| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that's slightly baffled me is why sorcerers don't get master proficiency in any of their saves. Every other class does and I still can't puzzle out whether it was a mistake not giving them, say, master proficiency in will or if sorcs are just supposed to suck at their saves.
In the Character Sheet Pack, Sorcerer gains Master in Will Saves at 17th level (Resolve, as per Wizard + others)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No matter what, the general feat should not come online before the archetype/class feat.
That means the champ gets Expert armor at 14, so a general shouldn't give it until like 19. I can see maybe at like 15 since it only applies to one armor type. If allowed at 15, I would require expert in the previous armor type.
The fighter gets expert weapons at 12. I wouldn't grant any form of expert weapons general feat until 15.
Remember, they are burning a mid/high level CLASS feat and making an archetype choice.
No way anything should get expert prior that with a general feat and beat out a multiclass archetype character to it. Even if its for a single weapon.
I don't know about that. Again, the level 11 feat for one weapon can just be retrained at level 12 when you pick up the new and improved fighter multi-class feat. I maybe agree with you about armor proficiency improvements, though? I think that is more than worth it to avoid a situation where many builds more or less "need" to switch to a simple weapon for a several levels (potentially months of IRL play time).
The thing that's slightly baffled me is why sorcerers don't get master proficiency in any of their saves. Every other class does and I still can't puzzle out whether it was a mistake not giving them, say, master proficiency in will or if sorcs are just supposed to suck at their saves.In the Character Sheet Pack, Sorcerer gains Master in Will Saves at 17th level (Resolve, as per Wizard + others)
I wish them luck in trying to cram it onto page 194 without cutting meaningful rules text from anything else if the CRB is in error, a necessity for it to receive official errata some day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that also doesn't really jive with the sorcerer bloodlines where your demon magic is evil because demons are, but you aren't necessarily.
But isn't that just good story-telling and a common trope about people who receive powers from a demon/devil background?
Perhaps there could be some kind of Class Feat down the line that furthers the concept with some kind of "immunity", but "struggling not to succumb to the darkness of your powers" sounds like a lot of fun across both sides of the table if your GM is prepared to handle it in a less than binary way.
Then I suppose PFS doesn't work like that though.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not really a possibility for a 'struggling not to succumb' narrative if you aren't allowed to use the powers in the first place unless you've already succumb, which is what the evil tag on the powers currently does.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No matter what, the general feat should not come online before the archetype/class feat.
That means the champ gets Expert armor at 14, so a general shouldn't give it until like 19. I can see maybe at like 15 since it only applies to one armor type. If allowed at 15, I would require expert in the previous armor type.
The fighter gets expert weapons at 12. I wouldn't grant any form of expert weapons general feat until 15.
Remember, they are burning a mid/high level CLASS feat and making an archetype choice.
No way anything should get expert prior that with a general feat and beat out a multiclass archetype character to it. Even if its for a single weapon.
They don't hold to that rule within the CRB. An elven sorcerer who takes the level 1 weapon familiarity feat (and not the level 13 feat) will be an expert with the curved blade at level 11 since they consider it a simple weapon for proficiency. An elven rogue who took the same feat will be a master with at at level 13. And maybe that is intentional but it does seem strange that taking a single level one ancestry feat provides better scaling proficiency than the fighter archetype, even if it is only for a few weapons with the racial tag.
There's not really a possibility for a 'struggling not to succumb' narrative if you aren't allowed to use the powers in the first place unless you've already succumb, which is what the evil tag on the powers currently does.
Oh sorry, this was in response to PossibleCabbage's suggestion that it go back to "If you do this a bunch, you might turn evil" replacement of the outright restriction.
Apologies for the incomplete quote, I just try to keep my posts as compact as I can :S
They don't hold to that rule within the CRB. An elven sorcerer who takes the level 1 weapon familiarity feat (and not the level 13 feat) will be an expert with the curved blade at level 11 since they consider it a simple weapon for proficiency. An elven rogue who took the same feat will be a master with at at level 13. And maybe that is intentional but it does seem strange that taking a single level one ancestry feat provides better scaling proficiency than the fighter archetype, even if it is only for a few weapons with the racial tag.No matter what, the general feat should not come online before the archetype/class feat.
That means the champ gets Expert armor at 14, so a general shouldn't give it until like 19. I can see maybe at like 15 since it only applies to one armor type. If allowed at 15, I would require expert in the previous armor type.
The fighter gets expert weapons at 12. I wouldn't grant any form of expert weapons general feat until 15.
Remember, they are burning a mid/high level CLASS feat and making an archetype choice.
No way anything should get expert prior that with a general feat and beat out a multiclass archetype character to it. Even if its for a single weapon.
The racial weapons are super limited compared to the proposed general weapon expert proficiency feat. And no racial abilities that I see do anything similar for armor.
Even a feat giving expert weapon prof in ONE weapon of your choice is way more flexible than for a specific set of racial themed weapons.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm... I see the debate around non-scaling General Feat Armor/Weapon proficiency,
which has ranged from "they need to scale!" to "well maybe they really shouldn't exist in first place",
the latter perhaps recognizing intention where base class does matter and their toys should't be given out freely,
with e.g. many 'martial' classes only getting Master, Expert is really for "intermediate" martials not just anybody.
I would agree some of the corner cases with Class-based Unarmed / Deity weapons etc should be Errata'd,
but in terms of General Feats, I am coming around to thinking General Feat proficiency not-scaling is working as intended...
Mechanically it is rational niche to use heavy armor at low levels when your DEX is more limited,
and switch to lighter armor at higher levels when you've had chance to boost DEX to fill out the higher DEX cap,
nobody is getting "cheated" by taking advantage of such a dynamic, it's a transient niche the game allows for.
This should also be understood in context of opportunity cost of STR dependency of Med/Heavy Armor at low levels...
Which really is undercut at higher levels due to flat threshold of STR requirement and dynamic of 4x stat boosts,
so applying formulaic "if it's good at low level, it should be good at high level" is ignoring the bigger picture IMHO.
Crying "violation of expectations" is silly when the dynamic is readily apparent for all to play along with...
The reality is, every character and every weapon/armor are relatively close at 1st level and they diverge at higher levels.
The mere fact there was route to be close or identical at low levels doesn't translate into "right" to do so at high levels.
The game never said "Mr Wizard, you really can be as good as a Fighter/Ranger/etc in Martial Weapons/Heavy Armor forever".
That low level proficiency is available via General Feat doesn't imply "you can maintain parity with martial classes forever"
That you can gain low level proficiency does not mean your character is forever based around martial parity in that area.
I would think there is even legit builds that benefit from non-scaling profiency (vs keeping to low or no armor w/ scaling)
If they dumped the heavy armor they immediately need DEX to compensate, which could go to other build priorities instead.
Consider somebody boosting INT, WIS, and CHA, with sufficient STR for Heavy Armor they can now boost CON while ignoring DEX.
(and/or replace one mental stat with continuing to boost STR, which can conveniently allow things like Fortification Runes)
Yes, their AC may become "suboptimal" vs lighter armor build, but they are getting benefits for that if they choose to do so.
(although in the case of Fortification, nominally suboptimal AC could be more effective via Crit negation, so YMMV)
Or consider weapons, OMG it's so horrible I can never advance beyond trained in this martial weapon I was so awesome at!
Except wait, "just being trained" in that martial weapon lets you use it with Hand of Apprentice (full spell proficiency).
And if you eventually get Expert in Simple Weapons maybe you might switch to one similar to your martial weapon, that's OK too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right. It is silly. :D
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Expert is really for "intermediate" martials not just anybody.
Literally everybody gets expert in something, though.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm... I see the debate around non-scaling General Feat Armor/Weapon proficiency,
which has ranged from "they need to scale!" to "well maybe they really shouldn't exist in first place",
the latter perhaps recognizing intention where base class does matter and their toys should't be given out freely,
with e.g. many 'martial' classes only getting Master, Expert is really for "intermediate" martials not just anybody.
The issue is that this just isn't mathematically true. It was in the playtest, but then they dropped items from +5 to +3 and gave people better Proficiencies to compensate. As Squiggit mentions, literally everyone now gets Expert in some weapon-based attack and some armored or unarmored defense. It is a basic and expected part of the math.
Which makes getting left behind by not getting it more than a bit of a trap.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
They don't hold to that rule within the CRB. An elven sorcerer who takes the level 1 weapon familiarity feat (and not the level 13 feat) will be an expert with the curved blade at level 11 since they consider it a simple weapon for proficiency. An elven rogue who took the same feat will be a master with at at level 13. And maybe that is intentional but it does seem strange that taking a single level one ancestry feat provides better scaling proficiency than the fighter archetype, even if it is only for a few weapons with the racial tag.
This is true. It's also super weirdly applied, since it does not apply to weapons the Feat gives you without the Elven Trait. So it does this for the Curveblade, but you need the level 13 Feat to apply it to the Longsword.
I wish them luck in trying to cram it onto page 194 without cutting meaningful rules text from anything else if the CRB is in error, a necessity for it to receive official errata some day.The thing that's slightly baffled me is why sorcerers don't get master proficiency in any of their saves. Every other class does and I still can't puzzle out whether it was a mistake not giving them, say, master proficiency in will or if sorcs are just supposed to suck at their saves.In the Character Sheet Pack, Sorcerer gains Master in Will Saves at 17th level (Resolve, as per Wizard + others)
That's my main concern with the OP and all the other stuff.
Are these all things that- assuming they needed to be fixed- could just be given a 2nd printing, and fixed as easily as if they were a typo?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish them luck in trying to cram it onto page 194 without cutting meaningful rules text from anything else if the CRB is in error, a necessity for it to receive official errata some day.The thing that's slightly baffled me is why sorcerers don't get master proficiency in any of their saves. Every other class does and I still can't puzzle out whether it was a mistake not giving them, say, master proficiency in will or if sorcs are just supposed to suck at their saves.In the Character Sheet Pack, Sorcerer gains Master in Will Saves at 17th level (Resolve, as per Wizard + others)That's my main concern with the OP and all the other stuff.
Are these all things that- assuming they needed to be fixed- could just be given a 2nd printing, and fixed as easily as if they were a typo?
My prediction:
Bulk, alignment tags, and unarmed proficiency for sorcorrers and champions probably fixed with an errata.
I'd bet scaling proficiency will be "fixed" with more archetypes like Possible Cabbage suggests. Something to get expert armor proficiency without being religious is a must.
Classes with master profocincy will probably need a class archetype to change concept since archetypes that cap at expert won't cut it. So expect more heavily armored barbarian, rogue, and ranger archetypes as well as some way for rogues to actually get master pfoficiency in more weapons.
The general feat will persist as a legitimate low level option that becomes a trap at higher levels.
I'd bet scaling proficiency will be "fixed" with more archetypes like Possible Cabbage suggests. Something to get expert armor proficiency without being religious is a must.
The Advanced Player's Guide will have a reported 60+ pages of archetypes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Advanced Player's Guide will have a reported 60+ pages of archetypes.
I'd bet scaling proficiency will be "fixed" with more archetypes like Possible Cabbage suggests. Something to get expert armor proficiency without being religious is a must.
Well I didn't say it was a radical prediction.
I'm worried this strategy will lead to rapid system bloat but hopefully I am wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Naw, I think archetypes are basically the new version of multiclassing, alternate class features, common feat pools and all similar like character options.
I bank on that being the real meat of how characters differentiate themselves beyond in class feats/paths and race feats. They have a solid opportunity cost. You need to buy in with a dedication and then need two more feats before you can pick up another. They have ability score requirements as well.
Its generally good design, IMHO.
The Advanced Player's Guide will have a reported 60+ pages of archetypes.
I'd bet scaling proficiency will be "fixed" with more archetypes like Possible Cabbage suggests. Something to get expert armor proficiency without being religious is a must.
Well I didn't say it was a radical prediction.
I'm worried this strategy will lead to rapid system bloat but hopefully I am wrong.
This is my worry as well. I feel if they did multiclassing properly (and it was properly modular) then they could avoid this problem. Given the way it was done, it seems as if they're going to need to rely on archetypes. I'd agree, this could be wrong, but if not, then something that could have been done in linear space is now going to be quadratic.
NOTE: Sorry if I'm getting mathy, but that's my background. Essentially, if you have multiclass abilities that combine well, then 10 classes gets you 10 pairwise combinations of classes, or around 50. Having to do all these individually leads to more strict control over them, but obvious rules bloat.
10 classes with one multiclass archetype each would actually end up with 90 combinations, not 45. Remember that a sorcerer with a fighter archetype plays quite differently from a fighter with a sorcerer archetype.
More specifically, we have 12 base classes in 2e core, so with the multiclass archetypes we can currently make a whopping 132 "hybrid" classes. Rules really don't need to reach the bloat of 1e to achieve that many options. But it also means there's a good chance of some combinations being "broken" one way or another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Advanced Player's Guide will have a reported 60+ pages of archetypes.
I'd bet scaling proficiency will be "fixed" with more archetypes like Possible Cabbage suggests. Something to get expert armor proficiency without being religious is a must.
Well I didn't say it was a radical prediction.
I'm worried this strategy will lead to rapid system bloat but hopefully I am wrong.
This is my worry as well. I feel if they did multiclassing properly (and it was properly modular) then they could avoid this problem. Given the way it was done, it seems as if they're going to need to rely on archetypes. I'd agree, this could be wrong, but if not, then something that could have been done in linear space is now going to be quadratic.
NOTE: Sorry if I'm getting mathy, but that's my background. Essentially, if you have multiclass abilities that combine well, then 10 classes gets you 10 pairwise combinations of classes, or around 50. Having to do all these individually leads to more strict control over them, but obvious rules bloat.
10 classes with one multiclass archetype each would actually end up with 90 combinations, not 45. Remember that a sorcerer with a fighter archetype plays quite differently from a fighter with a sorcerer archetype.
More specifically, we have 12 base classes in 2e core, so with the multiclass archetypes we can currently make a whopping 132 "hybrid" classes. Rules really don't need to reach the bloat of 1e to achieve that many options. But it also means there's a good chance of some combinations being "broken" one way or another.
I think that the best part unlike before is that you don't suffer for multiclassing as much. A few class feats here or there as you wish, but before, if you didn't do it right, your BAB or casting would take a massive hit, sometimes to the point where you would utterly butcher your progression. Plus with armors having ability to negate penalty via str and no more spell failure, it's much easier to combine casters with martials and armor. I for one like the new multiclassing since it doesn't detract as much from your base. A Wizard without his 2nd class feat isn't that far behind compared to before if he took up a martial class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the best part unlike before is that you don't suffer for multiclassing as much. A few class feats here or there as you wish, but before, if you didn't do it right, your BAB or casting would take a massive hit, sometimes to the point where you would utterly butcher your progression. Plus...The Advanced Player's Guide will have a reported 60+ pages of archetypes.
I'd bet scaling proficiency will be "fixed" with more archetypes like Possible Cabbage suggests. Something to get expert armor proficiency without being religious is a must.
Well I didn't say it was a radical prediction.
I'm worried this strategy will lead to rapid system bloat but hopefully I am wrong.
This is my worry as well. I feel if they did multiclassing properly (and it was properly modular) then they could avoid this problem. Given the way it was done, it seems as if they're going to need to rely on archetypes. I'd agree, this could be wrong, but if not, then something that could have been done in linear space is now going to be quadratic.
NOTE: Sorry if I'm getting mathy, but that's my background. Essentially, if you have multiclass abilities that combine well, then 10 classes gets you 10 pairwise combinations of classes, or around 50. Having to do all these individually leads to more strict control over them, but obvious rules bloat.
10 classes with one multiclass archetype each would actually end up with 90 combinations, not 45. Remember that a sorcerer with a fighter archetype plays quite differently from a fighter with a sorcerer archetype.
More specifically, we have 12 base classes in 2e core, so with the multiclass archetypes we can currently make a whopping 132 "hybrid" classes. Rules really don't need to reach the bloat of 1e to achieve that many options. But it also means there's a good chance of some combinations being "broken" one way or another.
Agreed. As a player of 5e as well as Pathfinder, I used to be very fond of 5e's execution in multiclassing as compared to PF1e. But my attempt at making PF1e multiclassing work like in 5e got increasingly complicated because it turns out, class level stacking only works so well in 5e because of how lackluster high level class features can be. A lot of empty levels with nothing but "ribbons" and lackluster capstones make giving up higher level abilities actually worth something. Pathfinder simply doesn't work that way.
I'm glad for the direction 2e took for multiclassing. It's certainly easier to balance and requires much less system mastery than level stacking, while remaining relatively easy to balance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys, I've been out of the forums for various reasons lately, but I dropped by to say an important thing:
I agree with everything DeadManWalking said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deadman pretty much sums up my issues as well. I have some further issues with the Alchemist, but nothing that can't be fixed by an FAQ or some new feats in the APG. Overall I'm very happy with PF2, and I think it's going to be a worthy successor to first edition.
|
Hmmm... I see the debate around non-scaling General Feat Armor/Weapon proficiency,
which has ranged from "they need to scale!" to "well maybe they really shouldn't exist in first place",
the latter perhaps recognizing intention where base class does matter and their toys should't be given out freely,
with e.g. many 'martial' classes only getting Master, Expert is really for "intermediate" martials not just anybody.I would agree some of the corner cases with Class-based Unarmed / Deity weapons etc should be Errata'd,
but in terms of General Feats, I am coming around to thinking General Feat proficiency not-scaling is working as intended...Mechanically it is rational niche to use heavy armor at low levels when your DEX is more limited,
and switch to lighter armor at higher levels when you've had chance to boost DEX to fill out the higher DEX cap,
nobody is getting "cheated" by taking advantage of such a dynamic, it's a transient niche the game allows for.
This should also be understood in context of opportunity cost of STR dependency of Med/Heavy Armor at low levels...
Which really is undercut at higher levels due to flat threshold of STR requirement and dynamic of 4x stat boosts,
so applying formulaic "if it's good at low level, it should be good at high level" is ignoring the bigger picture IMHO.Crying "violation of expectations" is silly when the dynamic is readily apparent for all to play along with...
The reality is, every character and every weapon/armor are relatively close at 1st level and they diverge at higher levels.
The mere fact there was route to be close or identical at low levels doesn't translate into "right" to do so at high levels.
The game never said "Mr Wizard, you really can be as good as a Fighter/Ranger/etc in Martial Weapons/Heavy Armor forever".
That low level proficiency is available via General Feat doesn't imply "you can maintain parity with martial classes forever"
That you can gain low level proficiency does not mean your character is forever based around...
I came to pretty much say this. Having general feats that grant trained proficiency in martial weapons and armors is not a problem or a trap, at least no more of a trap as any other option that requires reading and basic knowledge of the system in a ttrpg. Not knowing the options available or attempting to get more power out of something than was intended and explicitly stated does not make it a trap option.
As others have pointed out, having access to weapons and armors gives the option to use a weaker feat (compared to a class feat) to get a very specific return. I think the bigger issue with regards to weapons and armor is distinguishing between feat types. General feats do not give the same level of competence as class features or feats; they give general competence (i.e. trained proficiency) and nothing else. Class feats are what give the greatest competence and ability, as shown in the archetype dedications giving more than general feats as well as giving options later to improve those competences.
As such, choosing to take general feats to mimic archetype dedications and then those archetype dedications is not the intended usage for the general feats, but even if a person chose to do so, it would only take downtime to change those general feats for something more worthwhile. However, I also think that general feats can be great as place holders until main feats are learned.
For instance, if someone wanted to create a wizard with martial weapons and heavy armor; the fighter dedication can be taken at 2, armor proficiency light at 3, other fighter feats at 4 and 6, armor proficiency medium at 7, and champion dedication at 8. This shows a build up of martial ability for the character at pretty much every level, and those two general feats can be changed out for something like shield block.
I, however, would use the general feat proficiencies for what they allow: add greater versatility for a less powerful feat cost. As such, with a wizard, I would use the armor proficiency to get heavy armor and dump dex completely without needing to use precious class feats, while saving boosts for the stats I think are more important for my character concept, like wisdom and constitution. Of course, I would be "subpar" until level 11, when I can get the full heavy armor trained proficiency, yet like everything else, it is an opportunity cost trade off. I, however, play wizards to sling spells, not swing swords and walk around in a tin can, but that's just how I play.
tldr; trained proficiency without scaling is perfectly fine for weapons and armor, and general feats should not be held to the same expectation of power as class feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
General feats do not give the same level of competence as class features or feats; they give general competence (i.e. trained proficiency) and nothing else.
It does though, for most of the game. A druid who takes the general feat for weapon proficiency gets full benefits from it... right up until level 11 when suddenly it doesn't advance like everything else.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
General feats do not give the same level of competence as class features or feats; they give general competence (i.e. trained proficiency) and nothing else.It does though, for most of the game. A druid who takes the general feat for weapon proficiency gets full benefits from it... right up until level 11 when suddenly it doesn't advance like everything else.
They aren’t equal at all. Otherwise, that same weapon would have the option to advance without spending class features. Also, class feats, specifically class feats spent on dedication, give the training with potential to grow, which is why they give access to other class abilities and skills. And
Just because it doesn’t advance, which I don’t think it should, doesn’t mean that a character isn’t getting full use out of it. It has all the same uses it did before level 11. Even with the proficiency bump, the average damage (according to my quick, rudimentary calculations) are higher with martial weapons (d10 or d12) than simple weapons (d6), and those weapons that aren’t doing more damage usually have better traits to make up for that lack in damage (though this does not hold true for short swords when compared with daggers, as daggers will result in a little higher average damage). In either case, lower AC creatures will almost always favor martial weapons over the expert proficiency simple weapon.
Becoming better at something does not negate usefulness of something else.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Hmmm... I see the debate around non-scaling General Feat Armor/Weapon proficiency,
which has ranged from "they need to scale!" to "well maybe they really shouldn't exist in first place",
the latter perhaps recognizing intention where base class does matter and their toys should't be given out freely,
with e.g. many 'martial' classes only getting Master, Expert is really for "intermediate" martials not just anybody.I would agree some of the corner cases with Class-based Unarmed / Deity weapons etc should be Errata'd,
but in terms of General Feats, I am coming around to thinking General Feat proficiency not-scaling is working as intended...Mechanically it is rational niche to use heavy armor at low levels when your DEX is more limited,
and switch to lighter armor at higher levels when you've had chance to boost DEX to fill out the higher DEX cap,
nobody is getting "cheated" by taking advantage of such a dynamic, it's a transient niche the game allows for.
This should also be understood in context of opportunity cost of STR dependency of Med/Heavy Armor at low levels...
Which really is undercut at higher levels due to flat threshold of STR requirement and dynamic of 4x stat boosts,
so applying formulaic "if it's good at low level, it should be good at high level" is ignoring the bigger picture IMHO.Crying "violation of expectations" is silly when the dynamic is readily apparent for all to play along with...
The reality is, every character and every weapon/armor are relatively close at 1st level and they diverge at higher levels.
The mere fact there was route to be close or identical at low levels doesn't translate into "right" to do so at high levels.
The game never said "Mr Wizard, you really can be as good as a Fighter/Ranger/etc in Martial Weapons/Heavy Armor forever".
That low level proficiency is available via General Feat doesn't imply "you can maintain parity with martial classes forever"
That you can gain low level proficiency does not mean your
Is it just me or has there been a lot of "trap this" and "trap that" a lot more around here than before? The biggest trap seems to be people saying that the math is so tight that unless you min-max powergaming style, things become obsolete. Best example being: Trained fullplate(2AC+6AC=8AC) has been claimed to become obsolete compared to Expert unarmored(5AC with 20dex+4AC proficiency= 9AC). Because the latter gives +1AC, the former somehow becomes obsolete, ignoring the fact that if you didn't build for max dex from level 1, the latter is useless to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the latter gives +1AC, the former somehow becomes obsolete, ignoring the fact that if you didn't build for max dex from level 1, the latter is useless to you.
Hyperbole is almost as bad for any kind of discussion as bad faith. The difference of +1 AC isn't completely game warping in practice. Partly because a lot of people math out situations using percentage chances, but a d20 is an extremely high variance number generator.
I saw a thread about damage percentages, but it didn't account for the real experience that at least at low levels what you roll still has a bigger impact than building carefully for an extra +1. And I personally find less optimised characters in PF2 don't FEEL useless as much at low levels. Maybe that gets more warped in a few splatbooks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the latter gives +1AC, the former somehow becomes obsolete, ignoring the fact that if you didn't build for max dex from level 1, the latter is useless to you.Hyperbole is almost as bad for any kind of discussion as bad faith. The difference of +1 AC isn't completely game warping in practice. Partly because a lot of people math out situations using percentage chances, but a d20 is an extremely high variance number generator.
I saw a thread about damage percentages, but it didn't account for the real experience that at least at low levels what you roll still has a bigger impact than building carefully for an extra +1. And I personally find less optimised characters in PF2 don't FEEL useless as much at low levels. Maybe that gets more warped in a few splatbooks.
The part that boggles me the most, is that a lot of people talk about the "tight math" like it's an established meta using these white room vacuum scenarios, often using cookie-cutter min-max builds in these examples. Because the average player does that, play in a cookie-cutter fantasy team who only optimizes and min-maxes, and the DM always sends the perfectly scaled encounters. And no one throws a curveball or comes up with gimmicks or comboes that one might not expect.
My personal irk is that people focus so much on that +1AC from expert proficiency and expect every wizard in these examples to build 20Dex before 20Int. It's been now two weeks since release, how many people have actually played 1-15th games sucessfully by now? I just wish we could break off from the PF1 metas, like casters must have dex or else. Lots of hyperbole and dramatization based on scenarios that might never happen for many.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Completely agree on the proficiency issue. I tried to build a few clerics and immediately ran into it - the deity's preferred weapon is often not the right one to match with the character idea. Should all Cayden clerics use rapiers for example? No, ofc.
Taking marshal weapons to at least Expert for warpriests at a higher level seems like the simplest solution. This problem seems to be beyond a specific class however, so a more holistic solution is needed. OFC Master / Legendary shouldn't be general feats, but Expert seems reasonable to me with the right prerequisites.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Corvo Spiritwind:
As far as I'm concerned the issue isn't really Wizards in Full Plate not working. I've said before that they do. It's them having spent three General Feats on just barely working, making the low Dex build flatly inferior in a way that seems wrong. And the fact that if they go Light or Medium they have spent one or two Feats on -2 AC at high levels (and probably at least -1 immediately).
But even more importantly, it's the Barbarians or Ruffian Rogues who would get a net -3 AC from grabbing Heavy Armor Proficiency. Or the Alchemists who get a flat -2 by going Medium. Or all the other examples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A huge part of the general feat proficiency issue is that players are getting frustrated by the possibility that a choice made early in game play becomes outdated. It is far more of an optics issue than an actual game play issue, because I don't see a lot of wizards who spent one general feat on a weapon proficiency making that many attacks with it by level 11, when they have 6th level spells and are much better off carrying a staff in their hand than a weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm concerned the issue isn't really Wizards in Full Plate not working. I've said before that they do. It's them having spent three General Feats on just barely working, making the low Dex build flatly inferior in a way that seems wrong. And the fact that if they go Light or Medium they have spent one or two Feats on -2 AC at high levels (and probably at least -1 immediately).
But even more importantly, it's the Barbarians or Ruffian Rogues who would get a net -3 AC from grabbing Heavy Armor Proficiency. Or the Alchemists who get a flat -2 by going Medium. Or all the other examples.
That's been the typical example used because Wizard is on the extreme spectrum of the feat cost. A bard or druid would need less, a warpriest even less and so on. It varies. The most common example has been Unarmored Expert vs Trained fullplate at level 13 wizard.
Personally I feel both have a hefty cost but Unarmored has the potential to be more cost effective but only if you keep Dex at 18. Otherwise you're paying 4 attribute points, if not 8 to get that Dex to 20 at 13th level. If I recall, you unless your class gives Dex, you need to take a flaw to boost dex to 18? Then you need to use two boosts on it (5th 10th). That's at minimum 6 ability points you could have elsewhere if we include the flaw? That's the cost to keeping Expert unarmored on par with Trained fullplate. I personally value 6 ability points more than 3 general feats. I've been going over them yesterday on a fullplate wizard build and due to wizard's lower skill increases, there weren't actually that many that attracted me personally.
I think there's too many variables to say that Expert unarmored is 100% better than Trained heavy armor. Class proficiences matter a lot, a wizard can only use Dex with crossbows, and that's less likely to happen than a full plate wizard when scaling cantrips are a thing. The armor is decided on level 1 imho. If you don't build str, you can't fullplate well. If you don't dex, you can't unarmored well. But the armor at least provides versatility. You can vary levels of str/dex ratio and you have specific armors and armor materials to play with.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that, mechanically, anyone who wants to do any of that should just grab Champion Dedication and then the 14th level Feat to hit Expert. Sure, that's two Class Feats, but two Class Feats for several General Feats and a +2 AC is a solid choice.
When two PC options exist to do exactly the same thing and one is miles better than the other mechanically past a certain level, there's an issue.
The thing is that, mechanically, anyone who wants to do any of that should just grab Champion Dedication and then the 14th level Feat to hit Expert. Sure, that's two Class Feats, but two Class Feats for several General Feats and a +2 AC is a solid choice.
When two PC options exist to do exactly the same thing and one is miles better than the other mechanically past a certain level, there's an issue.
I'm testing just that actually. Made a wizard to test having full casting, expert in all martial, all simple and all armors.
So far there's 3 ways deal with AC for a wizard and they all got a cost if you want to optimize.13th:
Unarmored Expert, with 18 has no real cost other than a few ability boosts.
Unarmored Expert, with 20 has 4 ability points worth put into getting from 18-20 that could be spent elsewhere. Another 2 to hit 18 at first level so you can have 20 by the 13th. Cost of 6 ability points, no access to specific armor as of yet, and no special materials.
Trained fullplate, requires 16 str if mithral(no penalties) or 18 if other material(-5ft movement). No need to go higher.
Cost is either 2 class feats(or 1 ancestry/1 class feat if human, ignore cha if half-elf) via champion(faith can be ignored if you take it just for armor.)
So we got at least three options to put a full arcane caster into up to full plate, with varying costs depending on your preferences. I personally value ability points more than general feats, and like the customization and aesthetic of armor, so no unarmored for me, I got an option to have trained light, medium or heavy, or expert in all for either up to 2 class feats, or up to 3 general feats.
Both are day and night beyond what PF1 core offers.
As for two things doing the same but one being miles better, one costs a different resource, which has different value to different games and builds. Kind of how it costs a rogue a class feat to get some cantrips, or he could mc into a wizard. Both things give spellcasting, one is ahead by a large margin albeit at a higher cost to optimize. Same resource though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
13th:
Unarmored Expert, with 18 has no real cost other than a few ability boosts.
Unarmored Expert, with 20 has 4 ability points worth put into getting from 18-20 that could be spent elsewhere. Another 2 to hit 18 at first level so you can have 20 by the 13th. Cost of 6 ability points, no access to specific armor as of yet, and no special materials.
Trained fullplate, requires 16 str if mithral(no penalties) or 18 if other material(-5ft movement). No need to go higher.
No class whatsoever can have a 20 in a non-key ability score by level 13. Level 15 is the minimum level for wizards to get 20 DEX, warpriest clerics to get 20 STR, alchemists to get 20 DEX, etc.
The voluntary flaw is applied at the ancestry step, you can't double up on boosts unless there is also a penalty to the score.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
13th:
Unarmored Expert, with 18 has no real cost other than a few ability boosts.
Unarmored Expert, with 20 has 4 ability points worth put into getting from 18-20 that could be spent elsewhere. Another 2 to hit 18 at first level so you can have 20 by the 13th. Cost of 6 ability points, no access to specific armor as of yet, and no special materials.
Trained fullplate, requires 16 str if mithral(no penalties) or 18 if other material(-5ft movement). No need to go higher.No class whatsoever can have a 20 in a non-key ability score by level 13. Level 15 is the minimum level for wizards to get 20 DEX, warpriest clerics to get 20 STR, alchemists to get 20 DEX, etc.
The voluntary flaw is applied at the ancestry step, you can't double up on boosts unless there is also a penalty to the score.
10 base, +2 from race(12), +2 from background(14)...
Huh. So no matter how we dice it, a Caster in Expert unarmored won't outdo one in Trained fullplate, and gain a whole +1AC until 15th?
That sounds pretty nice to me to be honest. 18 dex to nearly max expert unarmored, the most cost free way to go about raising ac.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for two things doing the same but one being miles better, one costs a different resource, which has different value to different games and builds. Kind of how it costs a rogue a class feat to get some cantrips, or he could mc into a wizard. Both things give spellcasting
This is mostly because the Spellcaster MCD are basically the gold standard of MCD.
I wish that the other MCD were as involved as the caster ones, because those actually do supplement character concepts.
Also, as a shoutout, I did a MCD into Barb on a Ruffian Rogue for a "kingpin" style character. And not gonna lie it looks pretty good on paper.
The above wasn't possible in Core PF1 without a lot of bending over backwards and enduring bad levels. The fact that I had a character in mind that was so simple to conceive with a build was a breath of fresh air.
As for two things doing the same but one being miles better, one costs a different resource, which has different value to different games and builds. Kind of how it costs a rogue a class feat to get some cantrips, or he could mc into a wizard. Both things give spellcastingThis is mostly because the Spellcaster MCD are basically the gold standard of MCD.
I wish that the other MCD were as involved as the caster ones, because those actually do supplement character concepts.
Also, as a shoutout, I did a MCD into Barb on a Ruffian Rogue for a "kingpin" style character. And not gonna lie it looks pretty good on paper.
The above wasn't possible in Core PF1 without a lot of bending over backwards and enduring bad levels. The fact that I had a character in mind that was so simple to conceive with a build was a breath of fresh air.
Speaking of Barbarian, I glanced at it for a weeby angery character. If I read right, you can now MCD into barbarian and use rage all day? Wasn't multiclass barbarian weak ragewise before since you had really limited rage duration?
Speaking of Barbarian, I glanced at it for a weeby angery character. If I read right, you can now MCD into barbarian and use rage all day? Wasn't multiclass barbarian weak ragewise before since you had really limited rage duration?
As for two things doing the same but one being miles better, one costs a different resource, which has different value to different games and builds. Kind of how it costs a rogue a class feat to get some cantrips, or he could mc into a wizard. Both things give spellcastingThis is mostly because the Spellcaster MCD are basically the gold standard of MCD.
I wish that the other MCD were as involved as the caster ones, because those actually do supplement character concepts.
Also, as a shoutout, I did a MCD into Barb on a Ruffian Rogue for a "kingpin" style character. And not gonna lie it looks pretty good on paper.
The above wasn't possible in Core PF1 without a lot of bending over backwards and enduring bad levels. The fact that I had a character in mind that was so simple to conceive with a build was a breath of fresh air.
More or less, yeah. I'm playing an Ulfen Fighter with Barbarian Dedication for a 'viking berserker' feel and I've basically achieved that at level 2, which is awesome.
More or less, yeah. I'm playing an Ulfen Fighter with Barbarian Dedication for a 'viking berserker' feel and I've basically achieved that at level 2, which is awesome.Speaking of Barbarian, I glanced at it for a weeby angery character. If I read right, you can now MCD into barbarian and use rage all day? Wasn't multiclass barbarian weak ragewise before since you had really limited rage duration?
As for two things doing the same but one being miles better, one costs a different resource, which has different value to different games and builds. Kind of how it costs a rogue a class feat to get some cantrips, or he could mc into a wizard. Both things give spellcastingThis is mostly because the Spellcaster MCD are basically the gold standard of MCD.
I wish that the other MCD were as involved as the caster ones, because those actually do supplement character concepts.
Also, as a shoutout, I did a MCD into Barb on a Ruffian Rogue for a "kingpin" style character. And not gonna lie it looks pretty good on paper.
The above wasn't possible in Core PF1 without a lot of bending over backwards and enduring bad levels. The fact that I had a character in mind that was so simple to conceive with a build was a breath of fresh air.
Rage has never been tempting to me, but now it is, mostly for aesthetics but also because of the set durations/cooldown, and if i read right, no more fatigue after rage?
Rage has never been tempting to me, but now it is, mostly for aesthetics but also because of the set durations/cooldown, and if i read right, no more fatigue after rage?More or less, yeah. I'm playing an Ulfen Fighter with Barbarian Dedication for a 'viking berserker' feel and I've basically achieved that at level 2, which is awesome.Speaking of Barbarian, I glanced at it for a weeby angery character. If I read right, you can now MCD into barbarian and use rage all day? Wasn't multiclass barbarian weak ragewise before since you had really limited rage duration?
As for two things doing the same but one being miles better, one costs a different resource, which has different value to different games and builds. Kind of how it costs a rogue a class feat to get some cantrips, or he could mc into a wizard. Both things give spellcastingThis is mostly because the Spellcaster MCD are basically the gold standard of MCD.
I wish that the other MCD were as involved as the caster ones, because those actually do supplement character concepts.
Also, as a shoutout, I did a MCD into Barb on a Ruffian Rogue for a "kingpin" style character. And not gonna lie it looks pretty good on paper.
The above wasn't possible in Core PF1 without a lot of bending over backwards and enduring bad levels. The fact that I had a character in mind that was so simple to conceive with a build was a breath of fresh air.
Correct! You just can't rage for 1 minute, which is fine. The only fatigue with rage is if you have the Second Wind feat, which lets you rage without waiting the 1 minute, but then you're fatigued.
Correct! You just can't rage for 1 minute, which is fine. The only fatigue with rage is if you have the Second Wind feat, which lets you rage without waiting the 1 minute, but then you're fatigued.Rage has never been tempting to me, but now it is, mostly for aesthetics but also because of the set durations/cooldown, and if i read right, no more fatigue after rage?More or less, yeah. I'm playing an Ulfen Fighter with Barbarian Dedication for a 'viking berserker' feel and I've basically achieved that at level 2, which is awesome.Speaking of Barbarian, I glanced at it for a weeby angery character. If I read right, you can now MCD into barbarian and use rage all day? Wasn't multiclass barbarian weak ragewise before since you had really limited rage duration?
As for two things doing the same but one being miles better, one costs a different resource, which has different value to different games and builds. Kind of how it costs a rogue a class feat to get some cantrips, or he could mc into a wizard. Both things give spellcastingThis is mostly because the Spellcaster MCD are basically the gold standard of MCD.
I wish that the other MCD were as involved as the caster ones, because those actually do supplement character concepts.
Also, as a shoutout, I did a MCD into Barb on a Ruffian Rogue for a "kingpin" style character. And not gonna lie it looks pretty good on paper.
The above wasn't possible in Core PF1 without a lot of bending over backwards and enduring bad levels. The fact that I had a character in mind that was so simple to conceive with a build was a breath of fresh air.
Gonna have to look into Barbarian feats, I was considering building a ruffian rogue who uses spiked gauntlets, and Fighter MCD seemed nice due to the "free-hand" feats it has, but maybe mad pummeling with rage could be a nice alternative. He might turn a wee bit scottish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The armor proficiency feats are suboptimal, but that is a legacy feature. From 3.0 to 3.5 to PF1 and even to 5e, these feats existed and nobody chose them (at least in my experience, coupled with at times really extensive online exchange), because there were always better ways to obtain armor (& weapon) proficiencies. Honestly, they should have just done away with them and fully rely on archetypes.
In 3.0/3.5, class features heavily restricted armor usage anyway, but the best ways to get more proficiencies were multi-classing / prestige classes - feats were actually precious back then! PF added more classes, and with archetypes and alternate class features many more possibilities opened up. D&D5 is similar, with subclasses simply adding stuff that is needed for some character concepts (and feats being precious again!).
PF2 flattens armor types even more. If armor is so similar anyway, heavy investments seem out of place - and they are, because that is, again, a legacy feature. Trap, no trap, who cares about nomenclature, that is just not good usage of limited space in a book bursting with content. But these are the artifacts you get when rules systems have history.
As far as I'm concerned the issue isn't really Wizards in Full Plate not working. I've said before that they do. It's them having spent three General Feats on just barely working, making the low Dex build flatly inferior in a way that seems wrong. And the fact that if they go Light or Medium they have spent one or two Feats on -2 AC at high levels (and probably at least -1 immediately).
But even more importantly, it's the Barbarians or Ruffian Rogues who would get a net -3 AC from grabbing Heavy Armor Proficiency. Or the Alchemists who get a flat -2 by going Medium. Or all the other examples.
That's been the typical example used because Wizard is on the extreme spectrum of the feat cost. A bard or druid would need less, a warpriest even less and so on. It varies. The most common example has been Unarmored Expert vs Trained fullplate at level 13 wizard.
Personally I feel both have a hefty cost but Unarmored has the potential to be more cost effective but only if you keep Dex at 18. Otherwise you're paying 4 attribute points, if not 8 to get that Dex to 20 at 13th level. If I recall, you unless your class gives Dex, you need to take a flaw to boost dex to 18? Then you need to use two boosts on it (5th 10th). That's at minimum 6 ability points you could have elsewhere if we include the flaw? That's the cost to keeping Expert unarmored on par with Trained fullplate. I personally value 6 ability points more than 3 general feats. I've been going over them yesterday on a fullplate wizard build and due to wizard's lower skill increases, there weren't actually that many that attracted me personally.
I think there's too many variables to say that Expert unarmored is 100% better than Trained heavy armor. Class proficiences matter a lot, a wizard can only use Dex with crossbows, and that's less likely to happen than a full plate wizard when scaling cantrips are a thing. The armor is decided on level 1 imho. If you don't build str, you can't fullplate well. If you don't...
I'm pretty sure your voluntary flaw's ability boost can't stack with a racial boost
Sometimes, it’s fun to play a character with a major flaw even if you’re not playing an ancestry that imposes one. You can elect to take two additional ability flaws when applying the ability
boosts and ability flaws from your ancestry. If you do, you can also apply one additional free ability boost. These ability flaws can be assigned to any ability score you like, but you can’t apply more than one ability flaw to the same ability score during this step unless you apply both of the additional ability flaws to a score that is already receiving an ability boost during this step. In this case, the first ability flaw cancels the ability boost, and the second ability flaw decreases the score by 2. Likewise, as an exception to the normal rules for ability boosts, you can apply two free ability boosts to an ability score receiving an ability flaw during this step; the first ability boost cancels the ability flaw, and the second ability boost increases the score by 2. For example, a dwarf normally gets an ability boost to Constitution and Wisdom, along with an ability flaw to Charisma. You could apply one ability flaw each to Intelligence and Strength, or you could apply both ability flaws to Wisdom. You could not apply either additional ability flaw to Charisma, though, because it is already receiving dwarves’ ability flaw during this step.
this seems to say that it can't be applied to what is already receiving an a free or racial ability boost during the racial application. (or at least a voluntary flaw gives a boost at the same time as you recieve racial boosts meaning they can't be applied to the same score)
this means of course that the highest you can get a non-class stat is 16.
edit: i see i was ninja'd oh well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed that we wouldn't need so many archetypes if the regular multiclass ones actually did their job at making you actually competent with the stuff they're supposed to.
We'll probably get a duelist Archetype that can get you Expert with the Rapier by level 11, and one that gives you some armor you want.
Could have just been Fighter multiclass with feats to boost specific weapon/group/armor. Might even get one to boost unarmored defense/unarmed proficiency that could have been in Monk. Some are going to be really similar to the current multiclass ones, I bet.
Current ones are really broad and you end up getting a buncha stuff you don't want, which causes it to all be weaker to compensate for the variety. I believe people will stop using them once there's other archetypes that let them achieve their character concept more narrowly (And more powerful).
|
|
The armor proficiency feats are suboptimal, but that is a legacy feature. From 3.0 to 3.5 to PF1 and even to 5e, these feats existed and nobody chose them (at least in my experience, coupled with at times really extensive online exchange), because there were always better ways to obtain armor (& weapon) proficiencies. Honestly, they should have just done away with them and fully rely on archetypes.
In 3.0/3.5, class features heavily restricted armor usage anyway, but the best ways to get more proficiencies were multi-classing / prestige classes - feats were actually precious back then! PF added more classes, and with archetypes and alternate class features many more possibilities opened up. D&D5 is similar, with subclasses simply adding stuff that is needed for some character concepts (and feats being precious again!).
PF2 flattens armor types even more. If armor is so similar anyway, heavy investments seem out of place - and they are, because that is, again, a legacy feature. Trap, no trap, who cares about nomenclature, that is just not good usage of limited space in a book bursting with content. But these are the artifacts you get when rules systems have history.
The feats work perfectly fine for what they are: general feats. They can make interesting builds without sacrificing class feats, which open up much stronger options, while putting less emphasis on dexterity if that is not my focus. I like that as an option.
Current ones are really broad and you end up getting a buncha stuff you don't want, which causes it to all be weaker to compensate for the variety. I believe people will stop using them once there's other archetypes that let them achieve their character concept more narrowly (And more powerful).
I think that really depends on what archetypes have to trade in to get those changes to concept. For example, losing inspire courage on bards would not make it worth it to me to become a great duelist, and losing spells as a wizard would not make it worth it to me to get scaling armor proficiency.