Has player agency taken a hit?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 255 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

N N 959 wrote:
Players should also get some degree of reward for system mastery. I think Paizo does as well, that's why they changed the system. When WoTC built the foundation for 3.5, optimization wasn't really a thing and WotC didn't anticipate the problems that would arise.

3.0 had plenty, haste abuse, crunching crit ranges (15-20, maybe even lower), and you have some really funky splat action (Arms & Equipment Guide is classic).


totoro wrote:
I think it would be far superior game design to simply figure out how much X is worth and then charge the player the requisite number of feats necessary to match the value of X at every level.

That would become GUPRS then. I don't think that game is free from balance problems.

The issue with this approach is that the value of X to a specific character is not constant and depends on whether the character (or even someone in the party) also has Y or Z. It is possible to balance costs of a specific set of abilities in one book (to an extent), but every next book would require a re-balancing of everything published so far to take into account the new synergies. If this is not done then the same kind of universally good and universally bad option groups will eventually surface.

A complexity of balancing a set of options grows exponentially with the number of options in the set, so properly designing 1000 universal feats takes much more time than 10 classes with 100 feats each.


Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I'm biased, but I hope that 2AC isn't a dealbreaker for your character's aesthetics and choices.
For me it's less about whether or not it's a dealbreaker and more about why should it even be a potential dealbreaker at all? Someone spending feats to be no better off (or potentially even worse) than they were before they started just because they want to RP something weird doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

With that mindset, why should fighter not getting level ten spell slots be a dealbreaker?

Multiclass spellcasting works up until a certain level then it's useless because it stops where other caster's don't. Almost like proficiency via general feat at 13th.

Why should I be punished for wanting to go fighter/wizard instead of wizard/fighter?


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

With that mindset, why should fighter not getting level ten spell slots be a dealbreaker?

Multiclass spellcasting works up until a certain level then it's useless because it stops where other caster's don't. Almost like proficiency via general feat at 13th.

Why should I be punished for wanting to go fighter/wizard instead of wizard/fighter?

You are being:

* dishonest / using a strawman argument : no-one is asking to match Fighters in their weapon proficiency. That is your invention. We are asking that if a character spends a feat to become proficient in something, it keeps matching the proficiency the class already provides.
* ridiculously reductionist in treating proficiency level with weapons as being the only thing that makes the Fighter class.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

You keep using those words...


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
You keep using those words...

And I keep explaining why they are correct.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

With that mindset, why should fighter not getting level ten spell slots be a dealbreaker?

Multiclass spellcasting works up until a certain level then it's useless because it stops where other caster's don't. Almost like proficiency via general feat at 13th.

Why should I be punished for wanting to go fighter/wizard instead of wizard/fighter?

You are being:

* dishonest / using a strawman argument : no-one is asking to match Fighters in their weapon proficiency. That is your invention. We are asking that if a character spends a feat to become proficient in something, it keeps matching the proficiency the class already provides.
* ridiculously reductionist in treating proficiency level with weapons as being the only thing that makes the Fighter class.

Well not really. More like petulent? If you focus on proficiency because not having that +2AC from proficiency is making an armor obsolete, then it's just fair that mindset expands to other aspects of character building. You can gain proficiencies via multiclassing (2 class feats only), and you can get spell casting via multiclassing (more than 2 feats to stay as relevant as former example). But you want scaling proficiency via General Feats, which are less powerful. Why can we get spellcasting and proficiency via class feats, but you call getting spellcasting via general feats dishonest and strawman?

You get scaling X(proficiency) and scaling Y(spellcasting) by paying Z(class feats).
Getting scaling X(proficiency) via another resource Ø(general feats), but not getting scaling Y(spellcasting) for the same resource Ø(general feats).

Now that's dishonest.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Well not really. More like petulent? If you focus on proficiency because not having that +2AC from proficiency is making an armor obsolete, then it's just fair that mindset expands to other aspects of character building. You can gain proficiencies via multiclassing (2 class feats only), and you can get spell casting via multiclassing (more than 2 feats to stay as relevant as former example). But you want scaling proficiency via General Feats, which are less powerful. Why can we get spellcasting and proficiency via class feats, but you call getting spellcasting via general feats dishonest and strawman?

You get X and Y by paying Z.
Getting X via another resource Ø, but not getting Y for the same resource Ø. Now that's dishonest.

You are incorrectly reducing the situation.

Wizard: Expert unarmored at 13, nothing else. CAPS THERE.
Fighter: Expert all armor at 11, then Master at 17.

Wanting Wizard to get armored abilities to match the level of feats taken for heavier armor is 1) not a core feature of the fighter class, the core is that they're style of attacking (accuracy and maneuvers). 2) not wanting to match the fighter; they're still 2 levels behind for expert and never get master, and 3) You also previously cited weaker casting, but that IS a core of the Wizard.


james014Aura wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Well not really. More like petulent? If you focus on proficiency because not having that +2AC from proficiency is making an armor obsolete, then it's just fair that mindset expands to other aspects of character building. You can gain proficiencies via multiclassing (2 class feats only), and you can get spell casting via multiclassing (more than 2 feats to stay as relevant as former example). But you want scaling proficiency via General Feats, which are less powerful. Why can we get spellcasting and proficiency via class feats, but you call getting spellcasting via general feats dishonest and strawman?

You get X and Y by paying Z.
Getting X via another resource Ø, but not getting Y for the same resource Ø. Now that's dishonest.

You are incorrectly reducing the situation.

Wizard: Expert unarmored at 13, nothing else. CAPS THERE.
Fighter: Expert all armor at 11, then Master at 17.

Wanting Wizard to get armored abilities to match the level of feats taken for heavier armor is 1) not a core feature of the fighter class, the core is that they're style of attacking (accuracy and maneuvers). 2) not wanting to match the fighter; they're still 2 levels behind for expert and never get master, and 3) You also previously cited weaker casting, but that IS a core of the Wizard.

I have to admit it sounds a bit weird that the better scaling parts of a class aren't considered core of the class. It's like saying skill increases and feats aren't core for rogue.

I think it's a core design of wizard/sorcerer to be weaker at armor usage. If heavy armor becomes useless at 13 because of proficiency bonus, wouldn't that make unarmed proficiency useless when other classes get master because that too lacks a proficiency bonus? It's the same situation after all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

You get X and Y by paying Z.

Getting X via another resource Ø, but not getting Y for the same resource Ø. Now that's dishonest.

Except that's incorrect. Martials do not get only increased mastery in spells, they also receive spell slots via those feats.

Spellcasting is the CORE of the casters. This is what martials get when they archetype into casters. EXPERT Weapon proficiency alone is not the core of Fighter. It is all the other feats that Fighter gets access to that makes the core of Fighter.

We are not asking for Master or Legendary proficiencies in weapons, which makes you dishonest when you phrase your arguments as if we are asking for that.
Even if a caster takes Martial archetype, they will only receive MATCHING proficiency to weapons they get from class. They do not get to improve proficiency in something they did not have.


NemoNoName wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

You get X and Y by paying Z.

Getting X via another resource Ø, but not getting Y for the same resource Ø. Now that's dishonest.

Except that's incorrect. Martials do not get only increased mastery in spells, they also receive spell slots via those feats.

Spellcasting is the CORE of the casters. This is what martials get when they archetype into casters. EXPERT Weapon proficiency alone is not the core of Fighter. It is all the other feats that Fighter gets access to that makes the core of Fighter.

We are not asking for Master or Legendary proficiencies in weapons, which makes you dishonest when you phrase your arguments as if we are asking for that.
Even if a caster takes Martial archetype, they will only receive MATCHING proficiency to weapons they get from class. They do not get to improve proficiency in something they did not have.

I never said master or legendary proficiencies, which makes you quite dishonest for putting words in my mouth. I clearly said I don't agree that not getting a +2AC is making someone's armor as obsolete as some people make it out to be.

You shouldn't brand anyone you disagree with as dishonest, it's a bit hypocritical of you. I feel proficiencies are core to fighter. If you reduce them, the fighter will be fairly crippled. Same as if you reduce casting to a caster. We can disagree on that but it is what it is.

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
NemoNoName wrote:
Rysky wrote:
You keep using those words...
And I keep explaining why they are correct.

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them dishonest, as has been pointed out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I don't deny that said increases are a part of the class. But they're not the CORE of it.

For your specific example: Well, skills are the rogue's thing. It's an important part, and I wouldn't contest calling that the Rogue's core. It's the classic skilled class. That's something really unique to them. Check out the dedication, and there's a feat for more skills.

What I contest is calling armor scaling TO THE CLASS THAT HAS IT as being a core of ANY class, or Expert proficiency in anything as being a core of a class - I can't think of a single class that doesn't end with everything at least Expert, save for some optional skill ranks. The Champion? One of their aspects - though NOT their core - is that said scaling goes up to Legendary. Their core includes their raw defense, which in turn includes the armor cap, but the armor cap would NOT be the core. Other Martials, Master. Non-martials only get expert. That's not a core to any class. That's a core to the proficiency system. The core of the fighter? Their class features and feats are geared towards immense skill at combat, far beyond what even a buffed Armor Proficiency could give.

"I think it's a core design of wizard/sorcerer to be weaker at armor usage."
-> Yes, and capping at Expert proficiency, and later than martials get it, represents that well.

"If heavy armor becomes useless at 13 because of proficiency bonus, wouldn't that make unarmed proficiency useless when other classes get master because that too lacks a proficiency bonus? It's the same situation after all."
-> Did you mean, "unarmored"? Either way, it would make it weaker assuming otherwise-optimal builds, but again: the non-martials don't get past Expert, and then later than the other classes get it. Master and Legendary (Fighter, Champion) does mean a fair bit. The difference between a class that's faking being another, and the real deal, is a real difference and there's no danger of casters poaching the cores of Martial (the ultimate combat machines) or of individual classes.

The issue is, in-class proficiencies and spending resources - that other classes don't have to - to be able to use certain gear in the first place.

___________________________

This went through a few revisions due to time-based fatigue; if something doesn't make sense, I'll try and clarify it later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since a few posts came up while I typed:
"I never said master or legendary proficiencies, which makes you quite dishonest for putting words in my mouth."
Your words thus far imply said proficiencies are important. For example:
"I have to admit it sounds a bit weird that the better scaling parts of a class aren't considered core of the class."
(quotes from Corvo Spiritwind, of course)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
NemoNoName wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

You get X and Y by paying Z.

Getting X via another resource Ø, but not getting Y for the same resource Ø. Now that's dishonest.

Except that's incorrect. Martials do not get only increased mastery in spells, they also receive spell slots via those feats.

Spellcasting is the CORE of the casters. This is what martials get when they archetype into casters. EXPERT Weapon proficiency alone is not the core of Fighter. It is all the other feats that Fighter gets access to that makes the core of Fighter.

We are not asking for Master or Legendary proficiencies in weapons, which makes you dishonest when you phrase your arguments as if we are asking for that.
Even if a caster takes Martial archetype, they will only receive MATCHING proficiency to weapons they get from class. They do not get to improve proficiency in something they did not have.

But casters can get Expert proficiency in the weapon of their choice, it just costs 2 class feats.

You're not arguing for options for casters to get expert proficiency, you're arguing they should get it much much cheaper.


HidaOWin wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

You get X and Y by paying Z.

Getting X via another resource Ø, but not getting Y for the same resource Ø. Now that's dishonest.

Except that's incorrect. Martials do not get only increased mastery in spells, they also receive spell slots via those feats.

Spellcasting is the CORE of the casters. This is what martials get when they archetype into casters. EXPERT Weapon proficiency alone is not the core of Fighter. It is all the other feats that Fighter gets access to that makes the core of Fighter.

We are not asking for Master or Legendary proficiencies in weapons, which makes you dishonest when you phrase your arguments as if we are asking for that.
Even if a caster takes Martial archetype, they will only receive MATCHING proficiency to weapons they get from class. They do not get to improve proficiency in something they did not have.

But casters can get Expert proficiency in the weapon of their choice, it just costs 2 class feats.

You're not arguing for options for casters to get expert proficiency, you're arguing they should get it much much cheaper.

If hooman, it costs one ancestry and one class, which is even nicer.


Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I never said master or legendary proficiencies, which makes you quite dishonest for putting words in my mouth. I clearly said I don't agree that not getting a +2AC is making someone's armor as obsolete as some people make it out to be.

You say that, and then you say this:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
You shouldn't brand anyone you disagree with as dishonest, it's a bit hypocritical of you. I feel proficiencies are core to fighter. If you reduce them, the fighter will be fairly crippled. Same as if you reduce casting to a caster. We can disagree on that but it is what it is.

Fighter/Champion get LEGENDARY proficiency. Why are you even bringing the "encroaching on Fighter/Champion territory" up if you're not implying that we are asking for the same proficiency? This is why it is dishonest framing of our arguments.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I never said master or legendary proficiencies, which makes you quite dishonest for putting words in my mouth. I clearly said I don't agree that not getting a +2AC is making someone's armor as obsolete as some people make it out to be.

You say that, and then you say this:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
You shouldn't brand anyone you disagree with as dishonest, it's a bit hypocritical of you. I feel proficiencies are core to fighter. If you reduce them, the fighter will be fairly crippled. Same as if you reduce casting to a caster. We can disagree on that but it is what it is.
Fighter/Champion get LEGENDARY proficiency. Why are you even bringing the "encroaching on Fighter/Champion territory" up if you're not implying that we are asking for the same proficiency? This is why it is dishonest framing of our arguments.

I was solely talking about the trained>expert progression.

You said:" We are not asking for Master or Legendary proficiencies in weapons, which makes you dishonest when you phrase your arguments as if we are asking for that. "

I never brought up master or legendary proficiencies > you're putting words in my mouth > you're actually the dishonest one > it's fair to call out hipocrisy.

My sole argument really boils down to: "You're being dramatic by saying that heavy plate works fine at level 12 and has no function at level 13. To which I say, that's hyperbole, you won't be powergaming but that armor is still viable without that +2 proficiency bonus of trained>expert."

But frankly, you should stop being dishonest and put words in my mouth. It's okay to disagree but don't say I said stuff when I didn't say stuff.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
NemoNoName wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I never said master or legendary proficiencies, which makes you quite dishonest for putting words in my mouth. I clearly said I don't agree that not getting a +2AC is making someone's armor as obsolete as some people make it out to be.

You say that, and then you say this:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
You shouldn't brand anyone you disagree with as dishonest, it's a bit hypocritical of you. I feel proficiencies are core to fighter. If you reduce them, the fighter will be fairly crippled. Same as if you reduce casting to a caster. We can disagree on that but it is what it is.
Fighter/Champion get LEGENDARY proficiency. Why are you even bringing the "encroaching on Fighter/Champion territory" up if you're not implying that we are asking for the same proficiency? This is why it is dishonest framing of our arguments.

... they said don't want Fighter's Proficiencies to be lowered, they never said encroaching on [Class] territory.


Rysky wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I never said master or legendary proficiencies, which makes you quite dishonest for putting words in my mouth. I clearly said I don't agree that not getting a +2AC is making someone's armor as obsolete as some people make it out to be.

You say that, and then you say this:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
You shouldn't brand anyone you disagree with as dishonest, it's a bit hypocritical of you. I feel proficiencies are core to fighter. If you reduce them, the fighter will be fairly crippled. Same as if you reduce casting to a caster. We can disagree on that but it is what it is.
Fighter/Champion get LEGENDARY proficiency. Why are you even bringing the "encroaching on Fighter/Champion territory" up if you're not implying that we are asking for the same proficiency? This is why it is dishonest framing of our arguments.
... they said don't want Fighter's Proficiencies to be lowered, they never said encroaching on [Class] territory.

Did I come off as talking bout encroaching on other classes? Cuz honestly I don't really care about that because Multiclass Archetypes are really awesome in this edition. I actually like that a wizard can dip into fighter for proficiencies or a fighter into a wizard for spellcasting or what not. My personal disagreement is in general feats providing what class feats are already giving, and in case of a lot of people here, it goes one way. Class feats can give proficiencies and spellcasting, but they want general feats to provide scaling to one and not the other.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I was solely talking about the trained>expert progression.

You said:" We are not asking for Master or Legendary proficiencies in weapons, which makes you dishonest when you phrase your arguments as if we are asking for that. "

I never brought up master or legendary proficiencies > you're putting words in my mouth > you're actually the dishonest one > it's fair to call out hipocrisy.

Yes, you did not saying explicitly, however, let me quote you specifically from earlier in this thread:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
With that mindset, why should fighter not getting level ten spell slots be a dealbreaker?

Level 10 spells are the ultimate class feature of casters. By saying that Fighters should get access to them, you are implying we are asking for something that is equally crucial to the Fighter class.

This is a classic strawman argument method, because anyone not reading the whole thread will automatically assume we are asking for something we are not, specifically, that we are asking for the pinnacle features of Fighter class.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
My sole argument really boils down to: "You're being dramatic by saying that heavy plate works fine at level 12 and has no function at level 13. To which I say, that's hyperbole, you won't be powergaming but that armor is still viable without that +2 proficiency bonus of trained>expert."

Again, accusation of powergaming. I already mentioned there is a difference between building optimal character for the idea and powergaming. If you cannot tell the difference between the two, I cannot help you. That +2 is HUGE in this new tight math world.

If I was powergaming, I would not care in the least, because taking Heavy Armour as a Wizard makes no sense. Far easier and effective to build a Wizard that doesn't rely on armour.

Furthermore, even this math that claims Wizards have more advantage in Heavy Armour than no armour is only true for Heavy Armour. What if I want to play a light armour Wizard? Then the +2 difference (we're also ignoring the fact I could add Mage Armour from 1st level slot for additional +1) literally means no armour provides equal or even more defence than actually wearing the light armour I used a feat on, hence, it is actively punishing me for spending a General feat and following up on my concept.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You mean customisability, not agency.

Customisability appears to have gone up, as well as been made a lot simpler, via archetypes, which can achieve everything you've described. This system has made 'multiclassing' a lot more viable for most combinations, and a lot less risky in terms of breaking your build.

Once we have 60 pages more of general archetypes in the new APG this will increase a whole lot more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Class feats can give proficiencies and spellcasting, but they want general feats to provide scaling to one and not the other.

Champion Dedication + Armor feat: 2 feats, get Trained -> Expert in 3 armor types, Expert comes online 1 later than the casters get unarmored

Armor Training: 1 feat, get Trained in ONE armor type. Making it worth 1/3 of the Champion Dedication. The change would only make it be worth 1/3 of two feats, or 2/3 of a feat, and only one level faster. Still not as powerful as a Class feat's bonuses, but more in line with stuff like Canny Acumen which is also a General Feat but gives ... a scaling increase! Or other feats that scale with proficiency of the associated skill.

I'm not aware of any general feats to boost casting, but there's five different multiclasses that give it in four different lists, and those feats scale it, too - to Master, no less! All we ask is a single scaling (or I suppose full scaling if a Medium Armor user takes it, like Ruffian Rogue, but they're more martial already)

_____________________________

Also I see we've deviated heavily from the player agency title question so: yeah, a big one in the form of heavily reduced access to options for building (EDIT: talking about the meta of "ask your GM" for building), and one of my main houserules will likely be to give a fair bit of that agency back.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What character build in PF1 core rulebook allowed for a wizard to wear heavy armor and be focused on being a caster? Wizards always had and will continue to have better defensive options through spells than just trying to boost AC. Right now the only really functional wizard in armor build we have in PF2 is a multiclassed champion dropping 2 class feats over 14 levels, with specific attribute requirements and picking up an anathema. I get why that is frustrating, but I think it is easily fixable with a request for a battle mage archetype, rather than thinking the game is broken and can’t be fixed because building a battle mage archetype through general feats ruins the character. It is good to find builds that are not yet supported by the available feat choices. It is less helpful to assume those builds will never be possible, or even say what all has to change about existing feats, rather than just express a desire for what you want and possibly help theorycraft what that feat, archetype class feature could look like.


NemoNoName wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I was solely talking about the trained>expert progression.

You said:" We are not asking for Master or Legendary proficiencies in weapons, which makes you dishonest when you phrase your arguments as if we are asking for that. "

I never brought up master or legendary proficiencies > you're putting words in my mouth > you're actually the dishonest one > it's fair to call out hipocrisy.

Yes, you did not saying explicitly, however, let me quote you specifically from earlier in this thread:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
With that mindset, why should fighter not getting level ten spell slots be a dealbreaker?

Level 10 spells are the ultimate class feature of casters. By saying that Fighters should get access to them, you are implying we are asking for something that is equally crucial to the Fighter class.

This is a classic strawman argument method, because anyone not reading the whole thread will automatically assume we are asking for something we are not, specifically, that we are asking for the pinnacle features of Fighter class.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
My sole argument really boils down to: "You're being dramatic by saying that heavy plate works fine at level 12 and has no function at level 13. To which I say, that's hyperbole, you won't be powergaming but that armor is still viable without that +2 proficiency bonus of trained>expert."

Again, accusation of powergaming. I already mentioned there is a difference between building optimal character for the idea and powergaming. If you cannot tell the difference between the two, I cannot help you. That +2 is HUGE in this new tight math world.

If I was powergaming, I would not care in the least, because taking Heavy Armour as a Wizard makes no sense. Far easier and effective to build a Wizard that doesn't rely on armour.

Furthermore, even this math that claims Wizards have more advantage in Heavy Armour than no armour is only true for Heavy Armour. What if I want to play a light armour Wizard? Then...

Not sure what's wrong with the powergamer term, I feel it fits here so I'll use it.

As for the tenth level slot, I was being hyperbolic and snarky. My apologies for that. I can only speak from average joe user perspective, I've never had a game where someone sat down and went "I need to have X or my hit chance will only be % against Y."

As for armor, if I got this right, an unarmored wizard with expert will have Dex+Proficiency in armor. He'd need to use bracers or clothing for runes. Explorer's clothing has a cap of +5, so to get max armor, you'd need 20 dex + proficiency. At 13th's that's a baseline of +5+4=+9AC, if my math is correct. That's for no cost other than maxing Dex stat.

A full-plate wizard would need 3 general feats and 18 STR. From just the armor and proficiency, at 1-20th he'd have a baseline of +6+2=+8AC.
It's not perfect, but 3 feats and 18str <or> 20 dex and free proficiency, the baseline tradeoff 1AC, unless I butchered the numbers as usual.
The only way unarmored proficiency matches a fullplate is if you get 18 or 20 dex. If you wear adventurer clothing, it caps at 20, if you buy bracers, you can go above 20. I don't think 3 general feats and 1 less AC is /that/ bad, and this is before special materials and runes, which fullplate can end up with 4 of in the Property aspect. I'm sure there's plenty of other things to consider which I missed but I'm just considering the baseline of full plate vs unarmored proficiency at level 13th when it caps for the weakest armor class.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For most of these, the issue seems that people are not comfortable with class systems. As far as I’m aware, which class generally wears which armor is a concept built into every class system I’ve played.

As for the argument that casters should get proficiency bumps, I think that is handled well with the multiclassing feats: weapons increase with fighter and armor increases with champions. Likewise, if martials want to improve their casting, they’ll take the multiclassing feats at 2, 4, 12, and 18 as well as invest in occultism, arcane, religion, and nature to the appropriate levels, which seems like a much better deal.

And for the argument about fighting unarmed as a rogue, I can’t wait to play. Unarmed (which no longer provoked attacks of opportunity and can now be used for sneak attacks) will be my favorite mode of attacking pompous a—holes with an open or back hand, as I’d be remiss to not give face to an idiot who’s begging to get his or her face smacked, even if I can hit harder with a sword.


Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Not sure what's wrong with the powergamer term, I feel it fits here so I'll use it.

Powergaming means you are subordinating numbers to roleplay aspect of character building, to the effect of ignoring roleplay considerations to gain pure powerlevel.

And if you are powergaming, you will not even consider building a Heavy Armour Wizard, even with getting Expert proficiency, because you have to invest huge resources into getting at best nothing.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
As for the tenth level slot, I was being hyperbolic and snarky. My apologies for that.

You need to be more careful when and how using hyperbole.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I can only speak from average joe user perspective, I've never had a game where someone sat down and went "I need to have X or my hit chance will only be % against Y."

... You either participate in this discussion, in which case shape up. "average joe" is not a defence.

Let me just highlight this part:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
It's not perfect, but 3 feats and 18str <or> 20 dex and free proficiency, the baseline tradeoff 1AC, unless I butchered the numbers as usual.

So, to be clear, you are saying that losing 1 AC (and 5ft of speed) is for you worth spending 3 feats and building character ability scores be better in melee (meaning more likely to be targeted)?

Oookay. I will now go away. I surrender, with that kind of logic, there is no arguing.

Also, Explorers clothing can explicitly have runes inscribed on them, so armour doesn't provide this.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

During the playtest, I had hoped that they would have entirely removed different proficiencies for different armor types, instead boiling everything down to Defense. Your Defense proficiency would then progress the same for all armors depending on your class

Armor choice would then be baseline mostly cosmetic, with later class or archetype feats and enchantments that make them stand apart. The concession to encourage unarmored wizards would be to give them incentives to use magical defenses like Mage Armor, such as letting those kinds of things provide a boost to saves against spells.

I'm just reminiscing about how during the playtest there was all kinds of hype about finally being able to make heavy armor casters if you wanted to. No one that I recall was saying it would be the end of Fighters and Champions.

As I recall, there was a general sentiment of "Well, there's no big number difference between armors, so at least now everyone can choose what suits them rather than what's optimal"

Anyway, I'm glad PF2 is so amenable to house rules. Letting people scale their earlier investments for side-grades is one house rule I absolutely will not lose sleep over.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the issue with that would be that the narrative conceits around the classes in Golarion mean that casters generally don't wear heavy armor - that is, we don't really have things like Arcane Warriors from Dragon Age when it comes to the 'baseline' casters like Sorcerers and Wizards.

PCs end up being the exception, not the rule, so they might do some wacky stuff with feats/archetypes, but generally, "Wizards and sorcerers don't wear heavy armor" is baseline true to the narrative of the world.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Right, which is why the majority of casters who are low dex (don't want light armor) and low strength (don't want heavy armor) would use magical defenses, and be incentivized to do so by making things like mage armor worth a dang, and perhaps with side benefits that feel appropriately magicky.

It's water under the bridge now though.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The biggest example in Golarion are the Hellknight signifiers for the arcane casters in armor.

They will probably come back as an archetype.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a Hellknight signifier coming with heavy armor proficiency, and proficiency with one of the order favored weapon.

It, of course, doesn't totally solve what most people want, since depending on which campaign setting you are playing, it is quite possible that your GM doesn't have the Hellknight as part of the setting.


GameDesignerDM wrote:

I think the issue with that would be that the narrative conceits around the classes in Golarion mean that casters generally don't wear heavy armor - that is, we don't really have things like Arcane Warriors from Dragon Age when it comes to the 'baseline' casters like Sorcerers and Wizards.

PCs end up being the exception, not the rule, so they might do some wacky stuff with feats/archetypes, but generally, "Wizards and sorcerers don't wear heavy armor" is baseline true to the narrative of the world.

Why are you even worrying about this??? If the proficiency scales with other proficiencies, at best the Wizard gains 1 AC and loses 5ft of movement for investment of 3(!) General Feats. This is going to be used by negligible number of Wizards.


NemoNoName wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I think the issue with that would be that the narrative conceits around the classes in Golarion mean that casters generally don't wear heavy armor - that is, we don't really have things like Arcane Warriors from Dragon Age when it comes to the 'baseline' casters like Sorcerers and Wizards.

PCs end up being the exception, not the rule, so they might do some wacky stuff with feats/archetypes, but generally, "Wizards and sorcerers don't wear heavy armor" is baseline true to the narrative of the world.

Why are you even worrying about this??? If the proficiency scales with other proficiencies, at best the Wizard gains 1 AC and loses 5ft of movement for investment of 3(!) General Feats. This is going to be used by negligible number of Wizards.

My dude, I'm not worrying about it. I was simply stating that the setting likely influences Paizo's design of the base system, and in their setting if wizards and sorcerers aren't running around wearing heavy armor on the regular outside of a very specific group in a very specific circumstance, then it's not something they want to make the way some people want it.

I was just responding to another poster. Relax.


GameDesignerDM wrote:

My dude, I'm not worrying about it. I was simply stating that the setting likely influences Paizo's design of the base system, and in their setting if wizards and sorcerers aren't running around wearing heavy armor on the regular, then it's not something they want to make the way some people want it.

I was just responding to another poster. Relax.

Sorry, I've been having discussions here for quite some time on this topic.

Anyway, yeah. Even if the proficiency scales, you will not be seeing it frequently because of the significant buy-in price for a very limited benefit.


NemoNoName wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Not sure what's wrong with the powergamer term, I feel it fits here so I'll use it.

Powergaming means you are subordinating numbers to roleplay aspect of character building, to the effect of ignoring roleplay considerations to gain pure powerlevel.

And if you are powergaming, you will not even consider building a Heavy Armour Wizard, even with getting Expert proficiency, because you have to invest huge resources into getting at best nothing.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
As for the tenth level slot, I was being hyperbolic and snarky. My apologies for that.

You need to be more careful when and how using hyperbole.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I can only speak from average joe user perspective, I've never had a game where someone sat down and went "I need to have X or my hit chance will only be % against Y."

... You either participate in this discussion, in which case shape up. "average joe" is not a defence.

Let me just highlight this part:

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
It's not perfect, but 3 feats and 18str <or> 20 dex and free proficiency, the baseline tradeoff 1AC, unless I butchered the numbers as usual.

So, to be clear, you are saying that losing 1 AC (and 5ft of speed) is for you worth spending 3 feats and building character ability scores be better in melee (meaning more likely to be targeted)?

Oookay. I will now go away. I surrender, with that kind of logic, there is no arguing.

Also, Explorers clothing can explicitly have runes inscribed on them, so armour doesn't provide this.

I mean, rarely do you see the full-plate cleric or paladin hang back with a bow. Going for heavy armor tends to lean towards building for melee, so I'm not gonna go around saying that being better in melee, both with to hit, and to damage, is a bad thing. Especially if the wizard buffs himself before/during combat such as Enlarge or Blur.

And yes, I stand by it. If you feel that Fullplate is and I quote what's been said here, dunno by whom though "obsolete" on account of being -1AC behind, then that sounds and feels powergamey. Now if we wanna talk about "Is it worth the cost?" then that's a different thing. The topic wasn't really about "it's too many general feats for armor proficiency", it was that the heavy armor was rendered obsolete. For a melee oriented Wizard/Sorcerer, I disagree. 3 general feats and 18 str to waddle around in a fullplate made in one of the much larger pool of materials is well, a trade. If I were inclined to go that way, I might pick up a Mithral Full plate. With STR 16, it'd give me no check penalties and no speed penalties, while also giving a +3 to reflex saves. That's before property runes.

Do I think 3 feats for a wizard in fullplate is too much?
Not really, 3 out of 5 feats just from class, a lot more if human, half-orc or half-elf.

There's a total of 19 general feats that aren't skill feats. Wizard has 10 skill feats, 5 general feats.
Do I think you can get a more aesthetically impactful result by using those 3 general feats on the other 19 general feats?.
Sure they're nice, but one gives you a Wizard with full casting and no penalties on wearing a fullplate made out of mithral, or some penalties for a 4-rune orchi-armor, or other variants on that. The other alternatives are...more magic items invested, riding checks succeeded, breath control or diehard.

In case I missed something, can you think of a more impactful and gameplay changing set of 3 general feats(not skill feats) to give to sorcer/wizard? between 1-13?

If a dragon sorcerer took this, he'd could spend 3 general feats, 18(or 16)str and be decently armored, while also getting a +4(or +3) to hit and to damage with his natural attacks. Where a dex and unarmored sorcerer is guided to ranged weaponry and his natural attacks are obsolete. I don't recall, did they add dex to damage on ranged, or only to hit?

This got a bit longer than I planned but my opinion is: Baseline before runes, Expert unarmored in clothing and 20 Dex gains +1AC over a Fullplate with 18(or 16 if mithral). If not mithral, the character takes a 5ft movement penalty but gains +3 reflex save vs aoe effects. Pros to the heavy armor build is more accurate and stronger melee, supplemented by buffing spells. The alternative is a more accurate rangeds without the damage gain, supplemented by buffing spells.

Downside to the heavy build, 3 out of 5 general feats spent on 1 out of 19 general feats that aren't skill feats.
Upside, aesthetical and rp impact that few general feats can match. A wizard/sorcerer could grab a shield and use raise it after casting a spell, mending the shield during combat for extended damage sponging.

I personally hope that the +1AC from trained>expert proficiency isn't as important as people make it out to be. It'd be a shame if not optimizing for +1AC could get a player killed. Imagine if he delayed that +1 rune for a single level, his armor would be obsolete!


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Reading this thread, everything here seems to be less about player agency and more about Pathfinder sticking to a class-based system, which automatically assumes different classes should be better at or easier to build for certain roles


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It was hammered by everyone that every point matters for the entire playtest, and it does given that it's an extra 5% chance of getting hit by a crit.

Also I dont get why people aren't complaining about this plainly obvious feat tax. Its 3 feats to get the priviledge of being worse at something everyone should be able to do by that level.
Aka get expert in armor.

Silver Crusade

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Temperans wrote:
It was hammered by everyone that every point matters for the entire playtest, and it does given that it's an extra 5% chance of getting hit by a crit.

Every point matters =/= unplayable if you don't have all those points

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Baby Samurai wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Players should also get some degree of reward for system mastery. I think Paizo does as well, that's why they changed the system. When WoTC built the foundation for 3.5, optimization wasn't really a thing and WotC didn't anticipate the problems that would arise.
3.0 had plenty, haste abuse, crunching crit ranges (15-20, maybe even lower), and you have some really funky splat action (Arms & Equipment Guide is classic).

I think my record for crit range was 7-20. (Original printing of bladed gauntlet, base 17-20; keen and Improved Critical for 9-20; weapon master prestige class increases by 2 for 7-20.) If I recall, the A&EG actually nerfed the bladed gauntlet (for obvious reasons).

The armor special ability that granted constant haste (extra partial action each turn and +4 AC) for a +3 equivalent cost was also a classic.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Players should also get some degree of reward for system mastery. I think Paizo does as well, that's why they changed the system. When WoTC built the foundation for 3.5, optimization wasn't really a thing and WotC didn't anticipate the problems that would arise.
3.0 had plenty, haste abuse, crunching crit ranges (15-20, maybe even lower), and you have some really funky splat action (Arms & Equipment Guide is classic).

I think my record for crit range was 7-20. (Original printing of bladed gauntlet, base 17-20; keen and Improved Critical for 9-20; weapon master prestige class increases by 2 for 7-20.) If I recall, the A&EG actually nerfed the bladed gauntlet (for obvious reasons).

The armor special ability that granted constant haste (extra partial action each turn and +4 AC) for a +3 equivalent cost was also a classic.

Meanness!

But then i did play a Frenzied Berserker. Twice. :3


NemoNoName wrote:


And if you are powergaming, you will not even consider building a Heavy Armour Wizard, even with getting Expert proficiency, because you have to invest huge resources into getting at best nothing.

Except for the flexibility of wearing different magical armours?

I gave an example before and I will stick with it as it will become more and more pertinent the longer PF2e is out.

A bard would be better off dropping their dex, getting better mental stats and spending a general feat to get medium proficiency so they can get breastplate of command (or greater command) than just getting that equal AC value at 16dex or two less at 20.

And can I mention again how a +1, +2, +3 or even +4 to a lesser extent in a stat is a WAYYYYYYYY lower investment than a +5.

A wizard isn't getting a 20 until level 15 anyway. This talk about a -2AC at 13 just isn't true.
And sure someone may want to go with a 16 as their second highest stat at level 1 and keep boosting it, but again that is a bigger investment than getting to a +3 or +4 in a score.

(remember ability boosting equipment doesn't come into play until ~17)

And what wizard chooses to be in heavy armour AND buff their dex that much?

Hey grab a suit of Mithril full plate to reduce that strength check down .

We aren't talking about armour proficiency being weaker than the expert unarmoured anymore, we are talking about it being damn near equal or better depending on ability score values.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
NemoNoName wrote:


And if you are powergaming, you will not even consider building a Heavy Armour Wizard, even with getting Expert proficiency, because you have to invest huge resources into getting at best nothing.

Except for the flexibility of wearing different magical armours?

I gave an example before and I will stick with it as it will become more and more pertinent the longer PF2e is out.

A bard would be better off dropping their dex, getting better mental stats and spending a general feat to get medium proficiency so they can get breastplate of command (or greater command) than just getting that equal AC value at 16dex or two less at 20.

And can I mention again how a +1, +2, +3 or even +4 to a lesser extent in a stat is a WAYYYYYYYY lower investment than a +5.

A wizard isn't getting a 20 until level 15 anyway. This talk about a -2AC at 13 just isn't true.
And sure someone may want to go with a 16 as their second highest stat at level 1 and keep boosting it, but again that is a bigger investment than getting to a +3 or +4 in a score.

(remember ability boosting equipment doesn't come into play until ~17)

And what wizard chooses to be in heavy armour AND buff their dex that much?

Hey grab a suit of Mithril full plate to reduce that strength check down .

We aren't talking about armour proficiency being weaker than the expert unarmoured anymore, we are talking about it being damn near equal or better depending on ability score values.

The irony here is that someone who is up in arms over a +1AC (Difference between base adventurer cloth+proficiency vs fullplate+proficiency at 13th level) is complaining about powergaming.

3 General feats is bit of a cost yeah, but that's what they're for to. It's preference too. I don't feel like spending a General feat on say, Breath Control, Diehard or Ride is as worth it and impactful. There's only 19 feats that aren't skill feats, which everyone gets a lot of, so the options for general feats only are pretty limited with current books.

Full plate penalties came up before, but a having 16str and getting mithral fullplate isn't that bad. And STR past 20 is still beneficial to hit, to damage, maneuvers, bulk, skills etc. Dex pas 20 isn't applied to AC anymore, as even unarmored clothing and bracers of armor cap at +5 dex to AC. Dex isn't applied to ranged damage, and a caster is much better off using cantrips for ranged attacks than a crossbow/bow he has no fancy moves for, so dex isn't that much of a "must have". Personally I like that this is even possible. There's two ways to get a pure caster in full armor now. Before it was much more restrictive due to both having to get proficiency, and a way to negate spell failure.

Best alternative to a 3-general feat combo I can think of is Diehard, Fast Recovery and Toughness for a sponge. But that's not as impactful, you just heal a bit faster and got a bit more hp. Two general feats that aren't skill are locked behind legendary skills, another behind master in perception, one behind 16 charisma, one behind 14 con and 14 dex. The options aren't that massive that heavy armor is a super heavy feat tax instead of a cost for a feature.

Of course, the biggest difference is the fact that it's much easier to not get and deal with full-plate, but that goes for any class that wants to use it, regardless of proficiencies.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder is still a class-based system. There will be limits to customization, and a bias towards certain class roles, because that's the nature of class-based systems.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

(Classes didn't have so much bias for combat roles before, but meh some people will talk about all this bad feat taxes and math fixes, while applauding feat taxes and math fixes)

* btw I'm talking in general not necessarily about people in this thread.

51 to 100 of 255 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Has player agency taken a hit? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.