| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like the real problem that armor has in PF2 is that it is just not actually important in determining a character’s defense in comparison to proficiency and magic bonuses, the end result of atom or itself just mostly feels like a medium of other bonuses.
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.
The biggest downside is that the 18Dex isn't as valuable to a caster as it was before, since rays are now based off their casting stat, and ranged weapons don't apply dex to damage. At level 13th, which is where people seem to focus, you should be casting level 6 cantrips(unless it's rounded up and 7th?) rather than a ranged weapon they get no class feats for. An STR caster won't be the worst possible with melee attacks if it comes to it, and when it comes to range, he can use his casting stat instead. A dex caster is decent at to hit, has no bonuses to damage, and the ranged weapon competes with spells for MAP.
I could be wrong, but at the moment, I believe a wizard Trained in full plate with a staff or club is more versatile in melee and ranged and spells than a dex wizard with Expert unarmored. I don't think the dex wizard could pick general feats instead of those 3 that really change his gameplay in such a way.
Edit: Just to be sure: Heightened (+1) means that it increases each level? So a cantrip with Heightened (+1) at level 12, gains the heightened effect 6 times due to automatic heightening equal to half the level?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Regarding Run I won't even waste this thread space with something that has universal consensus over it. In a dungeon crawling game you want to run and not be better fitted for combat?
In this case is either you don't take the feat and have better armor if you invest on DEX, with the 4 stat boost I can hardly see someone skip dex. If you are a class with Medium Armor feature there is 0 reason to pick it up or you are doing yourself more harm then help.If a person that has 0 grasp of mechanics decides for RP reason that he wants to look cool in heavy armor and don't want to become a champion, he is doing himself a disfavour.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A classic trap, it does what it says.
If by trap you mean generally sub-optimal I would agree. The main reason to take would be for flavor purposes.
Personally, I’m fine with that. You want a wizard in plate you got it. I don’t see the need for every option be optimal.
It feels like the real problem that armor has in PF2 is that it is just not actually important in determining a character’s defense in comparison to proficiency and magic bonuses, the end result of atom or itself just mostly feels like a medium of other bonuses.
I think what happens with Armor is that if you want to be able to use armor runes you are getting at most +5 from your Armor Bonus + DexMod, which upgrades to six with heavy armor.
I think mostly what this determines is "how do you spend your stat increases"- someone who wants to wear leather armor is going to want 18 Dex ASAP, and someone who wants to wear Chain is going to want 16 Str and 12 Dex. Indeed, wanting medium or heavy armor means you are going to want to divide 4 stat boosts between strength and dex. Since dex is generally better than strength, this matters. So heavy armor needs something to make it appealing.
Recall the playtest as to what problem this is intended to solve. Many playtest fighters and paladins were annoyed that they were being pushed to heavy armor, even though their characters were archers and prioritized dex>str.
|
|
A classic trap, it does what it says.If by trap you mean generally sub-optimal I would agree. The main reason to take would be for flavor purposes.
Personally, I’m fine with that. You want a wizard in plate you got it. I don’t see the need for every option be optimal.
https://4thmaster.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ivory-tower-game-design/
But it is a sub-optimal choice, this is ivory tower in a nutshell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A classic trap, it does what it says.If by trap you mean generally sub-optimal I would agree. The main reason to take would be for flavor purposes.
Personally, I’m fine with that. You want a wizard in plate you got it. I don’t see the need for every option be optimal.
All this banter about it has made me actually tempted to try the melee wizard. It doesn't seem that horrible with a little optimization, and potentially absurd with powergaming?
Optimized: Cost: 3 general feats: Build for STR, minimum 18, but potentially just 16 if you can get mithral full plate. At level 13, this should net us a +4 to hit and to damage with melee and to maneuvers, +3 vs aoe effects and about +8AC vs +9AC from expert unarmored with 20DEX. This is not counting runes, just the base. No penalties for wearing the armor. I personally prefer +4 to hit and to damage with the rare melee attack, than just +5 to hit with ranged weapons, which the wizard has few.
Powergamey: Pick Half-elf, start with a general feat, work towards heavy armor.
8th, pick Fighter Dedication(need that 14 dex though).
9th, pick Champion Dedication via half-elf ancestry(ignore charisma requirements).
12th, pick fighter's expert mc feat, you are now expert in all simple and martial weapons. Trained in advanced. A composite bow will have +2 to hit and +4 or +3 to damage from str.
14th, pick champion's armor expertise, you are now expert in all armors. Code of conduct doesn't affect these, you can either play a rebel eldritch knight type(sith?), or worship Nethys or Caiden for ease of life. Retrain general feats into more fitting ones. Diehard, Fast Recovery and Toughness for survival?
Total cost: 3 class feats, 1 ancestry feat.
Result: Expert in: All armors, all simple weapons, all martial weapons. Trained in all advanced. Full spellcasting that can supplement melee-ness?
I'm sure someone can make that concept even stronger, I haven't even looked into class feats, skill feats, ancestry feats.
We should call it the Ebony Tower then and add its non-intentional sub-optimal choices.
I don't agree that heavy armor is always sub-optimal, even if only trained. It's actually quite on par with expert unarmored, only really outshined by Master anything. Then again, dex builds on casters seem sub-optimal to me now that rays don't need dex to hit, and wizard's only ranged weapon are: crossbow or heavy crossbow.
A wizard spending actions on firing and reloading a crossbow seems more redunant to me than one whacking someone with a staff.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ivory Tower design is intentionally sub-optimal choices to reward system mastery.
That's not what is occuring here.
What's intentionally sub-optimal choices to discourage build diversity called then?
Surely we can come up with some kind of name for it.
Dibs on Ebony Tower!
We should call it the Ebony Tower then and add its non-intentional sub-optimal choices.I don't agree that heavy armor is always sub-optimal, even if only trained. It's actually quite on par with expert unarmored, only really outshined by Master anything. Then again, dex builds on casters seem sub-optimal to me now that rays don't need dex to hit, and wizard's only ranged weapon are: crossbow or heavy crossbow.
A wizard spending actions on firing and reloading a crossbow seems more redunant to me than one whacking someone with a staff.
There's also CHA for demoralize, if you aren't already a CHA based caster, it's a very attractive third action (first technically)
There's also CHA for demoralize, if you aren't already a CHA based caster, it's a very attractive third action (first technically)We should call it the Ebony Tower then and add its non-intentional sub-optimal choices.I don't agree that heavy armor is always sub-optimal, even if only trained. It's actually quite on par with expert unarmored, only really outshined by Master anything. Then again, dex builds on casters seem sub-optimal to me now that rays don't need dex to hit, and wizard's only ranged weapon are: crossbow or heavy crossbow.
A wizard spending actions on firing and reloading a crossbow seems more redunant to me than one whacking someone with a staff.
That's a good one, but it's a General; Skill feat, which most casters get like, 10 of? A sorcerer for example, or bard, could pick it up without spending their general feat. But it's a good feat to grab if you like that. I was looking into that Glare one and group intimidation for angry stares.
That's what I said, scaling with your class armor.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.
Your comment, which I quoted, is quite clear, that it is not what you said.
Let me quote the important part again, bold added for emphasis:
It doesn't make you comparable in scaling to other classes of the same level wearing their class armor.
If a person that has 0 grasp of mechanics decides for RP reason that he wants to look cool in heavy armor and don't want to become a champion, he is doing himself a disfavour.
I find it hard to conceive of a role in which wearing heavy armor to "look cool" makes sense. Well, maybe royal guard somewhere, but that's not what I think of when I think "adventurer".
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a person that has 0 grasp of mechanics decides for RP reason that he wants to look cool in heavy armor and don't want to become a champion, he is doing himself a disfavour.I find it hard to conceive of a role in which wearing heavy armor to "look cool" makes sense. Well, maybe royal guard somewhere, but that's not what I think of when I think "adventurer".
Arcane Knights, Armored Hulks, Inquisitors, Ruffians (Use the concept a strong STR rogue and fights dirty),Rangers who wants to feel like Aragorn progressing through the LoTR saga, Alchemists who wants to a mad mutagen armored tin can on steroids.
The sky is the limit for RP.
If a person that has 0 grasp of mechanics decides for RP reason that he wants to look cool in heavy armor and don't want to become a champion, he is doing himself a disfavour.I find it hard to conceive of a role in which wearing heavy armor to "look cool" makes sense. Well, maybe royal guard somewhere, but that's not what I think of when I think "adventurer".Arcane Knights, Armored Hulks, Inquisitors, Ruffians (Use the concept a strong STR rogue and fights dirty),Rangers who wants to feel like Aragorn progressing through the LoTR saga, Alchemists who wants to a mad mutagen armored tin can on steroids.
The sky is the limit for RP.
When it comes to RP you can do whatever you want, even if it may not be the most mechanically superior option. For the options that you mentioned though..
Arcane Knights - Arcane Knights would probably best be represented right now by taking either a core Chassis of Fighter or Champion with a MC Dedication into either Wizard or Sorcerer. You could do it the other way around, but at that point you would be focusing more on the magic than on the martial abilities of the character and you can expect to sacrifice more heavily in your Weapon and Armor proficiencies.
Armored Hulks - This is a very specific type of Barbarian. It's very likely that there will be either a Class Archetype for it at some point or possibly some feat support for it in a later book. Right now however, the closest you would be able to get would be a MC Dedication to Fighter or Champion.. which can actually be really mechanically good.
Inquisitors - This will likely end up being its own class, though it's probably not a major priority at the moment. You can get somewhat close to it using the Fighter or Champion MC Dedication on a Cleric.
Ruffians - This is one where I'd be likely to disagree with you. Ruffians already gain full proficiency with Medium Armor. Medium is typically the heaviest you'd want to run around in on a Rogue unless you completely tank your Dexterity. In which case you should probably be looking at going Fighter as your primary and dipping into a MC Dedication for Rogue.
Rangers - Ranger is another class that will typically want to invest heavily into Dexterity, however in the case that you're wanting to do a more "Aragorn" style ranger you'd likely be looking at a Fighter with MC Dedication into Ranger.
Alchemists - I'm sorry, I really don't get you on this one. If you're looking mainly at going into the "Steroid Tank" playstyle you're probably better off going with Fighter as your base and then MC Dedication into Alchemist for this kind of play style.
You may disagree with me on some of these things but the idea isn't for a character to be as good as a Fighter or Champion in their weapon or armor proficiencies just because you took a feat. It should take quite a bit of dedication into those classes if you want to use their toys.
For very specific scenarios like an Inquisitor or Armored Hulk Barbarian if the options I recommended aren't good enough for you then I'd suggest waiting until there is some more content out for those specific characters.
|
That's what I said, scaling with your class armor.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.Your comment, which I quoted, is quite clear, that it is not what you said.
Let me quote the important part again, bold added for emphasis:
It doesn't make you comparable in scaling to other classes of the same level wearing their class armor.
Sorry for not being clear then.
Hypothetical class would be wearing-non class armor and would not be scaling similar to your or other classes wearing their class armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a person that has 0 grasp of mechanics decides for RP reason that he wants to look cool in heavy armor and don't want to become a champion, he is doing himself a disfavour.I find it hard to conceive of a role in which wearing heavy armor to "look cool" makes sense. Well, maybe royal guard somewhere, but that's not what I think of when I think "adventurer".Arcane Knights, Armored Hulks, Inquisitors, Ruffians (Use the concept a strong STR rogue and fights dirty),Rangers who wants to feel like Aragorn progressing through the LoTR saga, Alchemists who wants to a mad mutagen armored tin can on steroids.
The sky is the limit for RP.
When it comes to RP you can do whatever you want, even if it may not be the most mechanically superior option. For the options that you mentioned though..
Arcane Knights - Arcane Knights would probably best be represented right now by taking either a core Chassis of Fighter or Champion with a MC Dedication into either Wizard or Sorcerer. You could do it the other way around, but at that point you would be focusing more on the magic than on the martial abilities of the character and you can expect to sacrifice more heavily in your Weapon and Armor proficiencies.
Armored Hulks - This is a very specific type of Barbarian. It's very likely that there will be either a Class Archetype for it at some point or possibly some feat support for it in a later book. Right now however, the closest you would be able to get would be a MC Dedication to Fighter or Champion.. which can actually be really mechanically good.
Inquisitors - This will likely end up being its own class, though it's probably not a major priority at the moment. You can get somewhat close to it using the Fighter or Champion MC Dedication on a Cleric.
Ruffians - This is one where I'd be likely to disagree with you. Ruffians already gain full proficiency with Medium Armor. Medium is typically the heaviest you'd want to...
Half-elf wizard/sorcerer's can make fun Arcane Knight with expert in heavy armor, all martial weapons and all simple weapons I think. The cost of 3 class feats isn't even that bad if you pick universalist wizard with the right thesis, gaining some class feats back.
Half-elf wizard/sorcerer's can make fun Arcane Knight with expert in heavy armor, all martial weapons and all simple weapons I think. The cost of 3 class feats isn't even that bad if you pick universalist wizard with the right thesis, gaining some class feats back.
I agree!
Half-elf wizard/sorcerer's can make fun Arcane Knight with expert in heavy armor, all martial weapons and all simple weapons I think. The cost of 3 class feats isn't even that bad if you pick universalist wizard with the right thesis, gaining some class feats back.I agree!
I had a thought, but not sure I understood the Spell Blending thesis. For a melee wizard, preparing twin buffs might be potentially gamechanging. Unless the slot usage becomes really bad, but I'd need to check it a little further.
I just wanted to clarify my stance on this. When it comes to gaining initial proficiency with Armor or Weapons, it's pretty easy to become trained. Expending a feat for that isn't out of the question.
When it comes to increasing your proficiency with that weapon however it typically involves spending more time and effort to master than that class typically can and will devote to it. This is normally seen when looking at classes that have very limited weapon proficiency or that wear light or no armor.
In order to learn that level of proficiency you're typically performing additional training on par with what masters like Fighters or Champions are undergoing, hence the MC Dedication.
This is not the ideal choice for everyone but the choice does exist.
If you feel that you want to focus only on the armor and have no ties to any other class, then you can always speak to your DM about the possibility of a houseruled feat to upgrade your armor proficiency with Medium/Heavy Armor or a specific weapon that you're proficient with up to Expert.
I would probably have it require that your class is up to Expert Proficiency with their own Unarmored/Armored Proficiency or their normal Weapon Proficiency as well as Trained Proficiency in whichever armor or weapon they're trying to upgrade.
As a DM I would probably mark those feats as uncommon and either have them trained by specific NPCs as the result of a quest, or allow a player to retrain into them if they spent enough downtime training.
So just a thought experiment, if Paizo did make a level 1 general feat that gave you scaling heavy armour proficiency and plate was allowed remain the best armour.
Would anyone be upset at the complaints that other types of armour are pointless because plate is the best and it only costs a general feat to get and that feat is basically a feat tax and everyone at my table is wearing plate armour? Just curious.
So just a thought experiment, if Paizo did make a level 1 general feat that gave you scaling heavy armour proficiency and plate was allowed remain the best armour.
Would anyone be upset at the complaints that other types of armour are pointless because plate is the best and it only costs a general feat to get and that feat is basically a feat tax and everyone at my table is wearing plate armour? Just curious.
Except would that really happen? Like most characters wouldn't have the strength to carry it without penalties, even those with enough strength would take 5ft of penalty. Archers and other ranged-oriented builds wouldn't like to waste their Dex on something that is eating their Bulk.
So just a thought experiment, if Paizo did make a level 1 general feat that gave you scaling heavy armour proficiency and plate was allowed remain the best armour.
Would anyone be upset at the complaints that other types of armour are pointless because plate is the best and it only costs a general feat to get and that feat is basically a feat tax and everyone at my table is wearing plate armour? Just curious.
If they did this, I would be pretty annoyed. Since it would take away from a pretty big part of the Champion and Fighter Dedications and set a pretty annoying precedent.
Full Plate by far is one of the better armors in the game provided you have the strength for it, since you can wear it with a low dexterity modifier, get +1 higher AC than Unarmored, Light, and Medium Armored characters, and get a flat bonus to your Reflex Saves.
The only thing that curtails everyone from using it is easy access to proficiency and the armor penalties that are harsh without investing into strength.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So just a thought experiment, if Paizo did make a level 1 general feat that gave you scaling heavy armour proficiency and plate was allowed remain the best armour.
Would anyone be upset at the complaints that other types of armour are pointless because plate is the best and it only costs a general feat to get and that feat is basically a feat tax and everyone at my table is wearing plate armour? Just curious.
Except it's not objectively the best armor, especially for those that do not have the STR to beat the thresholds for ACP/Speed.
It also limits Dex, which means that anyone with a Dexterity above 12 is never going to want to use it.
So already, even if I had access, I wouldn't necessarily use it.
Also this fails to take into account a big piece of the Armor Proficiency Feat:
You do not gain Heavy Armor Proficiency when you take the Feat.
You only gain Heavy Armor Proficiency if you were already proficient in Medium Armor
This means taking Champion Dedication is still the best bang for your buck on Heavy Armor Proficiency, as it allows you to skip multiple tiers.
A Wizard taking the General has to spend 3 General Feats just to get Heavy Armor Proficiency, which means the earliest they can even get Trained in Heavy Armor Proficiency via this method is 11th level.
Lest we forget that by that time, they already about to get Unarmored to Expert, which invalidates a lot of the reasoning for taking it in the first place (since you would only be Trained). Investing in Dex is far more valuable to a Wizard than Str overall, but even in the case of massive investment in Str, they are still not going to outdo a standard Wizard's bonus to AC from Dex + Expert Unarmored.
Basically, it's a non-issue all around the board.
The real "meat and potatoes" of the choices for Heavy come with the Armor Specialization effects, which only Martials even get.
Except would that really happen? Like most characters wouldn't have the strength to carry it without penalties, even those with enough strength would take 5ft of penalty. Archers and other ranged-oriented builds wouldn't like to waste their Dex on something that is eating their Bulk.
Precisely as you outline, it's a non-issue. There's enough rules enforcement with statistics within the Class that allowing armor choice isn't going to matter.
At best it's lateral, at worst it's a straight downgrade from the standard.
Without Armor Specialization, functionally, you're not operating much differently from any other AC option.
All of the "doom and gloom" people bring up in regards to progressive proficiency with the General Feats comes off as pearl clutching "Think of the Fighter/Champion!"
The Fighter is fine. Nothing was taken. It's not worse by proxy, it didn't have anything proprietary that made it, it didn't "devalue" their Class Dedication Feats any more than the Class Dedication Feats for Wizard devalued Wizard.
It serves no purpose. They are both "traps". It is not helping the game, it's an arbitrary restriction, and patching it with "DLC" in later books via Archetypes is fine but not ideal (all IMO).
As a reminder to those defending this:
Increasing proficiencies for all classes, Weapon Specialization, and Armor Specialization were never playtested
If you want to have absolute faith in anything ever printed, by all means, but there's no reason to act like there's no way they could have "gotten it wrong" in regards to something that radically changed from the PT.
In the PT, those feats were fine. Now, they are not and it's because of those changes that they are no longer fine.
Delete them or fix them, but as is they are traps and do not serve a purpose other than to trick new players into thinking they can actually use those pieces of equipment (up until they gain increased Proficiency at which point...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
....Delete them or fix them, but as is they are traps and do not serve a purpose other than to trick new players into thinking they can actually use those pieces of equipment (up until they gain increased Proficiency at which point...)
Personally, my vote would be one of two options.
1) Just delete them, it's the easier option.
2) If they decided to "patch" them, they should do so by introducing a "Greater Armor Proficiency" feat, that can be obtained at level 14 and gives you Expert Armor Proficiency with whichever armor's you're proficient with.
Would that mean that there's still a greater investment of feats just to do that without going into MCD Champion? Yes. But at least it wouldn't lock them into the dedication nor would have any story implications.
I do however really hope that through doing this they don't devalue the MCD for Champion and/or Fighter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do however really hope that through doing this they don't devalue the MCD for Champion and/or Fighter.
Did allowing Fighters/Champions to get Master Proficiency in Spellcasting "devalue" the Wizard?
If you want to take a look at this the other way:
Champion MCD is the best "dip" in the game for grabbing 3 tiers of armor, and it's bad for that reason.
This forces people that want Heavy Armor to take Champion, which is not really a "Champion" thing, so much as fighting evil, helping those in need, etc.
So you've forced a concept on someone that only wanted Heavy Armor because "BUT MUH MCD VALUE!"
The value should come from the Class Feats you take that exemplify the Class Concept.
Offering another avenue to Heavy/Medium/Martial/Simple/whatever does not "devalue them" it means they will only get selected when conceptually it makes sense to take them.
which should be the point...
So just a thought experiment, if Paizo did make a level 1 general feat that gave you scaling heavy armour proficiency and plate was allowed remain the best armour.
Would anyone be upset at the complaints that other types of armour are pointless because plate is the best and it only costs a general feat to get and that feat is basically a feat tax and everyone at my table is wearing plate armour? Just curious.
Except it's not objectively the best armor, especially for those that do not have the STR to beat the thresholds for ACP/Speed.
It also limits Dex, which means that anyone with a Dexterity above 12 is never going to want to use it.
So already, even if I had access, I wouldn't necessarily use it.
Also this fails to take into account a big piece of the Armor Proficiency Feat:
You do not gain Heavy Armor Proficiency when you take the Feat.
You only gain Heavy Armor Proficiency if you were already proficient in Medium Armor
This means taking Champion Dedication is still the best bang for your buck on Heavy Armor Proficiency, as it allows you to skip multiple tiers.
A Wizard taking the General has to spend 3 General Feats just to get Heavy Armor Proficiency, which means the earliest they can even get Trained in Heavy Armor Proficiency via this method is 11th level.
Lest we forget that by that time, they already about to get Unarmored to Expert, which invalidates a lot of the reasoning for taking it in the first place (since you would only be Trained). Investing in Dex is far more valuable to a Wizard than Str overall, but even in the case of massive investment in Str, they are still not going to outdo a standard Wizard's bonus to AC from Dex + Expert Unarmored.
Basically, it's a non-issue all around the board.
The real "meat and potatoes" of the choices for Heavy come with the Armor Specialization effects, which only Martials even get.
Except would that really happen? Like most characters wouldn't...
Genuinely curious since all these threads have made me brainstorm a Wizard/Sorcerer knight, but how does Dex benefit a pure caster now? I know in 1e it was common because rays required it to hit, but that's not the case anymore. And ranged attacks for wizards are a bigger trap than a melee wizard, due to them only having proficiency in crossbows, and any caster should use a cantrip over a crossbow, or least that's how I feel.
I'm not sure anymore that unarmored+expert is so much better. You need 20 DEX to have more base AC than a fullplate with 18(16 if mithral) STR. If you eat the -5ft penalty, you can instead have four property runes on said armor. And STR adds melee +hit, +dmg, and works with maneuvers. If we don't count skill feats, which we get ten of, there's under 18 feats a wizard can grab with general feats, so it's not that much of a tax to spend those three, because the alternatives aren't that great if you feel like playing a somewhat versatile caster.
But mainly interested what DEX brings to the table to a cleric/wizard/sorcerer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So wait, is the definition of a "trap option" now just something not being quite as mathematically good as something else? You want a wizard in heavy armor, do it, if you're saying being 2 AC lower than the fighter makes that option non-viable, you're wrong.
Did allowing Fighters/Champions to get Master Proficiency in Spellcasting "devalue" the Wizard?
1) Weapon and Armor Proficiencies are considered in almost every round of combat while Spellcasting Proficiency typically only determines DC's and Spell Attacks that can be executed less than a handful of times for people who have multiclassed into them.
2) In order to get up to "Master Proficiency" for a MCD in a Casting Class you're going to be sinking a MINIMUM of 4 feats. Dedication, Basic Spellcasting, Expert Spellcasting, Master Spellcasting.
This is a false equivalency.
So wait, is the definition of a "trap option" now just something not being quite as mathematically good as something else? You want a wizard in heavy armor, do it, if you're saying being 2 AC lower than the fighter makes that option non-viable, you're wrong.
Actually the difference is 1AC.
Fullplate is 6AC+2AC from Trained.
Unarmored is 5AC+4 from Expert and 20 Dexterity (if wizard/sorc/cleric)
The cost of the fullplate characterwise is 3 general feats. To remove penalties it's up to 18 str, up to 16 str if it's mithral.
Fullplate has the potential to be mithral, adamantite or even orchifalcon(can't spell it no bully) for four property runes.
The fullplate even gives +3 to reflex save, essentially counting as 16 dex in that regard. Since ray spells no longer require dex, I feel dex is a weaker stat for a caster compared to str. But I'm a magus fanboi.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did allowing Fighters/Champions to get Master Proficiency in Spellcasting "devalue" the Wizard?1) Weapon and Armor Proficiencies are considered in almost every round of combat while Spellcasting Proficiency typically only determines DC's and Spell Attacks that can be executed less than a handful of times for people who have multiclassed into them.
2) In order to get up to "Master Proficiency" for a MCD in a Casting Class you're going to be sinking a MINIMUM of 4 feats. Dedication, Basic Spellcasting, Expert Spellcasting, Master Spellcasting.
This is a false equivalency.
You could attack with cantrips every round and that would use your spellcasting proficiency. In fact, cantrip/multiclass rouge may be optimal from an accuracy standpoint (since you can get master with your spell attacks and not your weapon attacks).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Genuinely curious since all these threads have made me brainstorm a Wizard/Sorcerer knight, but how does Dex benefit a pure caster now?
Dex is a better stat than Str period for a Caster:
Reflex Saves vs no save equivalent
Acrobatics/Thievery/Stealth over Athletics
Ranged Weapon Rolls vs melee damage/thrown damage/to hit melee weapons
You can use Dex for initiative with Avoid Notice in Exploration mode
Now in the case of the Weapons, I'd call it "who cares" because we're talking about a Wizard who spent three general Feats on Armor and can no longer afford Weapon Proficiencies outside the class without blowing Class Feats.
So overall, Casters can take advantage of the things Dex offers far more than they can take advantage of the Str, because even if they wanted to swing melee combat the DPR is still worse than a cantrip due to Proficiency on the weapon gated at Expert (regardless of what you do).
Bulk only matters in the context of needing the Bulk to use the armor. It's a self-fulfilling thing. Wizards are not in need of Bulk usually.
They also aren't like to be needing Athletics, as Swimming, Climbing, etc. are things that can be supplemented with spells, rope, or simply patience. The other activities apply to Melee combat, which just like the weapons, you are going to be poor at and are more likely to crit fail against enemies than succeed past about 13th level.
So you've got 18 Str now, and you can wear Full Plate.
So what? You can't do a bunch of things the guy in Clothes can do, you are investing in a piece of equipment that he doesn't have to, you don't have better reflex saves (only an equivalent helper bonus) and since your Dex is capped and his isn't probably indefinitely, and you're still worse than just about any non-caster combatant in melee combat.
And lest we forget, the Wizard just spent 3 General Feats (more than half your total) to do this.
The fighter and champion dedication should had never been about increasing proficiency in the first place in my opinion. They could had given some other benefits specially for the Champion.
I would agree, but then they would have had to allow it via General Feats, otherwise the MCD model wouldn't work (you can't really be a Champion without being able to at least wear the armor properly).
So wait, is the definition of a "trap option" now just something not being quite as mathematically good as something else? You want a wizard in heavy armor, do it, if you're saying being 2 AC lower than the fighter makes that option non-viable, you're wrong.
It's not about being "words than the fighter" it's about being worse than your Wizard counter part who didn't spend a Feat at all who still has higher AC than you.
At level 3, Wizard invest a General Feat to get Proficiency with all Simple Weapons and picks a Sling.
He loves his sling, and until level 11 his Sling is just perfect.
And then at level 11, his Sling is now worse than all of his other weapons.
So much so, that it's actually worse for him to use those weapons than use the weapon he paid a Feat to get.
His feat "downgraded" at level 11, but at level 3 it was exactly what he paid for, he was "duped" into picking it, thus it is a "trap".
1) Weapon and Armor Proficiencies are considered in almost every round of combat while Spellcasting Proficiency typically only determines DC's and Spell Attacks that can be executed less than a handful of times for people who have multiclassed into them.
2) In order to get up to "Master Proficiency" for a MCD in a Casting Class you're going to be sinking a MINIMUM of 4 feats. Dedication, Basic Spellcasting, Expert Spellcasting, Master Spellcasting.
This is a false equivalency.
My main point was that it's an overly restrictive system designed to target Casters IMO.
Evidence of that is clear when you look at Proficiency. Expert Weapon Proficiency is only possible via Fighter and that's the highest it goes at all.
Meanwhile, Casting MCD goes all the way up to the 8th level spell slots and Master Casting Proficiency (and hey you get them both with one Feat).
There is a heavy "you can't have my armor/weapon" favor over Spells, and if you ask me, it makes way more sense for the opposite to be the case.
Like how can you tell me that learning magic is less difficult to learn than becoming Expert Proficiency (the thing a 1st level Fighter has) in a Weapon outside your class pool?
And not just "less difficult" it's literally impossible to get above Master Proficiency in weapons outside your class list at all for any class besides the Fighter.
It's quite literally the most preposterous thing in the world.
...Wall of Text...
I disagree with most of your points here, though from what I can see it's less about specific mechanics and more about how we view the genre in general.
Not sure we'll ever see eye to eye so I'm just going to bow out of this conversation entirely and let you try to keep selling whatever it is you're trying to sell.
Just don't be upset if people don't agree with you here.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with most of your points here, though from what I can see it's less about specific mechanics and more about how we view the genre in general.Not sure we'll ever see eye to eye so I'm just going to bow out of this conversation entirely and let you try to keep selling whatever it is you're trying to sell.
Just don't be upset if people don't agree with you here.
If you're going to be that reductionist, then I don't see the point in responding.
One, most of what I said isn't even an "opinion" so much as it is a truth of the game:
- Using a Trained weapon over an Expert one, due to the tight math and +/-10 success tiers, is always less favorable.
- Those General Feat's get worse at X level, where X level is the level you get Expert in your base proficiencies.
- ALL of the Caster MCD give Master Proficiency in spells, they also grant access to 8th level spells.
- NO Martial MCD classes grant Master Proficiency in weapons under any circumstances (regardless of starting Class), nor do any of them grant Expert in Weapons outside the Fighter.
- It's possible for a Fighter Wizard MCD to Learn 8th level spells and be Master Spellcasting Proficiency, but a Wizard Fighter MCD can never achieve Master Proficiency in any Weapon.
Draw your own conclusions, but none of the above is objectionable. Those are simply facts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still assert that no sensible caster would spend their 18th level feat on "+2 to hit with weapons" given the other options they have available to them.
Also, spells and weapons should be treated differently, because they are different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Master Spell Proficiency is the rough equivalent of Expert Weapon Proficiency in number terms because Spells don't get an item bonus to attacks or Save DCs. That's why multiclass feats get to Master Prof at level 18 if you invest 4 class feats.
Getting a Master prof in weapons/armour or Legendary prof/10th level spells is something that really has to be restricted to your main class in standard games as otherwise you encroach too much on the main classes core strength.
I still assert that no sensible caster would spend their 18th level feat on "+2 to hit with weapons" given the other options they have available to them.
Also, spells and weapons should be treated differently, because they are different.
I would do it with a bunch of builds, especially since spell attack rolls apparently can't get an item bonus (which was news to me, btw!). It gives you a solid 1-action attack option that very well may be more accurate than your attack cantrips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a person that has 0 grasp of mechanics decides for RP reason that he wants to look cool in heavy armor and don't want to become a champion, he is doing himself a disfavour.I find it hard to conceive of a role in which wearing heavy armor to "look cool" makes sense. Well, maybe royal guard somewhere, but that's not what I think of when I think "adventurer".
have you not seen the artwork in the champion multiclass page? dude looks amazing, lets face it he's wielding the flaming sword and armor just for looks.
have you not seen the artwork in the champion multiclass page? dude looks amazing, lets face it he's wielding the flaming sword and armor just for looks.
And you know that how?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't a fighter/wizard who wants to rock that heavy armor be a fighter first and take the wizard archetype? I know it isn't the same amount of spells but characters need priorities, you can't do everything on one character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't a fighter/wizard who wants to rock that heavy armor be a fighter first and take the wizard archetype? I know it isn't the same amount of spells but characters need priorities, you can't do everything on one character.
Then why doesn’t the Fighter have to make the same choice? He gets to have Master Spell Proficiency and additional spell slots with a single feat that scales as they level.
And Master is the default proficiency for being competent at any task at high levels, which is why only Fighters get Legendary proficiency in Weapons but every other melee class is still on track at high levels, so saying “expert weapons is the same as spells” isn’t really true since the numbers and saves work agnostic of that and are dependent on same values (spell attack rolls go against the same value).
Im not even saying it should be 100% equal, but it’s certainly overly biased in one direction.
The fact that starting martial and multiclassing is 100% always optimal for any person that truly wants to combine a martial and a caster is evidence of the discrepancy, not a “feature”.
Wouldn't a fighter/wizard who wants to rock that heavy armor be a fighter first and take the wizard archetype? I know it isn't the same amount of spells but characters need priorities, you can't do everything on one character.Then why doesn’t the Fighter have to make the same choice? He gets to have Master Spell Proficiency and additional spell slots with a single feat that scales as they level.
And Master is the default proficiency for being competent at any task at high levels, which is why only Fighters get Legendary proficiency in Weapons but every other melee class is still on track at high levels, so saying “expert weapons is the same as spells” isn’t really true since the numbers and saves work agnostic of that and are dependent on same values (spell attack rolls go against the same value).
Im not even saying it should be 100% equal, but it’s certainly overly biased in one direction.
The fact that starting martial and multiclassing is 100% always optimal for any person that truly wants to combine a martial and a caster is evidence of the discrepancy, not a “feature”.
because i can't get a +2 striking wand
and obvs he can't do spells nearly as much.
though, i've spoken before that i think it's weird that only fighter and champion share proficiencies. I still think other archetypes should hand out at least training of what any class can get up to master.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
have you not seen the artwork in the champion multiclass page? dude looks amazing, lets face it he's wielding the flaming sword and armor just for looks.And you know that how?
divination spells obviously.