| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question that i believe will arise in other players tables as well:
If, let's say, my Wizard goes for Weapon Training feat, becoming trained in all simple weapons. Let's say i get it a second time, and become trained in all martial weapons.
Now at lvl 20, i have:
Trained in Simple
Trained in Martial
Expert in club, crossbow, dagger, heavy crossbow, and staff.
And with Weapon Specialization, i do extra damage, but only with club, crossbow, dagger, heavy crossbow and staff.
Is this correct? Doesnt the Weapon Training feat becomes obsolete really fast if your class does not give progression to the weapon you are learning to use?
To make matters worse: Let's say you are a Paladin, and your god use an uncommon advanced weapon. With Deific Weapon he gains acess to it. But Weapon Expertise at level 5, and Weapon Mastery at level 13, both does not increase the proficiency for Advanced Weapons. So you become a paladin that should not use your god's weapon.
Is this working as intended? It seems to me that the increases in proficiency given by class should happen as well to all armors/weapons you learn to use by feats. Else they are useless after level 4. Or i am failing to see something?
Thank you all in advance for the help.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have everything correct by RAW as far as I can tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have everything correct by RAW as far as I can tell.
It seems like the system is broken if played this way. =X
I don't want to be too much critical, because i know the designers put alot of effort into this, and they must have a reason, i just can't see what it is right now.
For example, making a paladin unable to be efficient with his god weapon by level 5 seems pretty bad.
Also, making a Wizard that invest in a feat to use a weapon becomes progressively worse in its use also seems contraty to the whole idea of the scaling of the system.
The same happens for armor. It feels really strange that choices that work nicely at low level starts to fall behind so fast, even more when said choices are not really a power gain over the standard ones for the class.
I would like to understand why this choice of design. I feel like this needs extra content to work better.
They haven't started making Class Archetypes yet. Unlike Multiclass Archetypes, they will be able to alter static class features like adding weapons to your class list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a Gods weapon should be considered Martial for a Champion?
If I remember correctly (at work, no book to hand) being an Elf with Elven Weapon Familiarity makes the advanced weapons martial ones for you...
So something like this.
Yes it does for elves, dwarves, etc... Not for paladins taking a weapon they are not heritage tied with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a Gods weapon should be considered Martial for a Champion?
If I remember correctly (at work, no book to hand) being an Elf with Elven Weapon Familiarity makes the advanced weapons martial ones for you...
So something like this.
This problem could be solved simply by the creation of 2 general feats or the change on the weapon expertise and weapon mastery abilities on the classes.
A whole archetype just to enable a wizard to use a greataxe seems overkill. This is much more the territory of a feat, be general or class one.
Taking an entire multiclass just for it is also totally overkill IMO.
It should be something simple. There is not a big gain, even for armors, to be able to use a different one, with enough investment, then the class normally uses. Why restrict it that much?
It is so restricted that the Paladin class is broken because of that. (Broken because it is possible for a paladin to not progress on the proficiency with the weapon of his god.)
It should be something simple. There is not a big gain, even for armors, to be able to use a different one, with enough investment, then the class normally uses. Why restrict it that much?
If gaining high proficiencies in weapons and armor was as easy as picking a single general feat, pretty much everyone would do it.
Class feats are much more valuable than general feats. I don't think two class feats to become expert in all martial weapons or all types of armor is asking too much.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is pretty obvious to me now, with all these threads on proficiencies, that a strong design goal for this new game was giving each class a strong identity and ensuring Casters would not compete with Martials on their home turf. Which definitely includes Armor and Weapon proficiencies.
I am now convinced that the devs knowingly erred on the very conservative side when making these proficiencies available out of class. Likely because it is easier to open and control new possibilities later on than to put the genie back in the bottle.
Considering the great number of these threads I am sure that all this also appeared in the later in-house playtest Paizo kept on doing after putting the final touches to the CRB.
I now think it extremely likely that we will see options opening out of class Armor and Weapon proficiencies in coming months, probably in the APG. Maybe it will be feats or archetypes or something else. I am certain they will give it to us sooner rather than later but under tight control. So that the main goal of strong class identity is not put at risk.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no point in these discussions. When people say things like this:
If gaining high proficiencies in weapons and armor was as easy as picking a single general feat, pretty much everyone would do it.
Note: Expert proficiency at 11th level for weapons / 13th level for armour, which is gained anyway for some weapons, is now a "high" proficiency. "Everyone" will do it because this is sooooo powerful.
...ensuring Casters would not compete with Martials on their home turf.
Note: Getting Expert proficiency in some additional weapons or armour is now competitive with martials classes apparently.
There is nothing you could possibly say to people who think these are reasonable, logical arguments to make.
There is no point in these discussions. When people say things like this:
If gaining high proficiencies in weapons and armor was as easy as picking a single general feat, pretty much everyone would do it.Note: Expert proficiency at 11th level for weapons / 13th level for armour, which is gained anyway for some weapons, is now a "high" proficiency. "Everyone" will do it because this is sooooo powerful.
That small font between the quotes makes your post very hard to read. At first I thought some quote formatting was messed up and was trying to find out where anyone had written this.
It's not about expert proficiency being strong. In fact, I'd say it's the baseline proficiency, since everyone becomes expert at everything their class has to offer.
It's about having superior equipment choices being strong. Of course everyone becomes expert at some weapon by level 11. But no matter how you look at it, expert proficiency with Longbows and Greatswords is much stronger than the Wizard's expert proficiency with daggers and crossbows.
And it's not that it's impossible to acquire (because it totally is via fighter multiclassing). The price is two class feats (and having 14 Str and dex which is trivial for most characters by the time the feat becomes avilable). Alternatively, most races can become expert in some weapons from ancestry feats alone. It's just a matter of being willing to pay the price.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That small font between the quotes makes your post very hard to read. At first I thought some quote formatting was messed up and was trying to find out where anyone had written this.
For me it barely reduces it a bit. I wanted to use it as a way to focus on the end point.
It's not about expert proficiency being strong. In fact, I'd say it's the baseline proficiency, since everyone becomes expert at everything their class has to offer.
It is baseline proficiency, yes. And nobody is asking for additional free proficiency. It's all paid by the general feats.
It's about having superior equipment choices being strong. Of course everyone becomes expert at some weapon by level 11. But no matter how you look at it, expert proficiency with Longbows and Greatswords is much stronger than the Wizard's expert proficiency with daggers and crossbows.
Please. They are stronger, but barely. One general feat should be more than enough; wizards would have to spend 2 feats to get them.
And it's not that it's impossible to acquire (because it totally is via fighter multiclassing). The price is two class feats (and having 14 Str and dex which is trivial for most characters by the time the feat becomes avilable).
There are multiple problems with this approach:
* Expert proficiency in weapons is not worth 2 class feats, not even close* you require spending 3 class feats if you ever want to get another archetype
* RP doesn't call for a Wizard who is also a Fighter; they are just a Wizard which uses one or two non-Gary-Gygax-Wizard-standard weapons. I guess Gandalf multiclassed at some point into Fighter...
Why are all of you naysayers constantly reducing Figther to their proficiency with weapons? Main strength of the Fighter is in all of the feats they get to leverage their weaponry, NOT in their access to Expert proficiency with weapons.
Furthermore, what if I want to multiclass my Sorcerer into Barbarian? I guess no Greataxe for me!
Alternatively, most races can become expert in some weapons from ancestry feats alone. It's just a matter of being willing to pay the price.
THIS. IS. NOT. AN. ANSWER. I've played AD&D, and I hoped this was done. That is suggesting pure powergaming.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no point in these discussions. When people say things like this:
If gaining high proficiencies in weapons and armor was as easy as picking a single general feat, pretty much everyone would do it.Note: Expert proficiency at 11th level for weapons / 13th level for armour, which is gained anyway for some weapons, is now a "high" proficiency. "Everyone" will do it because this is sooooo powerful.
...ensuring Casters would not compete with Martials on their home turf.Note: Getting Expert proficiency in some additional weapons or armour is now competitive with martials classes apparently.
There is nothing you could possibly say to people who think these are reasonable, logical arguments to make.
Just to be clear. I was not making any kind of argument, nor was I defending the current state of proficiencies for casters. Far from it.
I was just stating what are IMO 2 of the design decisions that had a strong impact on this matter and why the devs have likely gone this way.
FWIW I mostly agree with you but I have not enough understanding of the PF2 engine to try and adjust gaining proficiencies on my own for fear of unexpected consequences.
In the end, in the devs I trust.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is pretty obvious to me now, with all these threads on proficiencies, that a strong design goal for this new game was giving each class a strong identity and ensuring Casters would not compete with Martials on their home turf. Which definitely includes Armor and Weapon proficiencies.
I am now convinced that the devs knowingly erred on the very conservative side when making these proficiencies available out of class. Likely because it is easier to open and control new possibilities later on than to put the genie back in the bottle.
Considering the great number of these threads I am sure that all this also appeared in the later in-house playtest Paizo kept on doing after putting the final touches to the CRB.
I now think it extremely likely that we will see options opening out of class Armor and Weapon proficiencies in coming months, probably in the APG. Maybe it will be feats or archetypes or something else. I am certain they will give it to us sooner rather than later but under tight control. So that the main goal of strong class identity is not put at risk.
Makes no sense.
If that was the case it would be true for lvl 1 or lvl 15.Right now, your Wizard can use full plate armor from low level till lvl 13 and be ok. And then at 13+ it is not viable anymore.
Same for weapons. You can go from level 1 to 4 with only using 1 general feat, then suddenly it becomes a bad option by level 5.
Either allow some way to progress without picking multiclass, or do not allow it at low level. It makes no sense otherwise, and is why everyone is complaining.
And no, 2+ class feats to enable you to use another kind of weapon or armor, when it has none or very minor mechanic gains is pretty bad choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely going to be a popular house rule to have those general feats add your selection to your class's advancement group.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an investor in companies that manufacture medications for high blood pressure and stroke, I'm a big fan of Paizo's approach to expert proficiency on out of class weapons so far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does there need to be yet another thread on this? There are lots already :
One on armour
One on mutagenic alchemists
One on sorcerer unarmed
The “player agency” one I think brings it up a lot
They are mostly saying the same thing. I am not sure flooding the boards with very similar threads is the best approach to trying to get a change. But perhaps it is I don’t know how the developers think about these things
As Raven Black pointed out - this clearly seems like deliberate design intent whether one agrees or disagrees
My guess for “fixes” in order of likelihood/ priority :
- archetypes such as hell knight , weapon master, armour master , perhaps even weapon specific ones (I assume aldori swordlord advances proficiency but it might not )
- new general feats for “weapon expert” and “armour expert”
Way way down the list would be the scaling of the initial general feats. There are already scaling general feats (or at least the one based on saves, perception etc) and some other feats scale too. So it was not an oversight that these didn’t scale
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does there need to be yet another thread on this? There are lots already :
One on armour
One on mutagenic alchemists
One on sorcerer unarmed
The “player agency” one I think brings it up a lotThey are mostly saying the same thing. I am not sure flooding the boards with very similar threads is the best approach to trying to get a change. But perhaps it is I don’t know how the developers think about these things
First, my post pointed at the inconsistency of the current rule system, and how the same problem happens on many different cases, showing that it was not a small specific problem, different from other threads that focus on a specific issue, like you pointed.
As Raven Black pointed out - this clearly seems like deliberate design intent whether one agrees or disagrees
The problem is the lack of consistency. If it was a deliberate design intent, why allow armors outside of your class o work for 12 levels and then break at 13? Why allow weapons to work till level 5? Why make a feature to keep paladins decent with their god's favored weapon but allow some weapons to be made useless if they are your god favored ones? See the problem?
It would be design intent if it was consistent. What i am looking for is why this choices were made.
My guess for “fixes” in order of likelihood/ priority :- archetypes such as hell knight , weapon master, armour master , perhaps even weapon specific ones (I assume aldori swordlord advances proficiency but it might not )
Bad idea, forcing you to pick an archetype just to use one weapon or armor that gives very little or no mechanical advantage is not a good solution. You will be forcing archetype choices in a non rewarding way.
- new general feats for “weapon expert” and “armour expert”
Those would be ok.
Way way down the list would be the scaling of the initial general feats. There are already scaling general feats (or at least the one based on saves, perception etc) and some other feats scale too. So it was not an oversight that these didn’t scale
Or it was.
But i agree that general feats would be a much better fix for the issue.Either that or just add it to the proficiency feats we already have.
Yet you need to ERRATA the Paladin ability to always allow him to scale with his god favored weapon.
Does there need to be yet another thread on this? There are lots already :
One on armour
One on mutagenic alchemists
One on sorcerer unarmed
The “player agency” one I think brings it up a lotThey are mostly saying the same thing. I am not sure flooding the boards with very similar threads is the best approach to trying to get a change. But perhaps it is I don’t know how the developers think about these things
First, my post pointed at the inconsistency of the current rule system, and how the same problem happens on many different cases, showing that it was not a small specific problem, different from other threads that focus on a specific issue, like you pointed.
As Raven Black pointed out - this clearly seems like deliberate design intent whether one agrees or disagreesThe problem is the lack of consistency. If it was a deliberate design intent, why allow armors outside of your class o work for 12 levels and then break at 13? Why allow weapons to work till level 5? Why make a feature to keep paladins decent with their god's favored weapon but allow some weapons to be made useless if they are your god favored ones? See the problem?
It would be design intent if it was consistent. What i am looking for is why this choices were made.
My guess for “fixes” in order of likelihood/ priority :- archetypes such as hell knight , weapon master, armour master , perhaps even weapon specific ones (I assume aldori swordlord advances proficiency but it might not )
Bad idea, forcing you to pick an archetype just to use one weapon or armor that gives very little or no mechanical advantage is not a good solution. You will be forcing archetype choices in a non rewarding way.
- new general feats for “weapon expert” and “armour expert”Those would be ok.
...
Way way down the list would be the scaling of the initial general feats. There are already
But whether it “breaks” is debatable. You don’t stop getting access to the armour or weapon or the trainer proficiency bonus at the levels you mention. You just don’t get an extra +2. It is not as good but it still works. Which is why my position is that they were not intended to scale
The paladin point does seem to be a slip up especially if warpriest advances (not sure on this)
I put likelihood / priority because the archetypes are coming and probably will have proficiencies. For example I struggle to see a Hell knight with no armour boost. But I don’t think they will be the only option in the end. Just the first as Hell knight and sword Lord are out this month / early next
The general feats sound like an APG thing because like as not “going against type” whether you agree or not on what the “type” is (in this case proficiency) could easily be considered a step advance players make
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I want to know is why there aren't more threads in the opposite direction. If casters getting the same Expert proficiency in the weapons or armor they spent a feat or two for that they already have in their class-granted weapons or armor is such a dire infringement of what the martial classes are supposed to be about, then why aren't there more threads about how broken the early part of the game is? Why aren't there threads about how pointless it is to play a martial prior to high level, where they finally get to stretch their class-granted proficiencies further than casters can keep up (but only with the weapons and armor that the casters spent feats on; the weapons and armor that casters get as a part of their class apparently don't infringe on martial territory... somehow)?
What I want to know is why there aren't more threads in the opposite direction. If casters getting the same Expert proficiency in the weapons or armor they spent a feat or two for that they already have in their class-granted weapons or armor is such a dire infringement of what the martial classes are supposed to be about, then why aren't there more threads about how broken the early part of the game is? Why aren't there threads about how pointless it is to play a martial prior to high level, where they finally get to stretch their class-granted proficiencies further than casters can keep up (but only with the weapons and armor that the casters spent feats on; the weapons and armor that casters get as a part of their class apparently don't infringe on martial territory... somehow)?
This is another very good point.
Since there are half a dozen threads about the same topic, I will try to to make a wild guess.
If this was fully intended by Paizo, maybe someone (Mark?) would have stepped in to say: "Hey, that's all fine, we made this choice because [a good explanation]!"
But this hasn't happened, yet, and while I know that a developer's post is never guaranteed, I'm starting to think that maybe (hopefully, IMO) they are working on an errata that doesn't devalue other feats (for example, the lvl 14 Paladin multiclass one).
|
|
In that case they better nerf the ancestral weapon familiarity and unconventional weaponry feats because those actually scale in a useful way. One feat gives you access to new better weapons which scale with your other proficiencies for everyone except wizards. The level 13 "upgrade" doesn't actually do anything unless you are a wizard or spend a general feat on weapon proficiency.It is pretty obvious to me now, with all these threads on proficiencies, that a strong design goal for this new game was giving each class a strong identity and ensuring Casters would not compete with Martials on their home turf. Which definitely includes Armor and Weapon proficiencies.
I am now convinced that the devs knowingly erred on the very conservative side when making these proficiencies available out of class. Likely because it is easier to open and control new possibilities later on than to put the genie back in the bottle.
Considering the great number of these threads I am sure that all this also appeared in the later in-house playtest Paizo kept on doing after putting the final touches to the CRB.
I now think it extremely likely that we will see options opening out of class Armor and Weapon proficiencies in coming months, probably in the APG. Maybe it will be feats or archetypes or something else. I am certain they will give it to us sooner rather than later but under tight control. So that the main goal of strong class identity is not put at risk.
I do not know enough about those feats and about the weapons they deal with to give a good answer. Maybe they are easier to keep under control ?
|
|
What I want to know is why there aren't more threads in the opposite direction. If casters getting the same Expert proficiency in the weapons or armor they spent a feat or two for that they already have in their class-granted weapons or armor is such a dire infringement of what the martial classes are supposed to be about, then why aren't there more threads about how broken the early part of the game is? Why aren't there threads about how pointless it is to play a martial prior to high level, where they finally get to stretch their class-granted proficiencies further than casters can keep up (but only with the weapons and armor that the casters spent feats on; the weapons and armor that casters get as a part of their class apparently don't infringe on martial territory... somehow)?This is another very good point.
Since there are half a dozen threads about the same topic, I will try to to make a wild guess.
If this was fully intended by Paizo, maybe someone (Mark?) would have stepped in to say: "Hey, that's all fine, we made this choice because [a good explanation]!"
But this hasn't happened, yet, and while I know that a developer's post is never guaranteed, I'm starting to think that maybe (hopefully, IMO) they are working on an errata that doesn't devalue other feats (for example, the lvl 14 Paladin multiclass one).
I think a new option to the same result is more likely than an errata.
I do not expect Paizo to have omniscient understanding of all the consequences of their design choices. They might consider they went too far in a direction in the CRB and provides later options that open more balanced possibilities without having to errata the CRB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about expert proficiency being strong. In fact, I'd say it's the baseline proficiency, since everyone becomes expert at everything their class has to offer.
Right.
It's about having superior equipment choices being strong. Of course everyone becomes expert at some weapon by level 11. But no matter how you look at it, expert proficiency with Longbows and Greatswords is much stronger than the Wizard's expert proficiency with daggers and crossbows.
The Wizard in this scenario has to take the General Feat, not once, but Twice, and they would get "Expert Proficiency" at level 11* when the rest of their Class Weapons would also increase (or 13*, depending on where you want to draw the line in the sand). You know, two tiers behind the Fighter and one tier behind everyone else.
NOt "everyone is gonna do this" because not everyone can benefit from it. Period. General Feats can get you any Skill Feat, Shield Block, Increase investment on armor, Toughness is actually decent especially for Dwarves now, etc.
"everyone" wouldn't take it, in fact I'd wager most wouldn't because Armor/Weapons are more flavor than objectively stronger (except Advanced Weapons, which don't apply here anyways).
And it's not that it's impossible to acquire (because it totally is via fighter multiclassing).
I really wish people would stop saying this. It's not a sound argument for a lot of reasons.
Forcing people to take MCD just to get a Weapon/Armor of choice not only forces people to play concepts they otherwise didn't even want to play (like a Champion Sorcerer, where you just forsake the vows and use the armor cuz hey no penalties) just so you can get the right Proficiency.
They're supposed to be supplementing the concept of merging two classes together not "I want to use a weapon not on my class list".
The fact that the MCD for Fighter/Paladin only grant Proficiency is part of the problem.
And it doesn't even address the fact of when a Wizard(or anyone with mixed proficiency) wants to MCD into something not Fighter/Champion (like Barbarian or Ranger) which does nothing to help them at all.
The sheer number of threads regarding this proficiency issue and how many people actually dislike it should be a red flag, not #workingAsIntended
Look at the number of threads that have cropped up for the problem. Some are only tangentially calling it out (like the Mutagen alchemist thread) but the writing is on the wall.
Patch it with whatever you want, but the General Feats are trash once you reach Expert in your base list.
What I want to know is why there aren't more threads in the opposite direction. If casters getting the same Expert proficiency in the weapons or armor they spent a feat or two for that they already have in their class-granted weapons or armor is such a dire infringement of what the martial classes are supposed to be about, then why aren't there more threads about how broken the early part of the game is?
Because the only people that are even arguing against it are the ones that are firmly in the camp of "Paizo could never make a mistake".
Even though the changes that caused this "mistake" were implemented after the playtest so it's totally plausible they just didn't account for the General Feats.
More likely, I do believe it was intentional and they just figured "it's an edge case that won't apply to most people and putting something in the 'everyone' basket is too hard to balance".
I do not believe the progression with Advanced Weapons is an over sight. Fighters only get Advanced weapons to master and at a later level. I think there is a class feat you may be able to take as fighter to get Advanced weapons to Legendary. So picking a God with their favored weapon is an Advanced weapon may not be the way to go if you are Paladin. I have softened some on this stance. Class feats really are what seperate you.
I will say this. I do not get why so many think it is horrible and broken to be expert with weapon at 11 or 13. In essence that is 11+4 and 13+4 then stat bonus. Why is this so horrible. The fighters progression is on the extreme optimal end with most martials getting master. Also let’s be honest. How many Wizards are going to charge the Fire Giant with there great sword instead of cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe the progression with Advanced Weapons is an over sight. Fighters only get Advanced weapons to master and at a later level. I think there is a class feat you may be able to take as fighter to get Advanced weapons to Legendary. So picking a God with their favored weapon is an Advanced weapon may not be the way to go if you are Paladin. I have softened some on this stance. Class feats really are what seperate you.
I will say this. I do not get why so many think it is horrible and broken to be expert with weapon at 11 or 13. In essence that is 11+4 and 13+4 then stat bonus. Why is this so horrible. The fighters progression is on the extreme optimal end with most martials getting master. Also let’s be honest. How many Wizards are going to charge the Fire Giant with there great sword instead of cast.
You failed to understand the problem.
The Wizard with a greatsword will never get better then TRAINED with it.
He never gets to expert or anything. He is trained at level 1, and trained at level 20. That is the problem. It is not consistent with the system as a whole. (Also it feels broken)
It also may be that not all Mutliclass choices are the best. If you want to improve a proficiency in weapons fighter. Armor is the Champion thing. So there should not be the expectation of multi classing into barbarian and ranger and improving those things.
If that is what you want expert is not problem. That is an easy house rule. Allow the player to have expert in Greatswords. I think some of this can also be tied to the idea that class feats are important. If I have proficiency in something that is nice. Where you shine is proficiency plus class feats. So that may be why classes are capped at certain proficiency with weapons because with out the class feats to go with it. It is not an effective way to attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that is what you want expert is not problem. That is an easy house rule.
That is the only problem here. =D
When the Wizard gains expert on weapon/armor it should get for all weapons and armor you got via feats, or else it makes such feats useless, and break your character.
Let's say you make a Wizard that uses full plate and Axe at low level.
Then as you level up you get better with a Crossbow and unarmored then you get at the gear you trained to use and used the whole time.
It breaks immersion, but it is not even the worse problem. It is a restriction that makes no sense because getting the different weapon/armor costs feats and are not really numerically much superior to the standard choices, so it makes no sense that it does not scale.
Are you able to where full plate as wizard? Also trained does scale. It is level plus 2. So based on the armor you are wearing and weapon it may be better choice. Then once again. Is that what wizard is doing the majority of time charging into battle with the plate and attacking with the Greatsword or casting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you able to where full plate as wizard? Also trained does scale. It is level plus 2. So based on the armor you are wearing and weapon it may be better choice. Then once again. Is that what wizard is doing the majority of time charging into battle with the plate and attacking with the Greatsword or casting.
Trained once you have Expert in another option is a downgrade every time.
It doesn't even really matter what the comparison is, a +2 difference in this edition means you fail level appropriate tasks 10% more often than you otherwise would.
So yes it matters.
I am also fine with all weapons and armor to expert. I think the design choices tied back into class feats and if you did not have them there is not much point in attacking with them. The class weapon and armor are what are typically associated with classes and why I think the choices are the way they are.
Yes I agree it is a downgrade. I just think it is an international design choice to not have casters succeed allot in things such as melee task. I do not think the designers felt it was a level appropriate task for casters to be doing allot of melee attacks without the class feats because it is not an effective way to attack. Casting is.
Are you able to where full plate as wizard? Also trained does scale. It is level plus 2. So based on the armor you are wearing and weapon it may be better choice. Then once again. Is that what wizard is doing the majority of time charging into battle with the plate and attacking with the Greatsword or casting.
Where did you read the trained scale?
If you use a General Feat to be trained in a new weapon or armor, it will not scale proficiency when your class scale for the class weapons/armors, that is the problem. You will forever be only TRAINED, from level 1 to 20.
Also, i dont know where you are taking this "level plus 2" thing. =X
And about the Wizard charging in battle with a Greatsword, well talk that to old man Gandalf, dual wielding Staff + Longsword. =D
But anyway, the problem is the lack of consistency. You can argue the same for an class, be it a rogue, or a wizard or a bard.
And i can see many reasons for a Wizard to use plate armor and martial weapons. A noble that was taken as apprentice of a powerful wizard, on a low magic setting, that hides his magical powers and goes to war in plate, shield and long sword, riding his horse.
Or a Wizard that is specialist in hunting down other wizards using Anti-Magic Field and counterspelling. He serves the god of magic hunting down those who uses magic in frivolous and evil ways, being bound by oath to never use magic when not necessary, thus using armor and weapon to deal with mundane things, but also never striving away from the path of a pure wizard, because of his devotion to magic.
See? And this is only thinking about it for like 1 minute. Many more and better characters could be made with the concept of a pure Wizard using plate and sword.
Maybe Plate armor is sacred to his people, or his faith, or he just like how they look! Whatever. What does not make sense is that you are TRAINED and as GOOD AS MOST MELEE on it at low level, and then as you level up it does not keep up as it should. That makes no sense mechanically and thematically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I agree it is a downgrade. I just think it is an international design choice to not have casters succeed allot in things such as melee task. I do not think the designers felt it was a level appropriate task for casters to be doing allot of melee attacks without the class feats because it is not an effective way to attack. Casting is.
Wrong.
If it was a design choice, why would Wizards at lvl 4 with the correct feats be as good as a Champion?
At level 5 Champion gets Expert in Martial Weapons.
At level 11 Wizards gets Expert in club, crossbow, dagger, heavy crossbow and staff. BUT NOT ON ANY OTHER WEAPON YOU GOT TRAINED WITH BY USE OF FEATS.
That is the problem here. You use a feat to train into a new kind of weapon, and as you level up, other weapons that you do not use scale, but your weapon of choice does not.
I do not know enough about those feats and about the weapons they deal with to give a good answer. Maybe they are easier to keep under control ?[QUOTE="The Raven Black
In that case they better nerf the ancestral weapon familiarity and unconventional weaponry feats because those actually scale in a useful way. One feat gives you access to new better weapons which scale with your other proficiencies for everyone except wizards. The level 13 "upgrade" doesn't actually do anything unless you are a wizard or spend a general feat on weapon proficiency.
Dang you caught me. I was making a snarky comment then decided not to stir the pot and went back to delete it too late.
The extra control is that there are limited weapons with the ancestory tag. Though that does make it a little odd where for example an elven sorcorrer will be trained in longsowrds but their proficiency with the elven curved blade will scale to expert since they treat it as a simple weapon
The challenge with concern over weapon proficiencies is that every race has access to scaling ancestry weapons, either naturally or by adoption. Do these then become almost worthless as anyone through general feats can get there with the same effort or less? You don't have to use a fighter MCD to get there, but you can if you want all martial weapons.
Yes, it's fun sometimes to play against type. However, this means ignoring many other elements of the game which assume you will be playing on type. If your wizard is a plate wearing fool, you won't be wearing magic robes which are designed to heighten their abilities. You'll be wearing armor designed to heighten martial prowess. Good on you if that's what you want.
The same is true for weapons. The game (as it always has since Advanced D&D edition) expects that as a caster you will want magic wands and staves. While you can get benefit out of magic weapons, will you have the class feats to fully take advantage of those expectations? Not likely.
It's up to you to play the game you want. Talk with your GM if it bothers you. I'm curious to see if there are any Errata changes on this and armor in particular since so many forum users are talking about it.
However, just because you see Gandalf using a long sword, doesn't mean his proficiency is anything better than trained. He uses it like twice, and hurts goblins with it? That's not a demonstration of prowess, but rather necessity. Our boy G doesn't know any offensive cantrips. What else is he supposed to do?
I suspect that Weapon Proficiency and Armor Proficiency feats are designed as options of necessity and opportunity, not intention. I don't think there is an anticipation of more than 1 feat in those lines being taken, let alone 3. Sure you can do it, but more than one of either seems to take away from what your class intends to teach you.
Your treasure hoard appears. There is an Oathbow that your sorcerer decides she would like to wield, so becomes trained to use the nifty bow she normally couldn't. If she's an elf or "adopted elf" then she can improve natively thanks to all of their cultural expectation of bow and swordplay. If not, she'll never be great at it, but can still use it reasonably well.
Why would a Wizard spend months training to become good at all Martial weapons, not before level 7 unless human? Is it really an integral part of his vocation if he can't even use it with any skill until 1/3 or 1/2 of the way through his profession? Would her school spend much effort on the beginning lessons for these weapons which take away from her studies? Maybe 1 or 2 students in each class then?
Unless there was a cultural reason for it, they wouldn't. The education systems in place would quickly learn that you could train more "wizardy" wizards if they focus their education on class specific things and maybe extracurricular activities to round out their weaknesses.
In other words, if you go 2 or 3 feats deep into a training route, it's not an extracurricular field of study anymore. It's at least a Minor, and at most a second Major in school. Can you do that? Of course you can. Should you do that? That's up to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it's fun sometimes to play against type. However, this means ignoring many other elements of the game which assume you will be playing on type. If your wizard is a plate wearing fool, you won't be wearing magic robes which are designed to heighten their abilities. You'll be wearing armor designed to heighten martial prowess. Good on you if that's what you want.
The same is true for weapons. The game (as it always has since 3rd edition) expects that as a caster you will want magic wands and staves. While you can get benefit out of magic weapons, will you have the class feats to fully take advantage of those expectations? Not likely.
There is good plates for a Wizard to use, specially if you care about defense or sometimes helping allies.
Weapons are not as good as staves on PF 2E, but they scale as well as your cantrips if you do the math. Hell, in fact a crossbow is very competitive with the cantrips that we have right now at late levels.
It's up to you to play the game you want. Talk with your GM if it bothers you. I'm curious to see if there are any Errata changes on this and armor in particular since so many forum users are talking about it.
I am a RAW abiding guy. I care about what is written. =D
However, just because you see Gandalf using a long sword, doesn't mean his proficiency is anything better than trained. He uses it like twice, and hurts goblins with it? That's not a demonstration of prowess, but rather necessity. Our boy G doesn't know any offensive cantrips. What else is he supposed to do?
Not in fact. Gandalf shows high skill with the sword both in the movies and in the books.
In fact Balrog, in the books, is defeated by Gandalf using his sword , so i am pretty sure he was very skillful with it. ;)
And i am pretty sure Balrog is not something you want to hold your spells against. He had Glamdring, a legendary sword, and he made good use of it.
Oh and he also fight orcs with the sword and win.
There is good plates for a Wizard to use, specially if you care about defense or sometimes helping allies.
That's a reasonable point, but whether or not there are good plate options for a support wizard doesn't change the fact that the gear wasn't designed for those archetypes. It will never be as streamlined in use as for a class it was planned for.
Weapons are not as good as staves on PF 2E, but they scale as well as your cantrips if you do the math. Hell, in fact a crossbow is very competitive with the cantrips that we have right now at late levels.
With no bonus to damage from modifier? Hmm, maybe but I doubt it fells like the magical savant that many people have in mind when playing an arcanist. I suspect that is why they made Cantrips more viable in P2. Reverting to a crossbow when you don't want to burn spell slots feels degrading for many Wizard players.
I am a RAW abiding guy. I care about what is written. =D
That's great, but then you are forgetting the First Rule of the CRB. You get to chose which rules to use as a group, and which to modify to tell the stories you like. That's why I said Talk to your GM, it's almost always the best answer.
Not in fact. Gandalf shows high skill with the sword both in the movies and in the books.
In fact Balrog, in the books, is defeated by Gandalf using his sword , so i am pretty sure he was very skillful with it. ;)
And i am pretty sure Balrog is not something you want to hold your spells against. He had Glamdring, a legendary sword, and he made good use of it.Oh and he also fight orcs with...
I see your point, he used it to disguise his Maiar heritage so it seems important. From a RPG class perspective it wasn't all that prominent. He did after all use a generic wooden rod to blend in with other mortal sorcerers. It does however grant imagery that defies the archetype, which makes it useful for many.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Another discussion that boils down to the following (flawed in my opinion) statement:
Option A isn't as good or better than another option, so Option A is trash/broken/worthless.
Not everything has to be the most optimal choice. Otherwise, choices would be meaningless. Your Pathfinder game will not come to a crashing halt if your character isn't good at everything.
Nothing to read here, this guy just dropped some serious knowledge!
After all, everyone here was asking to be good at everything! That was basically the whole argument!
Not that those feats are traps that will be taken by new Players who will then have to retrain in order to not lose a General Feat.
Not that it's bizarre that choosing to train in a weapon and using it your whole career is weird to be outclassed by your base list merely for reaching level 11 when you've never touched a Club.
Nope.
We were asking to be good at everything and now I see that was wrong and how ridiculous it was to point out the obvious flaws with a Feat that degrades in value as you level up.
Thanks for showing me the light.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not everything has to be the most optimal choice. Otherwise, choices would be meaningless.
So, what, the option needs to be bad in order to make you feel better about not taking it?
No, that's absolutely garbage game design. Choices can be meaningful by standing on their own merits as choices, not by hardcoding bad picks into the game.
If your wizard is a plate wearing fool
That's the problem though. They shouldn't be a 'fool' for wanting to experiment with a concept and actively investing (an extremely limited pool of) feats into trying to enable that concept.
I don't really understand this whole gleeful 'you deserve to suck' sort of mindset.