I think we can all agree that the player who went "Hey I can play a Wizard in Heavy Armor" and invested their stat boosts in STR rather than DEX and their feats in Heavy Armor ends up in more dire straits than the one who went the more usual road of Wizard in robes. And not even retraining or runes-swapping will help them get out of this self-inflicted trap.
Hence Heavy Armor is a trap option for the Wizard.
It's really great if you desire the other general feats and don't care for options. I'm sure having the same armor from 1 to 20 is very interesting.
But again, I will offer that "Wizard in heavy armor" is better supported by an Arcane Thesis or Archetype than it is by powering up that general feat.
I mean, most Wizards have not wear heavy armor throughout the history of Golarion. So if there are a number of Wizards who think "being strong and wearing armor is the thing to do" there's probably some tradition there worth exploring.
I'm hoping Magus or Eldritch Knight come through Archetypes, though as it stands, least there's multiple ways to build a melee oriented wizard. There's a lot of magus style spells such as Weapon Storm. And with Cat's Grace gone, there's mostly just melee buffs on wizard list offensively. Nothing there will be buffing a wizard's crossbow skill, the only place he offensively applies Dex. Dex is great for simplicity, I recommend it for newer players personally.
I think we can all agree that the player who went "Hey I can play a Wizard in Heavy Armor" and invested their stat boosts in STR rather than DEX and their feats in Heavy Armor ends up in more dire straits than the one who went the more usual road of Wizard in robes. And not even retraining or runes-swapping will help them get out of this self-inflicted trap.
Hence Heavy Armor is a trap option for the Wizard.
I mean, maybe, the replacement feats for the 3 armor ones are probably incredible initiative, toughness and canny acumen, not exactly dire straights to not have them. otherwise you're not that far behind in AC and even go higher in the mid levels. if human heavy armor is pretty good for a wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one seems to be able to agree on how these General Feats should work.
Can we all agree deleting them is the best course of action? I just want second edition to avoid Feat traps, whatever form that takes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be inclined to houserule "general feats can be spent on any kind of feat at all" including class feats, which is what the overwhelming majority of them would be spent on. Bonus- it makes multiclassing less painful.
No one seems to be able to agree on how these General Feats should work.
Can we all agree deleting them is the best course of action? I just want second edition to avoid Feat traps, whatever form that takes.
Just houserule them out of your game and let the suicidal people who want to die to tight math at least roleplay their aesthetics. Strictly speaking, since everyone needs HP more than ever early levels, taking any feat besides Toughness first is the biggest trap feat.
I would be inclined to houserule "general feats can be spent on any kind of feat at all" including class feats, which is what the overwhelming majority of them would be spent on. Bonus- it makes multiclassing less painful.
That's a good houserule. I might steal that one. It'll shine as more archetypes come out. Elves especially could use this as they got a ton of feat chains it seems.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one seems to be able to agree on how these General Feats should work.
Can we all agree deleting them is the best course of action? I just want second edition to avoid Feat traps, whatever form that takes.
Just houserule them out of your game and let the suicidal people who want to die to tight math at least roleplay their aesthetics. Strictly speaking, since everyone needs HP more than ever early levels, taking any feat besides Toughness first is the biggest trap feat.
I would be inclined to houserule "general feats can be spent on any kind of feat at all" including class feats, which is what the overwhelming majority of them would be spent on. Bonus- it makes multiclassing less painful.That's a good houserule. I might steal that one. It'll shine as more archetypes come out. Elves especially could use this as they got a ton of feat chains it seems.
“Just houserule them out of your game” is a pretty rude way to dismiss someone’s opinion, many people here expressed interest in their removal, and “let the suicidal people” comment is the antithesis of the “new player friendly” edition, since most people don’t do in depth analysis of the feats they just play concepts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Just houserule them out of your game” is a pretty rude way to dismiss someone’s opinion, many people here expressed interest in their removal, and “let the suicidal people” comment is the antithesis of the “new player friendly” edition, since most people don’t do in depth analysis of the feats they just play concepts.No one seems to be able to agree on how these General Feats should work.
Can we all agree deleting them is the best course of action? I just want second edition to avoid Feat traps, whatever form that takes.
Just houserule them out of your game and let the suicidal people who want to die to tight math at least roleplay their aesthetics. Strictly speaking, since everyone needs HP more than ever early levels, taking any feat besides Toughness first is the biggest trap feat.
I would be inclined to houserule "general feats can be spent on any kind of feat at all" including class feats, which is what the overwhelming majority of them would be spent on. Bonus- it makes multiclassing less painful.That's a good houserule. I might steal that one. It'll shine as more archetypes come out. Elves especially could use this as they got a ton of feat chains it seems.
Literally asking for removing a thing that you don't like while even if only a handful of others do, is pretty rude as well. I can base things mostly around these forums and reddit for pathfinder, but both which disprove that even new players don't go around looking for things.
With that in mind, considering how many times "tight math" has been echoed around here, the game is new player unfriendly long before they reach some general feats. Shooting down attempt at new builds two weeks after the game is out isn't very new player friendly. Reminds be a bit of PF1 when people would basically shame someone for not taking power attack on a fighter. Let people test things, if they don't work, someone will find a way to make something akin to it work. Trial and error is part of the fun, that's how we got all the weird and broken combinations back in the day.
I think we can all agree that the player who went "Hey I can play a Wizard in Heavy Armor" and invested their stat boosts in STR rather than DEX and their feats in Heavy Armor ends up in more dire straits than the one who went the more usual road of Wizard in robes. And not even retraining or runes-swapping will help them get out of this self-inflicted trap.
Hence Heavy Armor is a trap option for the Wizard.
I don't think "all agree" is anywhere near accurate.
On a very different note, I'd also argue an Elf Wizard with 10 Str/12 Dex in Splint Mail with Hefty Hauler is totally viable, and has 4 extra boosts that can be invested into mental stats.
Who needs physical stats?
I think we can all agree that the player who went "Hey I can play a Wizard in Heavy Armor" and invested their stat boosts in STR rather than DEX and their feats in Heavy Armor ends up in more dire straits than the one who went the more usual road of Wizard in robes. And not even retraining or runes-swapping will help them get out of this self-inflicted trap.
Hence Heavy Armor is a trap option for the Wizard.
I don't think "all agree" is anywhere near accurate.
On a very different note, I'd also argue an Elf Wizard with 10 Str/12 Dex in Splint Mail with Hefty Hauler is totally viable, and has 4 extra boosts that can be invested into mental stats.
Who needs physical stats?
Can you elaborate on the Splint Mail and hefty hauler? I'm working on an eldritch knight type of full-wizard, and so far got expert in all armors, martial weapons and simple weapons, trained in advanced, at level 14th for cost of 3 class feats and one ancestry. I was going for a sort of magic blacksmith type, but could use some alternatives since option is the name of the game for armor builds. Plus he's accidentally Thor since Hand of the Apprentice can yeet a warhammer 500ft and back a few times per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Just houserule them out of your game” is a pretty rude way to dismiss someone’s opinion, many people here expressed interest in their removal, and “let the suicidal people” comment is the antithesis of the “new player friendly” edition, since most people don’t do in depth analysis of the feats they just play concepts.No one seems to be able to agree on how these General Feats should work.
Can we all agree deleting them is the best course of action? I just want second edition to avoid Feat traps, whatever form that takes.
Just houserule them out of your game and let the suicidal people who want to die to tight math at least roleplay their aesthetics. Strictly speaking, since everyone needs HP more than ever early levels, taking any feat besides Toughness first is the biggest trap feat.
I would be inclined to houserule "general feats can be spent on any kind of feat at all" including class feats, which is what the overwhelming majority of them would be spent on. Bonus- it makes multiclassing less painful.That's a good houserule. I might steal that one. It'll shine as more archetypes come out. Elves especially could use this as they got a ton of feat chains it seems.Literally asking for removing a thing that you don't like while even if only a handful of others do, is pretty rude as well. I can base things mostly around these forums and reddit for pathfinder, but both which disprove that even new players don't go around looking for things.
With that in mind, considering how many times "tight math" has been echoed around here, the game is new player unfriendly long before they reach some general feats. Shooting down attempt at new builds two weeks after the game is out isn't very new player friendly. Reminds be a bit of PF1 when people would basically shame someone for not taking power attack on a fighter. Let people test things, if they don't work, someone will find...
The OP specifically mentions deleting them or changing them.
And I didn’t say “delete them” I said can we all agree on deleting them since we can’t agree on what they should do. Some don’t want them buffed because it encroaches on Fighters/Champions or do want them buffed because after X level they are traps.
You and one other guy are arguing that a Feat is fine because you think it’s fine for you personally. The numbers don’t agree with you but whatever, in fact one of you didn’t even know about the Full Plate reflex restriction until they had argued their point of view for 30 posts.
The game is new player friendly. I’m introducing 3 new players this weekend. I’m glad they didn’t pick these feats.
You literally told me specifically what to do for my games, when everyone here is discussing the ramifications of the three issues DMW brought up.
We’ve got nothing left to discuss. Goodbye.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the reason that the "general feats for trained only" exist is because the plan is to release archetypes for which the prerequisites are things like "trained with a specific weapon" or "trained in medium armor". So Rangers, Barbarians, Fighters, etc. would have an easier time accessing these archetypes, but they wouldn't be completely locked out to anyone else.
Then you put the upgrade to the proficiency in the archetype, if you need to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since people think that only a couple of others are in favor of keeping the general feats, I'll chime in that I think they need to stick around and are fine. I suspect they're primarily around for the same reason as PossibleCabbage, that they're probably good for meeting prerequisites, but I don't consider them traps.
On the other hand, the other problems in the OP? I definitely agree with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the reason that the "general feats for trained only" exist is because the plan is to release archetypes for which the prerequisites are things like "trained with a specific weapon" or "trained in medium armor". So Rangers, Barbarians, Fighters, etc. would have an easier time accessing these archetypes, but they wouldn't be completely locked out to anyone else.
Then you put the upgrade to the proficiency in the archetype, if you need to.
A little transparency would be appreciated if that’s the case, but then I still don’t love the concept of a Feat that’s contingent on maintaining its value only upon selecting other choices.
Almost every other General feat gains value or at the very least keeps up as you go. The proficiency ones are the exception to the rule. Personally think weapons and armor should be treated differently. A single chosen weapon to your class pool at X level is about all that one needs to be not a trap, and that’s a pretty small concession.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you elaborate on the Splint Mail and hefty hauler? I'm working on an eldritch knight type of full-wizard, and so far got expert in all armors, martial weapons and simple weapons, trained in advanced, at level 14th for cost of 3 class feats and one ancestry. I was going for a sort of magic blacksmith type, but could use some alternatives since option is the name of the game for armor builds. Plus he's accidentally Thor since Hand of the Apprentice can yeet a warhammer 500ft and back a few times per day.I think we can all agree that the player who went "Hey I can play a Wizard in Heavy Armor" and invested their stat boosts in STR rather than DEX and their feats in Heavy Armor ends up in more dire straits than the one who went the more usual road of Wizard in robes. And not even retraining or runes-swapping will help them get out of this self-inflicted trap.
Hence Heavy Armor is a trap option for the Wizard.
I don't think "all agree" is anywhere near accurate.
On a very different note, I'd also argue an Elf Wizard with 10 Str/12 Dex in Splint Mail with Hefty Hauler is totally viable, and has 4 extra boosts that can be invested into mental stats.
Who needs physical stats?
Well the thing is, if you simply accept that you're going to be taking ACP penalties (not making heavy use of those skills), you don't need all the Str. Hefty Hauler is simply the easiest way to offset the Bulk, as is the Bulk 3 armour.
You then just have to offset the Speed penalties, which you can do in multiple ways.
You're not going to be swimming like a fish, but is that really such a bad thing?
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fundamentally, I think that having 'planned obsolescence' on Feats (where you're expected to retrain them) is bad and unsatisfying thematically, even if it works thematically.
And I think people are getting a little too wrapped up in the Wizard in Full Plate example. Even if that works (which I won't argue...there's clearly not gonna be a consensus), Wizards with a martial weapon are still screwed from level 11 onward, a Wizard relying on Light or Medium armor is still a terrible idea, and a number of other Classes (such as Ranger, Barbarian, or Rogue) are strongly penalized for taking Heavy Armor Proficiency.
Wizards (or Sorcerers or other casters with no armor Proficiencies from Class) with Heavy Armor specifically have the absolute best results possible in the current system from taking the General Feats, with everyone else's situation being worse. Even if Wizards in Heavy Armor are fine, that doesn't make this not a problem. Not at all.
I wonder if the reason that the "general feats for trained only" exist is because the plan is to release archetypes for which the prerequisites are things like "trained with a specific weapon" or "trained in medium armor". So Rangers, Barbarians, Fighters, etc. would have an easier time accessing these archetypes, but they wouldn't be completely locked out to anyone else.
Then you put the upgrade to the proficiency in the archetype, if you need to.
As I mentioned when Unicore suggested this idea, this is a fine solution to the problem. It remains a significant problem right up until we get such an Archetype.
Wizards (or Sorcerers or other casters with no armor Proficiencies from Class) with Heavy Armor specifically have the absolute best results possible in the current system from taking the General Feats, with everyone else's situation being worse. Even if Wizards in Heavy Armor are fine, that doesn't make this not a problem. Not at all.
sure, but they're also significantly more likely to be solved by archetypes.
while not great, i find it unlikely a heavy armor ranger or barbarian don't come along with an archetype with master prof...
however, low armor classes might not get them for a while unless we're lucky(or we specifically get them due to threads like these :P).
so, I just realized something, humans can get 2 general feats at level 1 meaning they can be a heavy armor wizard at level 3.
so that's fun.
one from heritage and one from their ancestry feat...
man if you like general feats humans are where it's at apparently.
this has opened so many more build options for me, like possibly trying to wiggle in 14 dex for fighter dedication
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I didn’t say “delete them” I said can we all agree on deleting them since we can’t agree on what they should do. Some don’t want them buffed because it encroaches on Fighters/Champions or do want them buffed because after X level they are traps.
You and one other guy are arguing that a Feat is fine because you think it’s fine for you personally. The numbers don’t agree with you but whatever, in fact one of you didn’t even know about the Full Plate reflex restriction until they had argued their point of view for 30 posts.
That's a bit of an oxymoron or irony or something. Let's all agree on something because we can't agree on something. Then let's all agree that for some, the feats are useful and they can add in memo that classes might squeeze out 1-2 more ac with class expertise instead?
As for the numbers, I don't actually think you ever posted any in this regard. I posted 1-20 numbers for both unarmored dex and armored str and sure, they don't kick online until varying levels and varying classes, but it's not unusual for builds to kick in at varying levels. Pretty sure that non-standard cookie cutter builds have been around that don't truly shine till 5-10th levels. I for one will enjoy finding a way to survive lower levels, luckily a lot of buff spells last 10 combat rounds.
And I think people are getting a little too wrapped up in the Wizard in Full Plate example. Even if that works (which I won't argue...there's clearly not gonna be a consensus), Wizards with a martial weapon are still screwed from level 11 onward, a Wizard relying on Light or Medium armor is still a terrible idea, and a number of other Classes (such as Ranger, Barbarian, or Rogue) are strongly penalized for taking Heavy Armor Proficiency.
Wizards (or Sorcerers or other casters with no armor Proficiencies from Class) with Heavy Armor specifically have the absolute best results possible in the current system from taking the General Feats, with everyone else's situation being worse. Even if Wizards in Heavy Armor are fine, that doesn't make this not a problem. Not at all.
The wizard fullplate was an the extreme end case people have been using since release week because it was the one class with worst possible proficiencies. The cost varies from class to class. Personally I prefer breastplate for it's aesthetic components but was using fullplate since everyone seemed to base it around that. I think people are getting a little too wrapped up on the tight math and doomsay builds that are 1-2AC behind a bit too hard. The absolutely best result you mentioned for wizard is a point behind fullplate midlevels, evens out at 13th, and overtakes by one at 15th if you start with 16 in dex at level 1. Downside is, you've got no options in comparison. Like none at all, you can wear clothes for runes or not.
i'm not sure if anyone cares but i put together a level 7 wizard with fighter dedication using 2 human general feats, without going crazy into trying to get damage I beat DPR(by like 10% at the highest), and if I have persistent damage, following rounds are equatable for as long as the damage holds. for my ranger of the same level that I put together on rounds where I use evocation spells.
I used a longsword for both, but I'd probably replace both builds with an agile weapon maybe. i'll look into it later. but i didn't use any buffs on my wizard either, he could potentially self haste, fire shield, or enlarge and can get over his armor by using longstride or fleet step.
Also the ranger technically went animal companion and i didn't include it in dpr, so he's probably higher when both him and his AC start next to an opponent, but the wizard also dpr spikes when he uses fireball on more than one opponent.
I gave the wizard AoO as well.
I'm unsure on exactly how they'd compare, as the ranger probably is better at keeping dpr and keeping on opponents, but at the same time the wizard is a metamagic guy and so can use shocking grasp out at 30 feet to hit fliers and the ranger isn't built to switch hit.
oh and the wizard currently has 1 higher AC, ranger has +1 reflex save though. ranger has almost double the HP
After a bit thought, if we're removing trap feats, we should look into Adopted Ancestry.
Adopted Ancestry is the definition of a tax & trap feat, which can be taken earliest at level 3, but cannot be used before level 5. A new player might see this feat and think that since he grew up with elves, he can use a longbow, but he actually can't until 5th, it takes him time away from his elven parents to actually do elf things. Can we all agree deleting it is the best course of action? I just want second edition to avoid Feat traps, whatever form that takes.
The only exception is the versatile human, who can take and benefit it from level 1, but we shouldn't base things on a very specific option a few players might take.
I feel like human is the one thing that it's perfectly fine to push people towards for mechanical ease, since otherwise why be human? After all, Golarion is mostly humans and a lot of characters were human in PF1 primarily because of the bonus feat and/or the FCB.
It is telling, though, how weak general feats are supposed to be since the 5th level Halfling ancestry feat "Cultural Adaptibility" gives Adopted Ancestry and a 1st level ancestry feat from your other ancestry- one feat is literally equivalent to two other feats.
I feel like human is the one thing that it's perfectly fine to push people towards for mechanical ease, since otherwise why be human? After all, Golarion is mostly humans and a lot of characters were human in PF1 primarily because of the bonus feat and/or the FCB.
It is telling, though, how weak general feats are supposed to be since the 5th level Halfling ancestry feat "Cultural Adaptibility" gives Adopted Ancestry and a 1st level ancestry feat from your other ancestry- one feat is literally equivalent to two other feats.
I think it might be a sort of a dissonance or such because for years, we've been used to General Feats making or breaking builds. If you didn't take x, y and z, you were mostly ornamental in many cases. Now a lot of classes get a lot of things. A lot of people would probably prefer Class/ancestry feats over General Feats, and I doubt there's many out there who would pick a general feat if offered that or a class feat, then turn that general feat into a skill feat.
Didn't know about that hafling feat though, that sounds kind of how Adopted Ancestry should work in the first place. At the moment, if you don't pick it up followed by another ancestry's feat two levels after, that feat only takes up a slot it seems.
I never liked humans much before in 3.5 or PF1, but this time around they are fun enough to play with because they offer really good access mechanically wise. Plus being able to be a half-elf or half-orc is pretty neat as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Over an hundred posts arguing about numbers, builds and stat distribution to try to understand if a wizard getting expert in heavy armor really has an advantage or not. We will never get out of that quagmire.
What I'd really like to know, from the people who say that those general feats are fine as they are, is: why shouldn't a wizard over level X use a spear as well as they use a dagger? Or be as good with a sling as they are with a crossbow? Is this "encroaching on martial territory"?
Why shouldn't an alchemist over level Y be able to wear some medium armor, after spending a feat for that, without having to suffer a net -2 AC?
And why are these options perfectly fine before levels X or Y, but cannot absolutely be past them?
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
After a bit thought, if we're removing trap feats, we should look into Adopted Ancestry.
Adopted Ancestry is the definition of a tax & trap feat, which can be taken earliest at level 3, but cannot be used before level 5. A new player might see this feat and think that since he grew up with elves, he can use a longbow, but he actually can't until 5th, it takes him time away from his elven parents to actually do elf things. Can we all agree deleting it is the best course of action? I just want second edition to avoid Feat traps, whatever form that takes.
The only exception is the versatile human, who can take and benefit it from level 1, but we shouldn't base things on a very specific option a few players might take.
Adopted Ancestry isn't a trap since it eventually delivers on exactly what it promises, and perhaps more importantly because literally everyone who takes it knows about the time delay factor. It is abundantly clear immediately that that's how it works.
Everyone who takes that Feat knows exactly and with perfect accuracy what they're investing in, and no later options make that choice suddenly less valuable than it was to start with.
It's debatably a slightly weak Feat (though, personally, I think it's fine for many builds), but a weak Feat is different from a trap.
What I'd really like to know, from the people who say that those general feats are fine as they are, is: why shouldn't a wizard over level X use a spear as well as they use a dagger? Or be as good with a sling as they are with a crossbow? Is this "encroaching on martial territory"?
Why shouldn't an alchemist over level Y be able to wear some medium armor, after spending a feat for that, without having to suffer a net -2 AC?
And why are these options perfectly fine before levels X or Y, but cannot absolutely be past them?
Yup. This. Most extreme example aside, a lot of in-between cases (and all martial weapon users) get screwed over by this. Which is why it's a trap and unpleasant.
DMW, I wanted your take on my personal issue with the 2E ruleset (since like you, overall I'm a big fan so far). I feel that the multiclass archetypes for spontaneous casters are far weaker than those for prepared casters. Specifically, since they don't get Spontaneous Heightening, it's just picking one spell that you get to cast with one slot until maybe you pick up the Breadth feat. Whereas prepared casters get to make that same choice each day during daily preparations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After a bit thought, if we're removing trap feats, we should look into Adopted Ancestry.
Adopted Ancestry is the definition of a tax & trap feat, which can be taken earliest at level 3, but cannot be used before level 5. A new player might see this feat and think that since he grew up with elves, he can use a longbow, but he actually can't until 5th, it takes him time away from his elven parents to actually do elf things. Can we all agree deleting it is the best course of action? I just want second edition to avoid Feat traps, whatever form that takes.
The only exception is the versatile human, who can take and benefit it from level 1, but we shouldn't base things on a very specific option a few players might take.
Adopted Ancestry isn't a trap since it eventually delivers on exactly what it promises, and perhaps more importantly because literally everyone who takes it knows about the time delay factor. It is abundantly clear immediately that that's how it works.
Everyone who takes that Feat knows exactly and with perfect accuracy what they're investing in, and no later options make that choice suddenly less valuable than it was to start with.
It's debatably a slightly weak Feat (though, personally, I think it's fine for many builds), but a weak Feat is different from a trap.
Yup. This. Most extreme example aside, a lot of in-between cases (and all martial weapon users) get screwed over by this....What I'd really like to know, from the people who say that those general feats are fine as they are, is: why shouldn't a wizard over level X use a spear as well as they use a dagger? Or be as good with a sling as they are with a crossbow? Is this "encroaching on martial territory"?
Why shouldn't an alchemist over level Y be able to wear some medium armor, after spending a feat for that, without having to suffer a net -2 AC?
And why are these options perfectly fine before levels X or Y, but cannot absolutely be past them?
With that logic, neither is weapon proficiency, armor proficiency or skill training a trap, they do exactly what they say. The only time they don't is if someone doesn't actually read them, it's black on white that you get a trained proficiency and nothing else. Adopted Ancestry only works if you take the new ancestry's feat two levels later, otherwise it just eats up a general feat slot until you do, a new player might miss that more likely than his armor not scaling on a feat that mentions no scaling.
Everyone who takes Armor Proficiency knows exactly and with perfect accuracy what they're investing in, and later options make that choice suddenly less valuable than it was to start with. This goes for armor. If I build for armor, unarmored proficiency won't have any affect on me because I didn't build dex to benefit from it. There's no sneaky things going on. Class tells you when you get what. It's not hidden. If a person doesn't check his proficiencies, it's not a trap but lack of due dilligence.
@Megistone: Because that's how class based system works and always has. If you nitpick weapons then every class has that issue. Take fighter, the best weapon user in the game. I can start with a flickmace. I use said flickmace more than a caster casts spells. Why is it that as the master of weaponry, I can get legendary in unarmed strikes I never used in my life while my flickmace caps out at master? Just so it's clear: I'd prefer weapon proficiency feats to apply to a single weapon and go up to expert. That's my take on that. I'm simply disagreeing with that it's a trap because there's no secrecy about it. The same way fighter dedication isn't a trap despite those weapon proficiencies not increasing until 14th, well after most other class proficiencies, and they cost an additional class feat
That's more of an issue with how weapons are grouped up into different classes and groups more than a general feat.
To say that Armor/weapon/skilled training are traps because they don't do exactly what they say is a bit reaching. It should be common knowledge that classes move from trained to expert in some proficienies and that the feat gives exactly what it says it gives. Trained Proficiency in X.
The real trap is being so hung up on "tight math" the moment you're not max proficiency in something. In most cases, especially for armor, the difference is 1-2AC. But if that 1-2AC is so critical, then getting to 20Dex might be considered a trap since it takes 4 ability points for a +1AC/+1Reflex when it could be moved towards +2Will/Perception or +2Fortitude/HP, or even +2Diplomacy. Take cover is a single action that gives +4Reflex and +4AC. Those two have arguably less value than Will or Fortitude which often cripple your character in way a Fireball doesn't.
|
From level 3 to 13, the general feat armor proficiency is an excellent feat, providing a +1 to AC for wizards and making them comparable to non-heavily armored martials as long as they keep their dex up. I like the option to increase my survivability for those levels without spending a class feat. Even if I couldn’t retrain, that extra AC for the greater part of my character’s career would make it worth it. Retraining is just icing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From level 3 to 13, the general feat armor proficiency is an excellent feat, providing a +1 to AC for wizards and making them comparable to non-heavily armored martials as long as they keep their dex up. I like the option to increase my survivability for those levels without spending a class feat. Even if I couldn’t retrain, that extra AC for the greater part of my character’s career would make it worth it. Retraining is just icing.
I feel like people are ignoring the fact that you're deciding on a build early on. A dex class has been the go-to because of how much stronger it was and how easy it was to hit numbers like 30. None of the casters need dex for ranged spells anymore, and skills are limited. Most casters won't get more than 3 skills up to Master or higher.
A ranger that focused on dual wielding axes and a pet won't retrain into a 20dex archer if he changes his mind at 15th. But that should be part of the building and exploring, does this work, doesn't it? If I plan on going a bard with medium armor, I know I can't use a lot of dex, so I won't build for it, regardless of feat or not. Taking that AC hit is a deliberate choice.
Even if the feat scaled, let's say a bard goes up to Medium armor, he built for breastplate because he likes those. He left his dex at 12 and decided to pump stats into str, cha, con and wis afterwards. Even if his medium armor is expert, and his unarmored/light armor is expert, he can't retrain into being good with light armor or unarmored. Sure he might be 1-2AC behind, but his saves are higher, he hits harder and more accurately in melee. Plus since Forcing Open things is now an Athletics check, a dex character can't as easily just smack things with an adamantite dagger.
Just like picking your sorcerer bloodline and commiting to casting X spell list, you kinda gotta commit to going armor or dex or halfway. It's actually easier to go up from light to medium to heavy than going backwards depending on how many ability boosts you got left.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, Corvo said: that's how it works, and there are other cases that have a similar issue.
Narxiso said: well, you have been good for most of your carrier, be happy about that.
Neither of you gave a reason why the general feats, in my examples, should not scale.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, Corvo said: that's how it works, and there are other cases that have a similar issue.
Narxiso said: well, you have been good for most of your carrier, be happy about that.
Neither of you gave a reason why the general feats, in my examples, should not scale.
I thought that it being a class-based system was clear enough. For the same reason the Fighter is the best at wielding every weapon and a Wizard is not. That's the paradigm of D20 games. D100 systems tend to let us do just that. You want to be only good in melee weapons, pump your melee stat as close to 100 as you can.
It's the same reason a Bard will always be worse than a ranger or druid when it comes to animal companions, even with multiclassing you're lag behind.
Same reason an alchemist will be making the best elixirs and poisons for free every day, while the rogue makes a lesser poison and has to pay for the proper ones. With the logic you presented on the spear, why should my rogue who I built for poisons lag behind. I paid my class feats to get poisons for free from alchemist, why should my rogue with Poison Weapon feat be worse at poisons than say, a chirurgeon alchemist?
Also, sidenote: The fact that Skilled Training gives a trained proficiency in a skill, and does not scale, but Additional Lore gives an additional skill lore and scales shows that there's difference in value to things. 2 Class feats as of now are worth mastery in either weaponry or armor via specific archetypes. Paizo has deemed that even 3 general feats are worth less than that. Just how a scaling lore skill is worth less than any other skill which you only get Trained in via the exact same feat cost.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
With that logic, neither is weapon proficiency, armor proficiency or skill training a trap, they do exactly what they say. The only time they don't is if someone doesn't actually read them, it's black on white that you get a trained proficiency and nothing else. Adopted Ancestry only works if you take the new ancestry's feat two levels later, otherwise it just eats up a general feat slot until you do, a new player might miss that more likely than his armor not scaling on a feat that mentions no scaling.
The difference is that it's obvious, even to new players, that Adopted Ancestry does nothing but allow other Feats. It's purely a permission, and in the most explicit way.
It is in no way obvious to someone going through each level individually (which many new players will do) that taking Medium Armor Proficiency on an Alchemist is a trap long term that you will need to train out of, because there's an intervening variable (Class Proficiency going to Expert with there being literally no way to raise a General Proficiency). That's not intuitively obvious at all.
Everyone who takes Armor Proficiency knows exactly and with perfect accuracy what they're investing in, and later options make that choice suddenly less valuable than it was to start with. This goes for armor. If I build for armor, unarmored proficiency won't have any affect on me because I didn't build dex to benefit from it. There's no sneaky things going on. Class tells you when you get what. It's not hidden. If a person doesn't check his proficiencies, it's not a trap but lack of due dilligence.
There absolutely is something sneaky going on. Specifically, the sea change wherein people who went with the high Dex build and no armor suddenly have more AC. Yes, it's written in the book, but as is evidenced by many people in this very thread not finding it intuitive, it's not obvious on a gut level to most people. Indeed, I'd expect many people to
Nobody can come away from reading Adopted Ancestry all on its own without understanding what it does. Nobody can understand the significance of Armor Proficiency not scaling without reading through Classes and understanding both Proficiencies and specifically how the math of Proficiencies works and how important it is. You have to understand not only a whole other chapter, but the metagame of how the math works to properly understand the limitations of Armor Proficiency.
For example, +2 to hit gives a nearly 40% damage bonus, raising damage from 100% to 138% (this is an average, and varies by specific AC, but it's a pretty middle of the road number). A -2 AC will thus hit you for that much additional damage. That's huge, and nothing the Feat gives remotely compensates. Almost nobody who's never played an RPG before is going to get that.
@Megistone: Because that's how class based system works and always has.
No it isn't. In PF1, just for example, a Wizard could spend a Feat and be exactly as good with a longsword as they are with a dagger.
If you nitpick weapons then every class has that issue. Take fighter, the best weapon user in the game. I can start with a flickmace. I use said flickmace more than a caster casts spells. Why is it that as the master of weaponry, I can get legendary in unarmed strikes I never used in my life while my flickmace caps out at master? Just so it's clear: I'd prefer weapon proficiency feats to apply to a single weapon and go up to expert. That's my take on that. I'm simply disagreeing with that it's a trap because there's no secrecy about it. The same way fighter dedication isn't a trap despite those weapon proficiencies not increasing until 14th, well after most other class proficiencies, and they cost an additional class feat
Again, yes there is. Because people, particularly people who've never played an RPG before, aren't going to suddenly and magically know that a +2 to hit is much more important to damage than going from a d8 to a d12, nor are they likely to immediately understand that you can't get Expert to the weapons you get with Weapon Proficiency somehow. It's a 'you can't get there from here' issue, and almost the only such issue in the game. Players are not all gonna realize that immediately.
That's more of an issue with how weapons are grouped up into different classes and groups more than a general feat.
To say that Armor/weapon/skilled training are traps because they don't do exactly what they say is a bit reaching. It should be common knowledge that classes move from trained to expert in some proficienies and that the feat gives exactly what it says it gives. Trained Proficiency in X.
They're not traps because they don't do what they say. They're traps because what they say requires so much context and understanding of the game's math to interpret the meaning of accurately that many people will miss what they actually do mechanically at high levels until they hit those levels and start sucking.
The real trap is being so hung up on "tight math" the moment you're not max proficiency in something. In most cases, especially for armor, the difference is 1-2AC. But if that 1-2AC is so critical, then getting to 20Dex might be considered a trap since it takes 4 ability points for a +1AC/+1Reflex when it could be moved towards +2Will/Perception or +2Fortitude/HP, or even +2Diplomacy. Take cover is a single action that gives +4Reflex and +4AC. Those two have arguably less value than Will or Fortitude which often cripple your character in way a Fireball doesn't.
+2 AC is an immense difference in survivability on par with multiplying your HP by 1.38. That's often on part with +8 Con in terms of HP equivalencies.
And cover is by no means always available, and certainly not vs. melee attacks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DMW, I wanted your take on my personal issue with the 2E ruleset (since like you, overall I'm a big fan so far). I feel that the multiclass archetypes for spontaneous casters are far weaker than those for prepared casters. Specifically, since they don't get Spontaneous Heightening, it's just picking one spell that you get to cast with one slot until maybe you pick up the Breadth feat. Whereas prepared casters get to make that same choice each day during daily preparations.
I think they're a little weaker than Prepared Multiclass Casters and think this would be a good change, yes. It's not as big a deal as my own issues are to me, but it's a potential issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With that logic, neither is weapon proficiency, armor proficiency or skill training a trap, they do exactly what they say. The only time they don't is if someone doesn't actually read them, it's black on white that you get a trained proficiency and nothing else. Adopted Ancestry only works if you take the new ancestry's feat two levels later, otherwise it just eats up a general feat slot until you do, a new player might miss that more likely than his armor not scaling on a feat that mentions no scaling.The difference is that it's obvious, even to new players, that Adopted Ancestry does nothing but allow other Feats. It's purely a permission, and in the most explicit way.
It is in no way obvious to someone going through each level individually (which many new players will do) that taking Medium Armor Proficiency on an Alchemist is a trap long term that you will need to train out of, because there's an intervening variable (Class Proficiency going to Expert with there being literally no way to raise a General Proficiency). That's not intuitively obvious at all.
Everyone who takes Armor Proficiency knows exactly and with perfect accuracy what they're investing in, and later options make that choice suddenly less valuable than it was to start with. This goes for armor. If I build for armor, unarmored proficiency won't have any affect on me because I didn't build dex to benefit from it. There's no sneaky things going on. Class tells you when you get what. It's not hidden. If a person doesn't check his proficiencies, it's not a trap but lack of due dilligence.There absolutely is something sneaky going on. Specifically, the sea change wherein people who went with the high Dex build and no armor suddenly have more AC. Yes, it's written in the book, but as is evidenced by many people in this very thread not finding it intuitive, it's not obvious on a gut level to most people. Indeed, I'd expect many people to
Nobody can come...
I'm not sure we should be balancing things based on people who struggle to read their class. It's not a thing I say to be mean, english is my third language but if someone doesn't see that "Feat: You become trained in light armor. If you already were trained in light armor, you gain training in medium armor. If you were trained in both, you become trained in heavy armor." vs Every class: "X armor [b]expertise[b]/defensive robes/divine defense." at around 13th.
I think the better solution is to make the fact that every class gets expert/master at 13th more obvious. But there's no trickery whatsoever, same way people don't come out complaining that a feat that does exactly the same and costs the same doesn't scale either, that being Skilled Training. Proficiency > Training > X(skill/armor/weapon).
If that +2AC (and that's the extreme spectrum of hitting 20 dex as soon as possible) is worth that much, the biggest trap becomes not forcing new players into upgrading their armor the moment they can, or else they're losing out on +4 Con Mod worth of hp per point. Then again, those players likely got the book now and won't be aware of these flaws and have to learn or their own, or will be lead by someone who knows the game somewhat, or will find their way here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Armor is a problem while weapon proficiency is not because the actual AC bonus from Armor is very small in comparison to the proficiency bonus and the extra traits of armor are just not as important or as varied as the weapon traits.
There can be very good reasons to use a weapon that you have a -2 to penalty to for getting around resistances, exploiting weaknesses or making use of major weapon traits like finesse, reach, agile, etc. Using a weapon that you have lesser proficiency can make some sense because there are many ways in which it could be better than a starting weapon proficiency.
Armor just isn't interesting enough to pick anything other than "what gives me the best AC bonus" in relationship to my attributes. Especially with the actual armor bonus making up a decreasingly significant part of the bonus. for example, one level of proficiency is equal to the best bonus you can get from light armor.
Even in the playtest, it seemed like it was a lot of work not to make lighter armor proficiency superior to heavier armor proficiency, even for fighters and paladins. The issue seems to boil down to trying to walk the tight rope between:
Armor saves your life, everyone wants it desperately.
Armor is an aesthetic choice, wear it to fulfill your vision of your character.
It is not an easy path to balance, and it is probably the weakest link in the PF2 proficiency system, where almost every other proficiency has really cool things you can do with advanced training, other than just get better numbers.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Corvo Spiritwind: It's not about basic reading comprehension, it's about understanding all the implications. Something that requires reading large sections of the Bestiary to understand what numbers you're operating in relation to as well as large sections of the corebook to understand that the General Feats for armor and weapons are dead ends.
I'm not accusing Paizo of lying or trickery here. That's not what a trap option is. A trap option is one that looks good at first glance but turns out to not be when you do the math or otherwise do an in-depth analysis.
As for maxing AC, I think it's fairly intuitive to max that out, and thus it's not a trap that not doing so is bad.
|
|
So, Corvo said: that's how it works, and there are other cases that have a similar issue.
Narxiso said: well, you have been good for most of your carrier, be happy about that.
Neither of you gave a reason why the general feats, in my examples, should not scale.
I wasn’t replying to you. My last post was something I had partially written up earlier before your last post went up. It was meant as a reply for why I do not agree that the feats should be removed. It wasn’t a reply to you. I apologize for that. I’ll get to it now, but your post sounds confrontational and somewhat rude.
I don’t think that the armor and weapon proficiency general feats should scale because they do infringe on martial class features (even if a martial who does not get these feats through his or her class is taking them). With dexterity as a secondary stat, any caster can have the same AC as every lightly or medium armored combatant of equal level with a single general feat without ever needing to step into melee. With two of these general feats, any caster can have equal martial melee (with the exception of fighter) until level 5 and superior caster melee. I don’t think any other general (non-skill) feat gives that same amount of combat advantage, nor do I think any give martials the same edge in martial combat over casters again.
I see the upgrade in martial combat as that edge. Of course, I fully believe that should casters focus, dedicate, themselves to a martial path, that they should have the opportunity to grow martially as well. This comes in my distinction of feats. As general feats, the armor and weapon proficiency feats gives the general, the basic, the very basic trained knowledge of how to use those weapons and armors. Dedication feats, on the other hand, show a more intense study or desire to master the techniques of that path with a focus on those techniques later on: the expert weapon and armor class archetype feats.
Narratively, the caster is always improving with martial weapons and armor (if those feats are taken); they just have a stronger foundation in their other trained weapons that give them insights into their usage even while using other weapons, which allows casters to become better at wielding the more simplistic weapons (seen as the proficiency jump to expert); for armors, it would be that the heavy lifting makes movement without armor less burdensome (or something like taking off a weighted vest and feeling more free in movement). The character is still getting better in those trained proficiencies (the +1 per level); it’s just easier and more natural for things that had a sturdier foundation.
There absolutely is something sneaky going on. Specifically, the sea change wherein people who went with the high Dex build and no armor suddenly have more AC. Yes, it's written in the book, but as is evidenced by many people in this very thread not finding it intuitive, it's not obvious on a gut level to most people. Indeed, I'd expect many people to
I mean it doesn't even get better until 15th level and even then you've saved 4 ability boosts for something else for more AC at most levels and then -1 at 15th.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean it doesn't even get better until 15th level and even then you've saved 4 ability boosts for something else for more AC at most levels and then -1 at 15th.
Only if we're specifically talking about Heavy Armor as opposed to no armor at all and only if you have Dex 10. That's not the only possible circumstances.
Again, Wizards (and others without armor at all) using Heavy Armor are in the absolute best situation possible with the General Feat in question. Everyone else is worse off than they are.
How would one build a dwarven rogue who is as good with a hatchet as they are with a rapier?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would one build a dwarven rogue who is as good with a hacthet as they are with a rapier?
You can't, sadly. And Proficiency changes alone won't fix that since you can't Sneak Attack with it.
Going Ruffian and Sneak Attacking with a mace is a nice consolation prize, though.
How would one build a dwarven rogue who is as good with a hacthet as they are with a rapier?You can't, sadly. And Proficiency changes alone won't fix that since you can't Sneak Attack with it.
Going Ruffian and Sneak Attacking with a mace is a nice consolation prize, though.
It's agile so you can sneak attack with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that it might be weird leaving that ten year meta of dex casters
The meta is still DEX casters. You can go against it, but you could do that in 3.0, too (it just sucked a lot). It got gradually easier with the editions, but PF2 has Paizo actively telling you they expect casters to go unarmored with the way class features work. You can invest to go against that, lowering your saves/perception/speed/initiative/skills compared to the expected way in the process (higher DEX, Canny Acumen, Fleet, Incredible Initiative), and if you fully go that way, aka a human spending all feats as soon as possible, you can even be better during some parts of the game at some things (worse at others, of course), but the meta still is DEX all the way very much.
This will probably change with more content, new classes, archetypes, feats, etc.
Funnily, the comparisons seldom include the bonuses that would be gained by not spending feats on heavy armor. A pure STR wizard would be lacking compared to pure DEX in important stats like perception, saves and so on for quite some time. I think it is highly disingenuous to act as if the general feats do not actually provide bonuses if not used for armor.
How would one build a dwarven rogue who is as good with a hatchet as they are with a rapier?
The hatchet is a good example of a weapon stacked with traits that make it good enough for a rogue to consider using at a -2 penalty, especially for the ruffian rogue with a strength build. Agile and sweep together cancel that penalty out against the rapier and the weapons can be thrown which can help negate the need for moving with an action, which is especially brutal with the sweep ability. if you start combat with two weapons drawn and the initiative (which as a dwarven ruffian you can easily have a 14 or 16 wis), you are going to be an absolute destroyer.
You probably want to MC fighter for this build, but even at higher levels when you are expert with your hatchets but master with rogue weapons you are only +2 behind (at level 13), and get to take advantage of fighter two weapon fighting feats as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would one build a dwarven rogue who is as good with a hatchet as they are with a rapier?
The hatchet is a good example of a weapon stacked with traits that make it good enough for a rogue to consider using at a -2 penalty, especially for the ruffian rogue with a strength build. Agile and sweep together cancel that penalty out against the rapier and the weapons can be thrown which can help negate the need for moving with an action, which is especially brutal with the sweep ability. if you start combat with two weapons drawn and the initiative (which as a dwarven ruffian you can easily have a 14 or 16 wis), you are going to be an absolute destroyer.
You probably want to MC fighter for this build, but even at higher levels when you are expert with your hatchets but master with rogue weapons you are only +2 behind (at level 13), and get to take advantage of fighter two weapon fighting feats as well.
Agile and sweep together "cancel out" the lower proficiency bonus only on your second attack and only against a different target. Even for that second attack the rapier is still better due to deadly.
The weapons are designed to be balanced against each other. There is no way a hatchet at -2 is better than a rapier.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, Corvo said: that's how it works, and there are other cases that have a similar issue.
Narxiso said: well, you have been good for most of your carrier, be happy about that.
Neither of you gave a reason why the general feats, in my examples, should not scale.
I wasn’t replying to you. My last post was something I had partially written up earlier before your last post went up. It was meant as a reply for why I do not agree that the feats should be removed. It wasn’t a reply to you. I apologize for that. I’ll get to it now, but your post sounds confrontational and somewhat rude.
I don’t think that the armor and weapon proficiency general feats should scale because they do infringe on martial class features (even if a martial who does not get these feats through his or her class is taking them). With dexterity as a secondary stat, any caster can have the same AC as every lightly or medium armored combatant of equal level with a single general feat without ever needing to step into melee. With two of these general feats, any caster can have equal martial melee (with the exception of fighter) until level 5 and superior caster melee. I don’t think any other general (non-skill) feat gives that same amount of combat advantage, nor do I think any give martials the same edge in martial combat over casters again.
I see the upgrade in martial combat as that edge. Of course, I fully believe that should casters focus, dedicate, themselves to a martial path, that they should have the opportunity to grow martially as well. This comes in my distinction of feats. As general feats, the armor and weapon proficiency feats gives the general, the basic, the very basic trained knowledge of how to use those weapons and armors. Dedication feats, on the other hand, show a more intense study or desire to master the techniques of that path with a focus on those techniques later on: the expert weapon and armor class archetype feats.
Narratively, the caster is always improving with martial weapons and armor (if those feats are taken); they just have a stronger foundation in their other trained weapons that give them insights into their usage even while using other weapons, which allows casters to become better at wielding the more simplistic weapons (seen as the proficiency jump to expert); for armors, it would be that the heavy lifting makes movement without armor less burdensome (or something like taking off a weighted vest and feeling more free in movement). The character is still getting better in those trained proficiencies (the +1 per level); it’s just easier and more natural for things that had a sturdier foundation.
I don't mean to be rude or confrontational, and I'm sorry if I sound like that.
I appreciate the attempt to give an in-game explanation to the feats not scaling, but it has got the same value as any other in-game explanation about why they should scale instead (like: I've been using this spear since I've become an adventurer, but somehow I suddenly feel more skilled with a dagger instead!).
Now, before that you are saying that those feats could give a caster the same melee skill that martial classes have, before level 5. It sounds like that's a problem in your opinion, but that's whay the general feats already do. I didn't see any threads complaining about that, saying that low-level non-martials can become skilled in combat too easily.
So, I assume that most people are fine with that. Until, when natural expert proficiency kicks in at 11, it's not fine anymore (and besides, rogues and martial classes are getting master proficiency two levels later).
So, I'll try to sum up my reasons:
1) No one says that class proficiencies have got a problem. Wizards do get expert with some weapons at level 11.
2) A general feat taken by a wizard makes them trained in all simple weapons. Again, no one argues that it shouldn't; thus, it's fine that a wizard can use a spear instead of a dagger.
3) Weapons are balanced with each other within the same tier. A spear has no strict mechanical advantage over a dagger: yes, it could synergize a little better with the character build or with team tactics or trigger a different weakness, but again, a single general feet was deemed worthy of giving wizards free choice about which simple weapon they want to wield.
But at level 11, points 2 and 3 suddenly become untrue. A wizard should only be expert in handling a spear if a martial class feature says so, even though it's totally ok if they are expert with a dagger.
There's something wrong.
How would one build a dwarven rogue who is as good with a hatchet as they are with a rapier?
The hatchet is a good example of a weapon stacked with traits that make it good enough for a rogue to consider using at a -2 penalty, especially for the ruffian rogue with a strength build. Agile and sweep together cancel that penalty out against the rapier and the weapons can be thrown which can help negate the need for moving with an action, which is especially brutal with the sweep ability. if you start combat with two weapons drawn and the initiative (which as a dwarven ruffian you can easily have a 14 or 16 wis), you are going to be an absolute destroyer.
You probably want to MC fighter for this build, but even at higher levels when you are expert with your hatchets but master with rogue weapons you are only +2 behind (at level 13), and get to take advantage of fighter two weapon fighting feats as well.
Agile and sweep together "cancel out" the lower proficiency bonus only on your second attack and only a different target. Even for that second attack the rapier is still better due to deadly.
The weapons are designed to be balanced against each other. There is no way a hatchet at -2 is better than a rapier.
Yes the hatchet requires some feat support, but the rapier is not agile, so if you pick the proficiency up to use hatchets you will be just as well off at many levels and you can build into a nasty multi-attack build that can melee attack and then throw a weapon (to take advantage of that sweep ability) in nasty ways. Is it better than the rapier rogue? maybe not, and not always, but it doesn't seem horrible either, and will really shine in some circumstances.
Rapier in comparison to hatchet (utilizing sweep)
+2 / 0 / -2.
Of course, this character might be better realized as a ranger with a rogue MC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's one of the main things in this edition that's being overlooked:
Weapons and Armor are much more balanced against each other than they use to be.
Claiming a weapon's traits make it "better" than another weapon is a fallacy, because all weapons get traits that are valuable. Weapon Specialization also makes considering different options better.
Basically, choosing hatchet is never "worth a -2" because there are plenty of other good options within the confines of your lists (usually, Wizards not so much)
So is true for Armor due to Armor Specialization effects.
There's just a lot more balance between equipment, way more than PF1/3.5/3.0 which had a slew of "objectively better" weapons across the board.
Damage has been relatively normalized across weapons, and traits/specialization are extremely impactful.
These people that keep asserting certain equipment is "objectively better" have yet to prove that, because there's trade offs to every single choice (armor or weapon).
1) No one says that class proficiencies have got a problem. Wizards do get expert with some weapons at level 11.
2) A general feat taken by a wizard makes them trained in all simple weapons. Again, no one argues that it shouldn't; thus, it's fine that a wizard can use a spear instead of a dagger.
3) Weapons are balanced with each other within the same tier. A spear has no strict mechanical advantage over a dagger: yes, it could synergize a little better with the character build or with team tactics or trigger a different weakness, but again, a single general feet was deemed worthy of giving wizards free choice about which simple weapon they want to wield.But at level 11, points 2 and 3 suddenly become untrue. A wizard should only be expert in handling a spear if a martial class feature says so, even though it's totally ok if they are expert with a dagger.
There's something wrong.
This is extremely considerate of the issue.
That's why people arguing against come off as superfluously in favor to me. Like, why aren't you campaigning against the atrocities of the General Feat up to 11?
If it doesn't matter then, why does it all of a sudden matter at 11th level?
I mean it doesn't even get better until 15th level and even then you've saved 4 ability boosts for something else for more AC at most levels and then -1 at 15th.Only if we're specifically talking about Heavy Armor as opposed to no armor at all and only if you have Dex 10. That's not the only possible circumstances.
Again, Wizards (and others without armor at all) using Heavy Armor are in the absolute best situation possible with the General Feat in question. Everyone else is worse off than they are.
actually no i was talking about 14 dex, because i built a dude with 14 dex for fighter dedication. it saves 6 boosts with no dedication. my thoughts are a bit muddy right now since i've been tinkering with the build.
until 13th level or whatever a single armor profi feat for light armor and 16 dex is decent, just transfer over to unarmored or not, your AC remains the same. that's another option. this saves 3 boosts. the advantage of course is you gain +2 ac much earlier than you otherwise would and keep that AC advantage until 13th level when you'd have 1 higher AC, assuming your boosting dexterity every time you can as a wizard.
I think that's one of the main things in this edition that's being overlooked:
Weapons and Armor are much more balanced against each other than they use to be.
Claiming a weapon's traits make it "better" than another weapon is a fallacy, because all weapons get traits that are valuable. Weapon Specialization also makes considering different options better.
Basically, choosing hatchet is never "worth a -2" because there are plenty of other good options within the confines of your lists (usually, Wizards not so much)
So is true for Armor due to Armor Specialization effects.
There's just a lot more balance between equipment, way more than PF1/3.5/3.0 which had a slew of "objectively better" weapons across the board.
Damage has been relatively normalized across weapons, and traits/specialization are extremely impactful.
These people that keep asserting certain equipment is "objectively better" have yet to prove that, because there's trade offs to every single choice (armor or weapon).
If this is objectively true, then why didn't wizards just get simple weapon proficiency to start with? Why did rogues get certain martial weapon profs and not others. Maybe this is a larger design issue, but it seems like it was an intentional design choice and not an accident.