between different other aspects; for example the Str optimised Wizard will actually be decent at doing maneuvers via Athlethics check and is slightly better in melee, but losses on ranged, Acrobatics, and Stealth.
Luckily Deadmanwalking included those costs, and I didn't mention it because that's a given for any class. You want proficiency, you use 1-3 general feats. Didn't think it needed to be specifically brought up with my curiousity regarding the net benefit AC. I was after all asking for the net gained AC, not the cost of going heavy plate.
Also brought up the melee/ranged parts up in this reply, minus maneuvers.
You don't need weapon or armor shape to be class-defining if you have interesting and effective class ability. I see too much of the class focus being put into proficiency, witch are just number-pumping, and too less on actually interesting class option.
5e manages to get "full-plate wizard with weapon" while keeping the fighter an interesting and univocally different experience. If pf2 can't get over the paradigm of "classes identity is the weapon you are wielding and armor you are wearing" or, from the other side "weapon and armor are dictated by class choice", then I don't see how it can be considered a superiorly customizable game experience.
Everyone gets features from class feats, those differ quite a lot. I don't think it's fair to dismiss these things as just "numbers".
In this case, the fighter has enough unique feats to build in different ways, a phalanx spartan, archer, dualist, etc. But it shouldn't be dismissed that his class features depend on his proficiency with the weapons he wields. It's more important to a fighter what he wields than a wizard, who can cast spells with a staff as well as a sap.
If the unarmored Wizard maxes Dex, they have a full +1 AC on the Heavy Armor guy (who invested 3 Feats in losing one AC). The difference between Expert Unarmored and Trained Light or Medium Armor is one greater (for -2 as opposed to unarmored). Of course, that's assuming Dex 20, which is a bit of a specific build on a Wizard. Of course, so's the Str 18 for Full Plate.
Pretty sure DEX for a wizard is only ever going to be 19 at level 13, pumping to 20 at 15 if you're sinking a boost into it every time. So, the full plate wizard without dex doesn't even fall behind until then. Light and medium armor do though.
If you want to house rule in a second general feat to go from trained to expert on armor, 15's a nice convenient spot to do so.
Personally, I'd rather have an archetype that gives expert proficiency in all armor without the champion's baggage. Hopefully it's a somewhat setting neutral archetype, being forced to be a gray maiden or a hellknight would have just as much of a problem.
Shields seem much more replaceable than armor if you're using that heavy armor reaction.
Other than that, it sounds exactly what I'd want to solve this issue.
If the unarmored Wizard maxes Dex, they have a full +1 AC on the Heavy Armor guy (who invested 3 Feats in losing one AC). The difference between Expert Unarmored and Trained Light or Medium Armor is one greater (for -2 as opposed to unarmored). Of course, that's assuming Dex 20, which is a bit of a specific build on a Wizard. Of course, so's the Str 18 for Full Plate.
So, in effect, if you wear armor as a Wizard sans Champion Dedication at level 13+ you have invested a significant percentage of your General Feats into being actively worse at AC.
It may be mechanically worth it on an individual character with low Dex (and probably high Str), but it sure doesn't feel good. Which means there should probably be an alternative to this in some fashion.
you can also spend a class feat and be good and worship a diety to gain all proficiency with the option to upgrade to expert. Champion of Nethys probably isn't that far fetched either.
|
|
I get the problem, kind of, but if you’re a wizard, you can’t get heavy armour proficiency without multiclassing before 11th level anyway. What were you doing for the previous ten levels for AC given you won’t be prioritising Dex if heavy armour’s your goal.
Humans can get it at 7th level, obviously, but still.
Also, Wizard is the most extreme example. Should Barbarians get Master in full plate for 1 general feat? Rogues get Expert plate for 2? I could see a “universal” class feat to get it to scale as that’s what class feats are for. Something similar for weapons. The general feat would get you to Trained, but you”d need to spend a more potent resource to get autoscaling.
Edit: Also, the other classes pose a different problem. Should a Rogue get Mastery in Heavy armour at 19th? Why not, as they’ll have the same “unfairness”? How about a monk getting Legendary in armour, matching thr Champion’s schtick?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the fallout on lvl 13+ it sure makes the feat a trap choice. Yes you are being punished for not knowing that you will get better AC if you DON'T choose this feat. Its ivory tower all over again rofl.
To fix this just add feat progression on the errata, will avoid rewritting two classes.
you can also spend a class feat and be good and worship a diety to gain all proficiency with the option to upgrade to expert. Champion of Nethys probably isn't that far fetched either.If the unarmored Wizard maxes Dex, they have a full +1 AC on the Heavy Armor guy (who invested 3 Feats in losing one AC). The difference between Expert Unarmored and Trained Light or Medium Armor is one greater (for -2 as opposed to unarmored). Of course, that's assuming Dex 20, which is a bit of a specific build on a Wizard. Of course, so's the Str 18 for Full Plate.
So, in effect, if you wear armor as a Wizard sans Champion Dedication at level 13+ you have invested a significant percentage of your General Feats into being actively worse at AC.
It may be mechanically worth it on an individual character with low Dex (and probably high Str), but it sure doesn't feel good. Which means there should probably be an alternative to this in some fashion.
Funny part is, you actually don't lose anything if you break the code. The code doesn't affect the proficiencies. Lots of ways to play the code breaking or being less faithful than other champions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "archetyping to get armor proficiency with the champion" is problematic since it ties "deeply religious" to "good in armor."
I think "3 general feats for heavy armor proficiency" is kind of an absurd investment.
However, medium armor has never really had a nice aside from "I can't use anything heavier" so I wonder if we wouldn't be better off enabling the wizard in chain more than the wizard in plate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not ivory tower, the feat does what it says. It lets you wear Heavy Armor. It doesn't make you comparable in scaling to other classes of the same level wearing their class armor.
"...does what it says"
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Run_(Feat)A classic trap, it does what it says.
I think "archetyping to get armor proficiency with the champion" is problematic since it ties "deeply religious" to "good in armor."
I think "3 general feats for heavy armor proficiency" is kind of an absurd investment.
However, medium armor has never really had a nice aside from "I can't use anything heavier" so I wonder if we wouldn't be better off enabling the wizard in chain more than the wizard in plate.
Well, it's more like "Up to 3." the 3 is the extreme spectrum of Sorc/wizard. Druid, ranger, barbarian and some rogues have medium, only needing one for heavy. Bard, alchemist and some rogues need 2 because they start with light armors. Champion and fighter have all armors. Monks don't wanna use armor and Clerics are vary between 1-3 feats needed.
I think, if you're going melee as a caster, heavy armor isn't that bad to pick. The str requirements will make your melee strikes not entirely useless, and your ranged spells don't need dex like before if I recall? Plus you get decent at maneuvers and can lift a keg.
There's about 18 general feats that aren't skill feats, and the extreme case, a wizard, gets 5 general feats and 10 skill feats. If you wanted to build for the occasional melee, it feels much better to go STR and get both +hit and +damage, vs dex builds that only get +hit.
The champion code can actually be ignored, there's plenty of rp reasons for a character to pick up some secret techniques on how to wear armor properly while ignoring the god he was preached.
But that's just an opinion. I can't find number crunching to a level where I can give % on hit and such.
I'm wondering if the low dex wizard who spends 2 class feats on Monk to get Mountain stance is viable. You can grab the 2nd feat at level 12 for +1 AC and "can raise a shield with your arms" if you wanted.
With expert unarmored at 13, and those two feats a 13th level monk with 12 dex should be rocking a 32 AC, 34 if you spend the action. An 18 dex monk at level 13 would manage 1 less, is ahead 3 feats, but behind 3 stat increases, and lacks the mountain stronghold option.
With the fallout on lvl 13+ it sure makes the feat a trap choice. Yes you are being punished for not knowing that you will get better AC if you DON'T choose this feat. Its ivory tower all over again rofl.
To fix this just add feat progression on the errata, will avoid rewritting two classes.
You will only have better AC if you pump dex, it will only be a trap choice if you don't invest ability points elsewhere.
Do remember that a non dex primary class isn't getting that 20 (+5) until they hit level 15. And that is a pretty deep investment. Way more impactful than a mere 12-16 and still decently more than an 18.
On top of this as I keep mentioning, different armour types have different magical armours available to them outside of the basic magical types.
And if you are a wizard mage armor takes precedence over the armour you are wearing anyway if you are THAT concerned.
|
|
With the fallout on lvl 13+ it sure makes the feat a trap choice. Yes you are being punished for not knowing that you will get better AC if you DON'T choose this feat. Its ivory tower all over again rofl.
To fix this just add feat progression on the errata, will avoid rewritting two classes.You will only have better AC if you pump dex, it will only be a trap choice if you don't invest ability points elsewhere.
Do remember that a non dex primary class isn't getting that 20 (+5) until they hit level 15. And that is a pretty deep investment. Way more impactful than a mere 12-16 and still decently more than an 18.
On top of this as I keep mentioning, different armour types have different magical armours available to them outside of the basic magical types.
And if you are a wizard mage armor takes precedence over the armour you are wearing anyway if you are THAT concerned.
You just need 18, its easily achievable by any class.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not ivory tower, the feat does what it says. It lets you wear Heavy Armor. It doesn't make you comparable in scaling to other classes of the same level wearing their class armor."...does what it says"
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Run_(Feat)A classic trap, it does what it says.
You not liking an option does not make it a trap nor ivory tower design.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not ivory tower, the feat does what it says. It lets you wear Heavy Armor. It doesn't make you comparable in scaling to other classes of the same level wearing their class armor.We are asking to scale like our class, not like other classes.
You just need 18, its easily achievable by any class.With the fallout on lvl 13+ it sure makes the feat a trap choice. Yes you are being punished for not knowing that you will get better AC if you DON'T choose this feat. Its ivory tower all over again rofl.
To fix this just add feat progression on the errata, will avoid rewritting two classes.You will only have better AC if you pump dex, it will only be a trap choice if you don't invest ability points elsewhere.
Do remember that a non dex primary class isn't getting that 20 (+5) until they hit level 15. And that is a pretty deep investment. Way more impactful than a mere 12-16 and still decently more than an 18.
On top of this as I keep mentioning, different armour types have different magical armours available to them outside of the basic magical types.
And if you are a wizard mage armor takes precedence over the armour you are wearing anyway if you are THAT concerned.
18 Dex and expert unarmored is equal to trained full plate. Unarmored only pulls ahead at 15 when a wizard can get 20 DEX.
|
|
18 Dex and expert unarmored is equal to trained full plate. Unarmored only pulls ahead at 15 when a wizard can get 20 DEX.You just need 18, its easily achievable by any class.With the fallout on lvl 13+ it sure makes the feat a trap choice. Yes you are being punished for not knowing that you will get better AC if you DON'T choose this feat. Its ivory tower all over again rofl.
To fix this just add feat progression on the errata, will avoid rewritting two classes.You will only have better AC if you pump dex, it will only be a trap choice if you don't invest ability points elsewhere.
Do remember that a non dex primary class isn't getting that 20 (+5) until they hit level 15. And that is a pretty deep investment. Way more impactful than a mere 12-16 and still decently more than an 18.
On top of this as I keep mentioning, different armour types have different magical armours available to them outside of the basic magical types.
And if you are a wizard mage armor takes precedence over the armour you are wearing anyway if you are THAT concerned.
Then what is the point of investing a feat and party treasure to achieve the same results of a level up?
|
|
Its mechanically inferior compared to an array of choices. Its a "Timmy" choice. Its not me liking it or not, there is math to backup the argument. Unless you don't like math ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No there's not.
For 2e you either take these feats or MC into Champion which is a whole nother beast because then your alignment and deity requirements and it's a whole mess.
For the Run feat it does what it says, Power Attack won't help you in a race.