Deadmanwalking's Problems With The Final Version Of PF2


Rules Discussion

201 to 250 of 480 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Blackest Sheep wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
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.

I'd actually disagree, initiative and accuracy are the reasons you'd need dex before. you always want to go first in combat to get a bit higher chance to buff/debuff/kill before stuff starts happening, and of course to hit people.

hitting people has been moved to casting stat and initiative to wisdom. I think wisdom is ultimately more important than dex. meaning probably a tuned wizard will start with at most 14 dex, meaning they'll get 20 dex at level 20 and 18 at level 10...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

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.

Level 2: Fighter Dedication, trained with hatchets

Level 5: Become expert with Rapiers
level 12: Diverse Weapon Expert, become expert with hatchets
Level 13: Become master with rapiers

So equal proficiency at levels 2-4 and 12.

At other times if you are always in situations where you can take advantage of the sweep ability you can manage to be as accurate with the hatchet as you would be with a rapier on the second attack only. More accurate on the third if you manage to get one.

And you are spending two class feats to do this. Compared to if you sucked it up and used a rapier or shortsword or other "rogue weapon" as Paizo recommends you would do more damage due to higher accuracy and you'd get to spend those two class feats elsewhere.

This shouldn't be that hard of a concept to realize. But even taking the fighter archetype you are better off sticking to the prescribed weapons list because it doesn't scale with class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
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.

That's true, still DEX-based, but at low levels it's basically a trade-off with a spell/spell-slot and whatever other general feat one would take. With magic items, it might even get better AC-wise for some time (worse elsewhere, due to the opportunity cost). And with retraining, you do not lose anything.

That is a fair trade-off. Going full STR for three feats to be worse for long stretches of the leveling process is rather not. Of course, it can still be done. I guess, I'm revising my earlier statement: better to have the feats than not having them (but still worse than some kind of scaling).


Unicore wrote:

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.

I think it's fine for lists to be confined, at first at least, to incentivize being traditional.

Wizards use staffs. Rogues use Daggers and Rapiers. Etc.

Thematically, that makes sense. I don't know that it was strictly balance reasons, but I'm sure those were factored in.

Wizards getting a very small subset of weapons means they can't be as versatile in combat, because the true value of the new weapon system is how diverse your tactics become just by switching a weapon and while diversity is worth something, it's not going to be worth a -2.

Rogues getting only part of the Martial list to me comes off as a way to avoid new players choosing Great Sword and then realizing "oh I can't use sneak attack" but also because again those weapons are iconic.

At least that would be how I interpret it. Wizard and Rogue being one of the only two that do "weird lists" is more to do with their identity than balance IMO, but other than legacy editions having the same sets of proficiencies, I don't have anything to corroborate it to certainty.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Blackest Sheep wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
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.

That's true, still DEX-based, but at low levels it's basically a trade-off with a spell/spell-slot and whatever other general feat one would take. With magic items, it might even get better AC-wise for some time (worse elsewhere, due to the opportunity cost). And with retraining, you do not lose anything.

That is a fair trade-off. Going full STR for three feats to be worse for long stretches of the leveling process is rather not. Of course, it can still be done. I guess, I'm revising my earlier statement: better to have the feats than not having them (but still worse than some kind of scaling).

yeah my wizard fighter that i'm putting together, doesn't have the strength for his armor, he uses longstride/fleet step to overcome it though. he will have the strength at level 10 though.

if fighter didn't require 14 dex i'd have enough strength.

oh and the trade off is probably canny acumen for perception for more initiative.


Bardarok wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

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.

Level 2: Fighter Dedication, trained with hatchets

Level 5: Become expert with Rapiers
level 12: Diverse Weapon Expert, become expert with hatchets
Level 13: Become master with rapiers

So equal proficiency at levels...

There is also a good chance that you might see an archetype for this specific build in the very near future. My first thought was that it didn't make a lot of sense for the hatchet to be a martial weapon, because the idea of general carpenters using axes feels more like a simple weapon than even a mace, but with how many traits they stuck on it, it would definitely be overpowered as a simple weapon. I may have to look at what a ranger with hatchets can do. Once you get the level 12 dual hunted target feat, you're MAP going back and forth against two targets is miniscule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So to everyone who has an issue not getting their wizard with a sword/spear to expert, it is in fact possible with 2 fighter feats. It can be done, it just uses 2 class feats to get there. Is that the issue, because it uses class feats instead of general ones? I only ask because, near as I can tell, that doesnt seem too expensive and in fact gives you more than just those proficiencies, with the skill and access to other weapons.

One thing I find interesting is that people who want armor expertise seem willing to take an archetype that doesnt make them into a holy warrior for it, but those who want weapon expertise dont want the archetype that gives them what they need.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
There is also a good chance that you might see an archetype for this specific build in the very near future. My first thought was that it didn't make a lot of sense for the hatchet to be a martial weapon, because the idea of general carpenters using axes feels more like a simple weapon than even a mace, but with how many traits they stuck on it, it would definitely be overpowered as a simple weapon. I may have to look at what a ranger with hatchets can do. Once you get the level 12 dual hunted target feat, you're MAP going back and forth against two targets is miniscule.

Oh I'm sure there will be an archetype for it. It's annoying from a game design perspective that that is even needed because if the fighter archetype scaled like that ancestry feats do than it wouldn't be a problem.

Same issue exists if a monk wants to use the fighter archetype to get access with non-monk weapons it doesn't scale enough to keep up.

Similar issue with a more heavily armored barbarian, rogue, monk, or ranger. Again if the champion archetype actually scaled they wouldn't need their own separate archetypes. And that's assuming they all want to get real religious about wearing armor but that is a separate issue.

So the proficiency granted by archetypes falls behind for martials. Though it scales enough to be useful for mage characters who's offense/defense only sales to expert.

Unless they change the scaling (which I doubt they will do) that means every martial concept that needs different proficiencies will need a new archetype since fighter MCA and champion MCA won't cut it.

The proficiency granted by the general feats doesn't even scale to expert so it's never worth it for a martial character to expand their concept and is only useful to mages if
1. They are using a two handed martial weapon since two handed martial weapons at a -2 are worth using over a two handed simple weapon since the die jumps up two steps d8 -> d12.
or
2. They take the armor proficiency general feat at least twice. With twice you can break even and with three you can achieve a minor benefit.

Luckily for mages they actually have the option of the multiclass
archetypes working for them which are better options making the general feats a low level stop-gap at best and a trap at worst.

Dark Archive

Megistone wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Megistone wrote:
So, Corvo said:

I don't mean to be rude or confrontational, and I'm sorry if I sound like that.

Thank you. It is a little harder to judge text usually than hearing someone speak. I really appreciate the good will.

Quote:


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!).

I agree somewhat, but finding narratives are how I’ve dealt with mechanical things I have not liked and do not like with systems. Since the mechanics say that wizards become better with wizard weapons, I settled on wizards focused more on laying a solid foundation on basic melee self defense and the contingency plan crossbow if they run out or need to conserve spells, while more “advanced” weapons, like the spear, are more standard of “fighting men.”

Quote:


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.

One step at a time. I’ve got champion my cause of better action economy for dual wielding and better dual wielding support as rogue feats first. I’ll get to pushing the egg-heads, sweet-talkers, and zealots, all with their flashy flash, spirit fingers, and wiggling tongues, into the ground after.

Quote:


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).

I knew I forgot to mention something earlier. I think of level 11 as the great separation, when each class really begins to come into its own and more greatly differentiate from the others. This is the first level after every class has (or could potentially) cross that first bump of differentiating it’s key stat (going from +4 to +5) using two boosts. It also happens to be what should be the start of the second half of an adventuring career. More on this below.

Quote:


1) No one says that class proficiencies have got a problem. Wizards do get expert with some weapons at level 11.

I didn’t realize this. I thought the casters were bumped when everyone else was bumped. Paizo’s got some splainin’ to do!!!

Quote:


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.

I think this is covered by my viewpoint that weaponry that isn’t part of your basic foundation requires dedication to those weapons through dedication feats.

Quote:


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.

You pointing this out the mastery and expert proficiency just makes me question designer choice when separating martials and casters, but for the opposite (or just another) reason, I.e why wizards are just as skilled as rogues with daggers this late in the game.

Side note: I also question why there are no general feats for magical training and why, if martial weapons and armor should, why shouldn’t magic casting for martials. This isn’t a part of my point on weapon/armor proficiency, but a side question, just to make it clear.


I mentioned it before and I will mention it again. Part of the problem is that feats pay differently depending on the proficiency, with armor/weapon being extremely expensive when compared to other options.

Champion dedication: 2 feats 1 at 14 to get expert at armor.
Fighter dedication: 2 feats 1 at 12 to get expert weapon.
Rogue dedication: 2 feats 1 at 8 to get master in 1 skill and expert in another.
Caster dedication: 2-4 feats 1 at 4, 12, and 18 to get master in spell casting and 8th lv spells.

General feat for armor: 1 per step to get trained.
For weapon it: 1 per step to get trained.
For skill: 1 per skill to get trained. Unless its lore.

So 1 lv 12+ class feat for expert in armor/weapon has the same value (+2 to the thing) depending on the step as 1 to 3 lv 1 general feats, but its effectively only worth 1 general feat due to usage limit.
1 Rogue lv 8 feat has the same value (+2 to 2 skills) to 2 lv 1 general feats.
1 caster feat from level 4 to 18 has potentially the same value (+2 to spellcasting and free spells) as 1 general feat for trained spellcasting proficiency (no spells) + however many feats 8 lvs worth of spell cost.

Edit: Changed worth for value, and made the martial value comparisons a little clearer.


Blackest Sheep wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
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.

I personally don't mind the DEX meta, I'd actually recommend it to a newer player because it's lack of options is easier to grasp for a newcomer.

If we're talking about General Feats being used on General feats, then the options are nice but lacking, generally there's maybe 15 viable ones. If we're talking about downgrading a general feat into a skill feat then it opens up to a degree. A wizard will still only have 3 skills capped, and will be for most part limited. To be upfront. I don't think STR&Medium/heavy armor is better. I actually showed numbers that it lags behind early to midgame. My stance is that Armor/Weapon/Skill Proficiency/training are very upfront about what they do. They give Trained Proficiency. I wouldn't care if people called them weak or suboptimal feats, but calling them trap feats is a little reaching.

I preach the str/medium/heavy armor combo as an alternative and have repeatedly admitted that it varies, and if min-maxed, the 20dex unarmored expert comes out ahead of trained str/med/heavy. My irk is with them being deemed useless because of 1-2AC because white room vacuum math says this is bad. Using the heaviest example, any class besides champion/fighter in fullplate will match a 18 dex unarmored expert until they get 20dex, then the dex wins by +1AC. Armor6+Prof2=AC8 vs Dex5+Prof4=AC9. No argument that Dex is better early game and once you get 20Dex. My point is that Armor/weapon/skill prof does what they say and not understanding that classes get Expert around 13th with exception of Champion is just lack of due dilligence. Call the progression towards fullplate weak, cuz it is. But there's more than one way even now to reach that fullplate. Plus if you worry about reflex, there's always ability to take cover. Fullplate and cover is +7 to reflex not counting runes or magic items.

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

So to everyone who has an issue not getting their wizard with a sword/spear to expert, it is in fact possible with 2 fighter feats. It can be done, it just uses 2 class feats to get there. Is that the issue, because it uses class feats instead of general ones? I only ask because, near as I can tell, that doesnt seem too expensive and in fact gives you more than just those proficiencies, with the skill and access to other weapons.

One thing I find interesting is that people who want armor expertise seem willing to take an archetype that doesnt make them into a holy warrior for it, but those who want weapon expertise dont want the archetype that gives them what they need.

On my experimental wizard, I actually went the full mile and took both fighter and champion, as a half-elf/human, becoming expert in all simple, martial and armors, trained in all advanced only costs 3 skills. He's shaping up nicely, mostly because nearly all self buffs last 1 minute.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
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.

Ah! You're right. Solid example, then.

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

So to everyone who has an issue not getting their wizard with a sword/spear to expert, it is in fact possible with 2 fighter feats. It can be done, it just uses 2 class feats to get there. Is that the issue, because it uses class feats instead of general ones? I only ask because, near as I can tell, that doesnt seem too expensive and in fact gives you more than just those proficiencies, with the skill and access to other weapons.

One thing I find interesting is that people who want armor expertise seem willing to take an archetype that doesnt make them into a holy warrior for it, but those who want weapon expertise dont want the archetype that gives them what they need.

The issue is not that getting Expert in martial weapons is unachievable, it's that General Feats don't help you do so in any way, and yet those Feats exist, acting like people should take them.

It's not that you can't play a Greatsword Wizard and be effective, it's that taking Martial Weapon Proficiency (for your Greatsword) is both the most logical and straightforward way to do this, while also being the worst possible way to do it mechanically.

Being the most straightforward way to do something and mechanically the worst one is the definition of a trap option, and that's bad.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
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.

Ah! You're right. Solid example, then.

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

So to everyone who has an issue not getting their wizard with a sword/spear to expert, it is in fact possible with 2 fighter feats. It can be done, it just uses 2 class feats to get there. Is that the issue, because it uses class feats instead of general ones? I only ask because, near as I can tell, that doesnt seem too expensive and in fact gives you more than just those proficiencies, with the skill and access to other weapons.

One thing I find interesting is that people who want armor expertise seem willing to take an archetype that doesnt make them into a holy warrior for it, but those who want weapon expertise dont want the archetype that gives them what they need.

The issue is not that getting Expert in martial weapons is unachievable, it's that General Feats don't help you do so in any way, and yet those Feats exist, acting like people should take them.

It's not that you can't play a Greatsword Wizard and be effective, it's that taking Martial Weapon Proficiency (for your Greatsword) is both the most logical and straightforward way to do this, while also being the worst possible way to do it mechanically.

Being the most straightforward way to do something and mechanically the worst one is the definition of a trap option, and that's bad.

I'd actually agree if there wasn't a feat hierachy of sorts: Ancestry > Class > General > Skill.

Based on current options. It takes 2 Class feats to get either expert nearly all weapons, or expert all armors. Thank god shield prof are gone. I don't think 2 General feats should match 2 Class feats. If they did, you might as well just make everything General again. For weapons, it'd be nice with something along of pick one weapon, and spend more feats to rank it up for example.

Dark Archive

Deadmanwalking wrote:


TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

So to everyone who has an issue not getting their wizard with a sword/spear to expert, it is in fact possible with 2 fighter feats. It can be done, it just uses 2 class feats to get there. Is that the issue, because it uses class feats instead of general ones? I only ask because, near as I can tell, that doesnt seem too expensive and in fact gives you more than just those proficiencies, with the skill and access to other weapons.

One thing I find interesting is that people who want armor expertise seem willing to take an archetype that doesnt make them into a holy warrior for it, but those who want weapon expertise dont want the archetype that gives them what they need.

The issue is not that getting Expert in martial weapons is unachievable, it's that General Feats don't help you do so in any way, and yet those Feats exist, acting like people should take them.

It's not that you can't play a Greatsword Wizard and be effective, it's that taking Martial Weapon Proficiency (for your Greatsword) is both the most logical and straightforward way to do this, while also being the worst possible way to do it mechanically.

Being the most straightforward way to do something and mechanically the worst one is the definition of a trap option, and that's bad.

I think this might have been my disconnect. I did not understand this point of view. I never viewed or thought to view general feats as the most logical or straightforward way to get martial proficiency. I just thought to look at a martial class and look at general feats for what they are. Would you mind explaining why you think the general feats are the most logical or straightforward way for this proficiency gain? I apologize if you have already laid out this, but the last week or so has been a daze of restless nights and long, drawn-out days.

Liberty's Edge

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

I'd actually agree if there wasn't a feat hierachy of sorts: Ancestry > Class > General > Skill.

Based on current options. It takes 2 Class feats to get either expert nearly all weapons, or expert all armors. Thank god shield prof are gone. I don't think 2 General feats should match 2 Class feats. If they did, you might as well just make everything General again. For weapons, it'd be nice with something along of pick one weapon, and spend more feats to rank it up for example.

The issue is not that Class Feats are better. That's fine. The issue is that grabbing a General Feat is the first thing most people will think of to get a weapon, since it's listed right there in an area everyone will check, and some people won't even look at the Archetypes at all.

That hierarchy you talk about, while quite real (though I think Class is one up on Ancestry), is stated nowhere in the actual book, meaning that truly new players have no way to know it and infer things like this based on it. Which goes back to the whole 'you need context to understand the penalties associated with taking this' thing that makes these Feats a trap option.

I would be fine if these Feats didn't exist or if the only way to get Expert was a Class Feat that had them as a prerequisite, or a host of other options. The problem is that, right now, none of that is true, and being Trained via these Feats is utterly useless to getting to Expert, while also being something a lot of new people will do without understanding that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think maybe instead of thinking about it "logical and straightforward" if you just called it "the path of least resistance".

A player starts with a concept.

X Class

They want to use Y weapon, and they are new to the game.

They decided on playing a Wizard, but they also like Slings.

They ask the GM, "How do I get access with a Sling?" or maybe they just search General Feats.

They find the General Feat, through whatever form, and say "Oh look! I can use a Sling if I take this! This must be what the game wants me to do when I want a weapon."

They take the Feat, and then 10 levels later, the GM has to explain a very sad story about how if they wanted the weapon to be useful forever, they should have MCD Fighter.

Just because MCD exist does not mean that people should be forced to use them to get Proficiency with a Sling (or whatever). MCD is supposed to supplement the concept of Multiclassing, the act of merging two classes.

The person in the above scenario isn't trying to "merge two classes" they're trying to use a Sling and they looked through the options provided to them as a Wizard.

It's not even inherently intuitive for a person who's playing a Wizard to think "Oh I must spend my Class Feat to get this specific MCD and then I can take the Expert Class Feat once I reach that level"

A new player is just not going to think like that, that requires system knowledge/mastery that just isn't fair to assume a Player is always going to have.

A General Feat, which everyone gets, that sits right there in the book and says "Weapon Proficiency" is going to assert that it indeed makes you Proficient. And it does, sort of, and then it becomes mechanically inefficient.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I wouldn't care if people called them weak or suboptimal feats, but calling them trap feats is a little reaching

Well, that depends. Going full STR on wizards is pretty close to a trap, because ability boosts lock you into a concept. In this case, a concept that starts worse, gets better in mid-level play at AC, but is still worse in other defenses/perception/skills and then will be the same for two levels in AC, while worse at other things and could end up even worse in AC and other stuff for the endgame - while having spent three feats to achieve that.

Being worse at several things while having spent resources to get there, with no feasible way out, is rather trappy. Although still playable, of course. If you go with lighter armor and more DEX, it is pretty close and a matter of preference, I think.

As for hiding behind a rock for better REF saves, anybody can do that, so that is not really an argument for or against anything, as it is agnostic to stats, armor and everything else.

And of course, the DEX-based wizards ducking beside the STR-based wizards will still be better by a couple of points, up to 5 or so (DEX10 versus DEX16 at lower levels without bulwark, with Canny Acumen). Even at the worst point, they will be at least even (humans with everything as soon as possible versus DEX16 - which of course means the humans will be very slow (-10) and suffer full ACP). Otherwise, the straight DEX wizards will always beat the STR wizards at REF saves - obviously!

That is before making arguments about having better initiative or more speed and so on, which might preclude the need to duck in the first place, or even only allow the DEX wizards to reach cover at all, and so on ...


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

I'd actually agree if there wasn't a feat hierachy of sorts: Ancestry > Class > General > Skill.

Based on current options. It takes 2 Class feats to get either expert nearly all weapons, or expert all armors. Thank god shield prof are gone. I don't think 2 General feats should match 2 Class feats. If they did, you might as well just make everything General again. For weapons, it'd be nice with something along of pick one weapon, and spend more feats to rank it up for example.

The issue is not that Class Feats are better. That's fine. The issue is that grabbing a General Feat is the first thing most people will think of to get a weapon, since it's listed right there in an area everyone will check, and some people won't even look at the Archetypes at all.

That hierarchy you talk about, while quite real (though I think Class is one up on Ancestry), is stated nowhere in the actual book, meaning that truly new players have no way to know it and infer things like this based on it. Which goes back to the whole 'you need context to understand the penalties associated with taking this' thing that makes these Feats a trap option.

I would be fine if these Feats didn't exist or if the only way to get Expert was a Class Feat that had them as a prerequisite, or a host of other options. The problem is that, right now, none of that is true, and being Trained via these Feats is utterly useless to getting to Expert, while also being something a lot of new people will do without understanding that.

Some players won't visit forums and know that the math is so tight that +1AC is considered a gamechanger, they might not grab the best armor for their class or max out their dex or even delay getting a rune. If we're basing it on the newest of new players who don't have a grasp of the fundementals, then there's a lot that needs fixing. Again, I don't say it to be mean, but if someone reads that Armor Proficiency gives Trained, and expects more, that's on them. I'd like to think that before even touching the Armor feat, you'd look at your class. Say Bard, again, I hope that the average joe would look at bard and go "I start with unarmored and light armor." then reads his class and sees "Ah, it gets expert in unarmored and light." before going "I want breastplate or fullplate."

If they skip a basic routine like checking what your class has, which shows the proficiencies before even feats, that's a due dilligence and grasping fundemental issue. I mean, if we had a ton of players coming here or reddit bringing these things up I'd agree. But it's all come from clearly not-new players who are all about how tight the math is. I'd rather not them not exist, I like a weaker option if I don't feel like going champion. It's a risk vs reward decision just like not choosing Toughness the moment you can, because bonus HP is never bad.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Narxiso wrote:
I think this might have been my disconnect. I did not understand this point of view. I never viewed or thought to view general feats as the most logical or straightforward way to get martial proficiency. I just thought to look at a martial class and look at general feats for what they are. Would you mind explaining why you think the general feats are the most logical or straightforward way for this proficiency gain? I apologize if you have already laid out this, but the last week or so has been a daze of restless nights and long, drawn-out days.

Sure, happy to explain. I'll use an example.

I meant that on a Wizard, or anyone else who didn't start with them, General Feats would be people's first thoughts, especially if they don't want to fiddle with the complexity of multiclassing and archetypes (a common situation among first time players). Many will probably see no other way to do this unless they happen to want to very specifically use an Archetype.

Let's say Joe (who has never played an RPG before, but is smart and reads the parts of the book that seem relevant) wants to play a Human Noble Wizard (this is a concept that speaks to him). He invests in Dex (16), Int (18), and Con (12) and Cha (12), because those sound like Noble Wizard things, and proceeds to go through the process of making his character. He checks the Human entry, the Backgrounds section, and the Wizard section, as well as looking at Equipment (he'll also look at spells in a bit). Also, since he's Human he takes a look at the General Feats and he sees Weapon Proficiency. He takes a quick look back at the weapons lists, and sees that rapiers are on the Martial Weapons list, and can be used with Dex! He also sees that, as a Human, he could get two General Weapon Proficiencies and wield a rapier, a weapon as good as anyone gets. That sounds really cool and thematic to Joe, so he does it.

Joe never checked the Archetype section, because why would he? That sounds complicated and this is his first character. He just saw there was an option for a weapon he liked that he could take, so he did. He did so with no awareness of the long term consequences of this and how useless it will be at level 11+.

Joe is not atypical in this regard. He's in a very normal and common situation. Some people might not be in it until 3rd level, but a lot of people's first character is Human, and even if it isn't, that just puts off the problem rather than removing it.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Some players won't visit forums and know that the math is so tight that +1AC is considered a gamechanger, they might not grab the best armor for their class or max out their dex or even delay getting a rune.

This is a bad choice, but it's not a trap. It's fixable in a variety of ways over a pretty short period of time, and its effects will become very obvious very quickly. You get hit a lot? Maybe you should raise your AC.

The thing about the Proficiency problems is that they don't kick in until much later, and do so very suddenly, with no ability to change gears at all quickly (or in many cases no ability to do so at all) to fix the problem.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If we're basing it on the newest of new players who don't have a grasp of the fundementals, then there's a lot that needs fixing.

We're basing it on people who haven't read the whole book, plus the Bestiary, and haven't been on the Forums. Y'know who that describes? Most players that exist.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Again, I don't say it to be mean, but if someone reads that Armor Proficiency gives Trained, and expects more, that's on them.

Expecting that things that give you Trained will either increase or serve as a prerequisite for things that increase them, is not on them. It's on the game because literally every other thing that gives Trained serves as a prerequisite for something that increases it. Assuming that a mechanic works like every other similar mechanic in the game is very normal.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I'd like to think that before even touching the Armor feat, you'd look at your class. Say Bard, again, I hope that the average joe would look at bard and go "I start with unarmored and light armor." then reads his class and sees "Ah, it gets expert in unarmored and light." before going "I want breastplate or fullplate."

Sure. But they would likewise probably assume that, if something gives you Trained there's something else to get you to Expert somewhere that builds off that. Since that's how literally everything else works.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If they skip a basic routine like checking what your class has, which shows the proficiencies before even feats, that's a due dilligence and grasping fundemental issue.

Again, the issue isn't them not knowing what their Class has (though, actually, IME a lot of people skim higher level Class Features), it's assuming that the Proficiency Feats follow the same pattern as everything else.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I mean, if we had a ton of players coming here or reddit bringing these things up I'd agree. But it's all come from clearly not-new players who are all about how tight the math is.

That's because the new players we're concerned about won't notice this issue until they hit 11th or 13th level and the game's been out two weeks.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I'd rather not them not exist, I like a weaker option if I don't feel like going champion. It's a risk vs reward decision just like not choosing Toughness the moment you can, because bonus HP is never bad.

They are a trap and need to stop being a trap. There are a lot of ways to do that, but one of them needs to be done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Some players won't visit forums and know that the math is so tight that +1AC is considered a gamechanger, they might not grab the best armor for their class or max out their dex or even delay getting a rune.

This is a bad choice, but it's not a trap. It's fixable in a variety of ways over a pretty short period of time, and its effects will become very obvious very quickly. You get hit a lot? Maybe you should raise your AC.

The thing about the Proficiency problems is that they don't kick in until much later, and do so very suddenly, with no ability to change gears at all quickly (or in many cases no ability to do so at all) to fix the problem.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If we're basing it on the newest of new players who don't have a grasp of the fundementals, then there's a lot that needs fixing.

We're basing it on people who haven't read the whole book, plus the Bestiary, and haven't been on the Forums. Y'know who that describes? Most players that exist.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Again, I don't say it to be mean, but if someone reads that Armor Proficiency gives Trained, and expects more, that's on them.

Expecting that things that give you Trained will either increase or serve as a prerequisite for things that increase them, is not on them. It's on the game because literally every other thing that gives Trained serves as a prerequisite for something that increases it. Assuming that a mechanic works like every other similar mechanic in the game is very normal.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I'd like to think that before even touching the Armor feat, you'd look at your class. Say Bard, again, I hope that the average joe would look at bard and go "I start with unarmored and light armor." then reads his class and sees "Ah, it gets expert in unarmored and light." before going "I want breastplate or fullplate."
Sure. But they would likewise probably assume that, if something gives you Trained there's something else to get...

I just can't agree on the whole "suddenly." This is a group game that requires time and reading. There's some complex stuff, but we're talking about the very basic fundementals. You pick a class, any class. You see what it excels at and what it unlocks. If a class says it only unlocks Expert Light armor, there's no "suddenly" my trained fullplate snuck up on me and hit me over the head with a sap. Going armor is a deliberate choice with a cost and playstyle change, exactly the same as taking archery or animal companion with a ranger. I can't really agree to balancing things on the presumption that some people can't understand the classes they pick, that's no way to keep a game afloat. If you feel people not understanding that they go from Trained > Expert, then maybe the solution is a box explaining the basics again.

You don't need to read the whole book, and you definitely don't need bestiary. Plus unlike most pen and paper rpg's, the resources are easily accessible since the release. Maybe they should print archive link in the books and suggest people glance at them? We should probably warn casters of Skilled Training, no way they can increase those considering they struggle to increase started Training skills.

They're sub-optimal, but only a trap if the affected player can't grasp basics of proficiency.


My solution:

Level 15 general feat for the weapon feat. It comes online later than the more restrictive racial/archetype options.

The armor would seriously devalue the champ 14 archetype feat if its available at 15 but 19 would be too late. So, 15 it is. Lesser of two evils, I guess. But I would require expert in prior armor type. So, expert in light before you can get expert in medium, etc. That would retain the level 14 archetype feat's value.

This would require no changes to existing options or rules. Most existing options would remain valuable at least momentarily.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
They're sub-optimal, but only a trap if the affected player can't grasp basics of proficiency.

And ivory tower game design continues into a new edition.


Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
They're sub-optimal, but only a trap if the affected player can't grasp basics of proficiency.

And ivory tower game design continues into a new edition.

That term goes over my head.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I just can't agree on the whole "suddenly."

The change is absolutely sudden. Which makes it difficult to rebuild or the like to accommodate it.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
This is a group game that requires time and reading.

Sure, but most people don't need to read the whole book to play their character.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
There's some complex stuff, but we're talking about the very basic fundementals.

No. We are not. We are talking about the sole exception to one of the key fundamentals. Which is precisely the problem.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
You pick a class, any class. You see what it excels at and what it unlocks. If a class says it only unlocks Expert Light armor, there's no "suddenly" my trained fullplate snuck up on me and hit me over the head with a sap. Going armor is a deliberate choice with a cost and playstyle change, exactly the same as taking archery or animal companion with a ranger. I can't really agree to balancing things on the presumption that some people can't understand the classes they pick, that's no way to keep a game afloat. If you feel people not understanding that they go from Trained > Expert, then maybe the solution is a box explaining the basics again.

That's not what I'm saying, and I'm beginning to doubt your reading comprehension if you think it is. Of course most people know what their Class gets additional Proficiency in. But as I've discussed at length, the whole game trains you that if you get Proficiency some other way, you can increase it using that Proficiency as a baseline.

Except that in this one case, you flatly can't.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
You don't need to read the whole book, and you definitely don't need bestiary. Plus unlike most pen and paper rpg's, the resources are easily accessible since the release. Maybe they should print archive link in the books and suggest people glance at them? We should probably warn casters of Skilled Training, no way they can increase those considering they struggle to increase started Training skills.

You need to read quite a lot of it to know there isn't a high level Feat to get Expert in weapons with the Weapon Proficiency General Feat as a prerequisite (since the default assumption based on all other Proficiency granters is that there would be). And more to know how vital that is mathematically.

Both of which are sorta needed to understand the consequences of taking the Feat.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
They're sub-optimal, but only a trap if the affected player can't grasp basics of proficiency.

As Bardarok notes, this is the definition of Ivory Tower Game Design.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
That term goes over my head.

'Ivory Tower Game Design' is the idea that trap options should exist, thus punishing people who are less familiar with the rules and rewarding those who are more familiar. It is a terrible idea.


Data Lore wrote:

My solution:

Level 15 general feat for the weapon feat. It comes online later than the more restrictive racial/archetype options.

The armor would seriously devalue the champ 14 archetype feat if its available at 15 but 19 would be too late. So, 15 it is. Lesser of two evils, I guess. But I would require expert in prior armor type. So, expert in light before you can get expert in medium, etc. That would retain the level 14 archetype feat's value.

This would require no changes to existing options or rules. Most existing options would remain valuable at least momentarily.

I don't like this implementation because it leaves anyone with Master Proficiency in Armor in a bad situation still, so it doesn't solve the problem.

And Weapons need to be treated differently than Armor. Armor is going to cause way more problems than Weapons increasing Proficiency.

Instead of restricting it by level, restricting what the Proficiency applies to would be a better way to limit it IMO, since forcing the player to make the choice for a specific Weapon or Group to get added to their Class pool with a prerequisite of "Expert Proficiency with your Initial Proficiency Weapons".

If it was based on current proficiency, the Feat could operate similarly for Rogue as it does for Casters/Wizard


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I just can't agree on the whole "suddenly."

The change is absolutely sudden. Which makes it difficult to rebuild or the like to accommodate it.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
This is a group game that requires time and reading.

Sure, but most people don't need to read the whole book to play their character.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
There's some complex stuff, but we're talking about the very basic fundementals.

No. We are not. We are talking about the sole exception to one of the key fundamentals. Which is precisely the problem.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
You pick a class, any class. You see what it excels at and what it unlocks. If a class says it only unlocks Expert Light armor, there's no "suddenly" my trained fullplate snuck up on me and hit me over the head with a sap. Going armor is a deliberate choice with a cost and playstyle change, exactly the same as taking archery or animal companion with a ranger. I can't really agree to balancing things on the presumption that some people can't understand the classes they pick, that's no way to keep a game afloat. If you feel people not understanding that they go from Trained > Expert, then maybe the solution is a box explaining the basics again.

That's not what I'm saying, and I'm beginning to doubt your reading comprehension if you think it is. Of course most people know what their Class gets additional Proficiency in. But as I've discussed at length, the whole game trains you that if you get Proficiency some other way, you can increase it using that Proficiency as a baseline.

Except that in this one case, you flatly can't.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
You don't need to read the whole book, and you definitely don't need bestiary. Plus unlike most pen and paper rpg's, the resources are easily accessible since the release. Maybe they should print archive link in the books and suggest people glance at them? We should probably warn casters of Skilled Training, no way
...

Nothing about 13 levels is sudden. If you want we can agree to disagree because I don't think we'll find common ground on this. With how long session take and considering a new player won't be playing a lot more than once a week, I can't agree that 1-13 will ever be sudden in any way.

Reading on fundementals regarding your character is due dilligence. Same way a thief rogue needs to go out and find out what weapons are finesse, or a sorcerer needs to go out and write down his spells. In this case it's even simple because proficiency touch every class in regard of attacks, defense and skills. Unless human, you don't get a general feat until 3rd feat. By then you kind of need to know how proficiencies work and that class expert at latter level will outdo "Trained proficiency in XYZ". If we go with a new player not reading the whole book and understanding that things scale, then he shouldn't have expectations of weapon proficiency from feats scaling since he did not read the whole book and has no grasp on scaling? Can't have it both ways really, these players can't be so wellread they expect things to scale, and at the same time not grasp that some things scale differently. The book doesn't explicitly say that skill scaling is limited unlike class weapon/armor, but they should grasp that a wizard won't master as many skills as a rogue.

If the shock of a mechanic doing X but then same mechanic later not doing X, this would apply to more aspects, such as rogues. From every other class you should expect Skill Scaling to act in one manner. Then rogue comes in and scales skills up at a different ratio. The player has to read up and adapt. Or come online and ask.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
I just can't agree on the whole "suddenly."

The change is absolutely sudden. Which makes it difficult to rebuild or the like to accommodate it.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
This is a group game that requires time and reading.

Sure, but most people don't need to read the whole book to play their character.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
There's some complex stuff, but we're talking about the very basic fundementals.

No. We are not. We are talking about the sole exception to one of the key fundamentals. Which is precisely the problem.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
You pick a class, any class. You see what it excels at and what it unlocks. If a class says it only unlocks Expert Light armor, there's no "suddenly" my trained fullplate snuck up on me and hit me over the head with a sap. Going armor is a deliberate choice with a cost and playstyle change, exactly the same as taking archery or animal companion with a ranger. I can't really agree to balancing things on the presumption that some people can't understand the classes they pick, that's no way to keep a game afloat. If you feel people not understanding that they go from Trained > Expert, then maybe the solution is a box explaining the basics again.

That's not what I'm saying, and I'm beginning to doubt your reading comprehension if you think it is. Of course most people know what their Class gets additional Proficiency in. But as I've discussed at length, the whole game trains you that if you get Proficiency some other way, you can increase it using that Proficiency as a baseline.

Except that in this one case, you flatly can't.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
You don't need to read the whole book, and you definitely don't need bestiary. Plus unlike most pen and paper rpg's, the resources are easily accessible since the release. Maybe they should print archive link in the books and suggest people glance at them? We should probably warn casters of Skilled Training, no way
...

Nothing about 13 levels is sudden. If you want we can agree to disagree because I don't think we'll find common ground on this. With how long session take and considering a new player won't be playing a lot more than once a week, I can't agree that 1-13 will ever be sudden in any way.

Reading on fundementals regarding your character is due diligence. Same way a thief rogue needs to go out and find out what weapons are finesse, or a sorcerer needs to go out and write down his spells. In this case it's even simple because proficiency touch every class in regard of attacks, defense and skills. Unless human, you don't get a general feat until 3rd feat. By then you kind of need to know how proficiencies work and that class expert at latter level will outdo "Trained proficiency in XYZ". If we go with a new player not reading the whole book and understanding that things scale, then he shouldn't have expectations of weapon proficiency from feats scaling since he did not read the whole book and has no grasp on scaling? Can't have it both ways really, these players can't be so wellread they expect things to scale, and at the same time not grasp that some things scale differently. The book doesn't explicitly say that skill scaling is limited unlike class weapon/armor, but they should grasp that a wizard won't master as many skills as a rogue.

If the shock of a mechanic doing X but then same mechanic later not doing X, this would apply to more aspects, such as rogues. From every other class you should expect Skill Scaling to act in one manner. Then rogue comes in and scales skills up at a different ratio. The player has to read up and adapt. Or come online and ask.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
They're sub-optimal, but only a trap if the affected player can't grasp basics of proficiency.

And ivory tower game design continues into a new edition.

That term goes over my head.

It's not a strictly defined term but in general it is the game design principle that there are good options and bad options in the game and a good player is one who can distinguish between the two. It's not only the concept that a player with game mastery can make a better character (which is honestly always going to be the case to some degree) but that a player with system mastery deserves to have a stronger player and similarly players who don't invest the time to gain system mastery deserve to have worse characters.

This is a major part of Magic the Gathering. They publish a ton of cards and part of being a good player is taking all theese options, some of which are bad, and building a strong deck.

The story (which may be apocryphal) is that when Wizards of the Coast was making DnD 3.0 they incorporated part of that design philosophy. Certainly there were ways to put together options in DnD 3 that lead to both incredibly powerful characters and incredibly weak ones. PF1 made this a little better but fundamentaly it was the same. PF2 made a lot of strides in reducing this type of thing. You can no longer nerf your character completely by choosing to multiclass for example. However whenever a system presents an option that looks good on it's surface but if you have a deeper understanding of the system you realise is actually bad it reeks of ivory tower game design.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Nothing about 13 levels is sudden.

It's perfectly fine at level 12 and then the moment you roll over to 13 it isn't. That's pretty sudden and kind of obviously what DMW is talking about here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
They're sub-optimal, but only a trap if the affected player can't grasp basics of proficiency.

And ivory tower game design continues into a new edition.

That term goes over my head.

It's not a strictly defined term but in general it is the game design principle that there are good options and bad options in the game and a good player is one who can distinguish between the two. It's not only the concept that a player with game mastery can make a better character (which is honestly always going to be the case to some degree) but that a player with system mastery deserves to have a stronger player and similarly players who don't invest the time to gain system mastery deserve to have worse characters.

This is a major part of Magic the Gathering. They publish a ton of cards and part of being a good player is taking all theese options, some of which are bad, and building a strong deck.

The story (which may be apocryphal) is that when Wizards of the Coast was making DnD 3.0 they incorporated part of that design philosophy. Certainly there were ways to put together options in DnD 3 that lead to both incredibly powerful characters and incredibly weak ones. PF1 made this a little better but fundamentaly it was the same. PF2 made a lot of strides in reducing this type of thing. You can no longer nerf your character completely by choosing to multiclass for example. However whenever a system presents an option that looks good on it's surface but if you have a deeper understanding of the system you realise is actually bad it reeks of ivory tower game design.

Are there tabletop roleplays that don't have that? I'd like to delude myself into thinking I have above average grasp, but I come to these forums because there's always someone thinking of the best and strangest things. In PF1 someone opened up my eyes to combining two items that have been available for years and that combo was a gamechanger: Eversmoking Flask + Fogcutting Lenses.

Probably why I enjoy these kind of forums, always someone who can teach you something new.
I just wish we had some stories of Bards in medium armor via general feat, or maybe a full plated druid.
The general feats work for me because I'm after a melee build. I've yet to determine if optimal, but it doesn't seem as obsolete as hyperbole implies. I should probably make a version with champion dip and one without just to compare the two, and one that just went fully dex and see how it pans out.

Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Nothing about 13 levels is sudden.
It's perfectly fine at level 12 and then the moment you roll over to 13 it isn't. That's pretty sudden and kind of obviously what DMW is talking about here.

That's arguable. If you built for fullplate/breastplate and you have the stats for it, let's use bard in this example:

The dex bard will have +4Dex +4Proficiency = +8AC at level 13th. <Expert
The dex bard with chain shirt will have +3Dex +4Proficiency = +7AC at level 13th <Expert

The str bard will have +4armor +1dex +2proficiency = +7AC at level 13th <Trained
The str bard will have +6armor +2proficiency = +8AC at level 13th <Trained

I don't disagree that the bard will be behind AC until he gets the armor he builds for, and unlike wizard he only pays 1-2 feats.
What I disagree with is the statement that the armor you go for will become useless when you hit 13. That's when it matches a non-dex. The only time an unarmored expert overtakes a full plate is when he hits 20dex. The real trap is light armor being weaker than both pure dex build and pure fullplate build.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Nothing about 13 levels is sudden.
It's perfectly fine at level 12 and then the moment you roll over to 13 it isn't. That's pretty sudden and kind of obviously what DMW is talking about here.

And I'm still super unclear about why people think it's fine to be equal with their stuff prior to level 13, and not after.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Nothing about 13 levels is sudden.
It's perfectly fine at level 12 and then the moment you roll over to 13 it isn't. That's pretty sudden and kind of obviously what DMW is talking about here.
And I'm still super unclear about why people think it's fine to be equal with their stuff prior to level 13, and not after.

They picked camp A and are working their mind through arguing their point of view.

I mean I'm guilty of it too at times, but I feel like at some point you have to do some personal inventory and go "What am I really arguing against? Am I just not trying to 'lose' an online argument and I actually wouldn't care?"

Personally, based on the incomplete information that built some of the positions, that's my hot take.

That and no one ever really answers this question (Squiggit has said it 4 times this thread).


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

Are there tabletop roleplays that don't have that?

No game will be perfect but most games made in the last decade at least try and avoid it. Including PF2.

Huge swaths of the redesign between PF1 and PF2 address the issue. The unified scaling proficiency, the tight math, the new multiclassing system. All try and make it so you can't inadvertently nerf a character.

Due to the hard work of the devs there are comparitevly way fewer trap options in PF2 than there were in PF1. The non scaling proficiencies is an outlier in that regard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Nothing about 13 levels is sudden.
It's perfectly fine at level 12 and then the moment you roll over to 13 it isn't. That's pretty sudden and kind of obviously what DMW is talking about here.
And I'm still super unclear about why people think it's fine to be equal with their stuff prior to level 13, and not after.

Because that's not what's happening? Once you get the armor, latest at level 7th, earliest at 5th via general feats, it stays as is. Nothing actually changes. From the moment you get the armor you built for till 20th, it doesn't change.

There's two separate builds, if you're locked into dex, no armor ever will be tempting for you. If you're not building dex, you could get master in unarmored and still be behind the armor you built for.

If you go a ranger who uses str with twin axes, it doesn't matter that longbows are really good for rangers, you won't be able to use them as well as a dex ranger ever because you made a choice on a build path. Every class has this choice. Dex or not dex.

Even if we ignore the str build, say a level 13th cloistered cleric picks up fullplate via feats, and a shield. They could dump every stat into charisma, wisdom, constitution and intelligence and still be able to sit there with +8AC casting spells.

If they decide to use a tower shield, they could even cast a spell and take cover for a total of +12AC and +7Reflex. Their unarmored buddy with 18dex could sit next to him with his +9AC, take the tower shield and take cover behind it for a total of +13AC and +8 to reflex.

The baselines at 13th aren't that horrible. But there's a choice. "Max Dex or not?" If you pick the latter, you want to pick an armor. Light if you want 16-18 dex, medium if you want 12-14 dex or heavy if you want 10-12 dex, all armors are equal(exception for padded, which is weakest of all) total within their class as long as you have the max dex allowed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If there is to be scaling, and I agree there maybe should be some way to get it, it is unlikely to be automatic to avoid treading on the MC toes too much. This philosophy can be seen in the various racial weapon expertise feats.

The thing is, these take a long time to come online (13th level) and apply to a very small number of weapons. Having it apply to the Armour or Weapon Proficiency feats would open up many more options.

I could see Armour Expertise being available at 11th level and allow any armour you're in to scale with your class armour proficiencies. This would most benefit classes with light or medium armour as a non-human class with no armour wouldn't be ab le to acquire heavy amrmour proficiency until this level anyway.

However, weapons present more of an issue given the existence of the Ancestry feats. If you can gain scaling weapon proficiency earlier than 13th level, you invalidate the Ancestry feats, so that would force the feat to be at 15th level (the first General feat after 13). This would mean signifiant number of levels when you're behind with these weapons. However, this seems like a plausible route given it is exactly the same for racial weapons. If you're a dwarvern rogue who wields picks, you're behind vs more traditional rogue weapons from level 5 until level 13. Does that make the Dwarvern Weapon feat a trap option?

EDIT: Bit rambly. tldr; Precedence from Ancestry Weapon Expertise feats says its designed to take options that aren’t as good in order to branch out of your niche, e.g. battleaxe wielding dwarven rogues. Something similar is going to happen here..


2 people marked this as a favorite.

These feats remaining as essentially pre-requisites for future archetypes sounds fine.

But, if those archetypes don't give increasing proficiency themselves, it sounds like it would make these more of a problem.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Deadman's intro...

1. Proficiency Scaling.

This is debatably two related problems, the first (the one I think is an error) is that Sorcerers do not get to Expert with Unarmed (despite some Bloodlines giving Focus Spells entirely based on unarmed attacks) when they do with Simple Weapons, and Warpriests likewise do not get to Expert in Martial Weapons (despite getting Proficiency in them). These seem like errors because they are the only two times when a Class provides a weapon and encourages the character to use it then pulls the rug out from under them by not increasing Proficiency. That's a trap option, and bad game design policy.

Speaking of which, the second issue appears intentional, but remains a huge problem. Probably the biggest one in the game. You can get Proficiency with Armor or Weapons as a General Feat, but can never increase it that way. Now, deciding that General Feats should not allow you to cross class boundaries by getting good with, say, a Greatsword or Full Plate as a Wizard would seem reasonable to me on its own. The problem is that in that case, the Feats shouldn't exist in the first place. By existing, they allow the Wizard to do precisely that with General Feats,...

I would keep in mind that Wizards only ever get Expert with Unarmored Defense, and Expert with Wizard weapons. If you think of them in PF1, where they had only poor base attack, and only feat heavy, or spell power reducing options otherwise, this is still better. I for one, have always championed the idea that if your Wizard wants to wield a sword like Gandalf, he should be able to with some effort, but without strangling himself. However, that has never been an option in these games, so why should they suddenly be competitive with Fighter?

Also, the "Warpriest" is really the base Cleric from PF1 and all previous editions. Remember those guys with Medium base attack, and simple weapons.

After all, Gandalf was pretty handy with his bastard sword, but was he as good as Aragorn or Boromir? No, and we wouldn't want him to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:

These feats remaining as essentially pre-requisites for future archetypes sounds fine.

But, if those archetypes don't give increasing proficiency themselves, it sounds like it would make these more of a problem.

They're fine if you consider them a lower cost = lower reward alternative.

Kind of like weapons: Class feats can get you expert in nearly all weapons > Ancestry can get you scaling few weapons > General can give you trained in all.

Can'tFindthePath wrote:
After all, Gandalf was pretty handy with his bastard sword, but was he as...

I can actually see Gandalf dipping into Fighter for proficiency and Twin-strike to smack people with his staff and sword.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Gandalf was pretty handy with his bastard sword, but was he as good as Aragorn or Boromir? No, and we wouldn't want him to be.

That's not what folks are asking for.

Instead they want Gandalf (who has clearly put some effort into learning swordplay) to be as good with his sword as he is with his staff.

As it stands if Gandalf is Fighter Multi classed (which he may well be) he ends up equal. If Gandalf took the general feat to get sword proficiency he is actually better just using his staff at levels 13 and above, hence the issue with that feat.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Can'tFindthePath wrote:

I for one, have always championed the idea that if your Wizard wants to wield a sword like Gandalf, he should be able to with some effort, but without strangling himself. However, that has never been an option in these games, so why should they suddenly be competitive with Fighter?

Just to be clear, getting to expert with a bastard sword at level 13 or whatever is not competitive with the Fighter who started at expert at level 1 and went up from there, plus has all the class feats to reinforce their blade skill.


Gandalf's kind of a bad example, since he's one of the Maiar which is not a PC appropriate ancestry.

A better example, more appropriate to Pathfinder is - How do I build Varian Jeggare now? He's a Wizard (or a sorcerer?) who is nonetheless an incredibly accomplished swordsman (He lacks the Lepistadt scar because no one hit him.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Can'tFindthePath wrote:


I would keep in mind that Wizards only ever get Expert with Unarmored Defense, and Expert with Wizard weapons. If you think of them in PF1, where they had only poor base attack, and only feat heavy, or spell power reducing options otherwise, this is still better.

This is actually not better than PF1:

In PF1, proficiency scaled with BAB: 1/2, 3/4, and 1/1 respectively for each class.

All Classes got proficiency in baseline weapons. All classes got iterative attacks (at different intervals) as they increased.

At level 11, the Wizard got two attacks, just like everyone else that reached +6/+1.

At level 11 in PF2, the Wizard gets Expert Proficiency.

The biggest reason that everyone gets Proficiency increases (even to off saves and weapons for casters, etc.) is because the enemies you'll be facing at those levels will have increased Proficiency in AC, Saves, etc.

So Expert is really just the "standard" for all Classes that reach a certain level for dealing with enemies increased proficiency.

It's effectively "Proficiency inflation".

The PF1 equivalent would be taking Martial Weapon Proficiency, that gives you your standard BAB up until level 11, where it then doesn't provide the iterative attack but somehow your other weapons still get iteratives.

Quote:
I for one, have always championed the idea that if your Wizard wants to wield a sword like Gandalf, he should be able to with some effort, but without strangling himself. However, that has never been an option in these games, so why should they suddenly be competitive with Fighter?

These feats as anyone has suggested thus far would not put any class on par with the Fighter or Champion.

Both of those classes are always a tier ahead of every other Class in their respective areas of expertise.

All this does is ensure that weapons you select outside of your initial pool go up like those in your initial pool.


Bardarok wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Gandalf was pretty handy with his bastard sword, but was he as good as Aragorn or Boromir? No, and we wouldn't want him to be.

That's not what folks are asking for.

Instead they want Gandalf (who has clearly put some effort into learning swordplay) to be as good with his sword as he is with his staff.

As it stands if Gandalf is Fighter Multi classed (which he may well be) he ends up equal. If Gandalf took the general feat to get sword proficiency he is actually better just using his staff at levels 13 and above, hence the issue with that feat.

That sounds a lot like cost = reward ratio. The more impactful class feats for higher proficiency, or the less impactful general feats for lower proficiency.

Realistically, few people use more than 1 weapon type. If you get expert from a single general feat or even two, there's no real reason to get Diverse Weapon Expert. If you wanted to change a weapon, you could also just retrain that one feat. The fighter feat would need to give master in that case because you're paying a class feat vs general feat.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Gandalf was pretty handy with his bastard sword, but was he as good as Aragorn or Boromir? No, and we wouldn't want him to be.

That's not what folks are asking for.

Instead they want Gandalf (who has clearly put some effort into learning swordplay) to be as good with his sword as he is with his staff.

As it stands if Gandalf is Fighter Multi classed (which he may well be) he ends up equal. If Gandalf took the general feat to get sword proficiency he is actually better just using his staff at levels 13 and above, hence the issue with that feat.

That sounds a lot like cost = reward ratio. The more impactful class feats for higher proficiency, or the less impactful general feats for lower proficiency.

Realistically, few people use more than 1 weapon type. If you get expert from a single general feat or even two, there's no real reason to get Diverse Weapon Expert. If you wanted to change a weapon, you could also just retrain that one feat. The fighter feat would need to give master in that case because you're paying a class feat vs general feat.

You can get weapon proficiency that scales with your class proficiency with a small group of weapons for two ancestry feats. That basically invalidates the diverse weapon expert feat already.

EDIT: Honestly the weakness of the Fighter arhcetype seems like they just didn't update it property from the play test. In the playtest wizards didn't get expert in anything and rogues maxed out at expert so the fighter archetype giving expert was a legitimate buff for all non-martial classes and actually expanded their options.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Gandalf was pretty handy with his bastard sword, but was he as good as Aragorn or Boromir? No, and we wouldn't want him to be.

That's not what folks are asking for.

Instead they want Gandalf (who has clearly put some effort into learning swordplay) to be as good with his sword as he is with his staff.

As it stands if Gandalf is Fighter Multi classed (which he may well be) he ends up equal. If Gandalf took the general feat to get sword proficiency he is actually better just using his staff at levels 13 and above, hence the issue with that feat.

That sounds a lot like cost = reward ratio. The more impactful class feats for higher proficiency, or the less impactful general feats for lower proficiency.

Realistically, few people use more than 1 weapon type. If you get expert from a single general feat or even two, there's no real reason to get Diverse Weapon Expert. If you wanted to change a weapon, you could also just retrain that one feat. The fighter feat would need to give master in that case because you're paying a class feat vs general feat.

You can get weapon proficiency that scales with your class proficiency with a small group of weapons for two ancestry feats. That basically invalidates the diverse weapon expert feat already.

At a level behind, so no. Getting it before level 12, especially if you can get it without spending 2 class feats? Yes.


Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Gandalf was pretty handy with his bastard sword, but was he as good as Aragorn or Boromir? No, and we wouldn't want him to be.

That's not what folks are asking for.

Instead they want Gandalf (who has clearly put some effort into learning swordplay) to be as good with his sword as he is with his staff.

As it stands if Gandalf is Fighter Multi classed (which he may well be) he ends up equal. If Gandalf took the general feat to get sword proficiency he is actually better just using his staff at levels 13 and above, hence the issue with that feat.

That sounds a lot like cost = reward ratio. The more impactful class feats for higher proficiency, or the less impactful general feats for lower proficiency.

Realistically, few people use more than 1 weapon type. If you get expert from a single general feat or even two, there's no real reason to get Diverse Weapon Expert. If you wanted to change a weapon, you could also just retrain that one feat. The fighter feat would need to give master in that case because you're paying a class feat vs general feat.

You can get weapon proficiency that scales with your class proficiency with a small group of weapons for two ancestry feats. That basically invalidates the diverse weapon expert feat already.

Well not really, class feats for multiclassing are available to everyone, those two specific ancestry feats(which are more valuable than general feats) are limited to human ancestry, or others by paying a tax via Adopted. Haflings pay a lesser cost since their ancestry feat grants both adopted and an ancestry feat.

These are alternatives and options, there's more than one path to the goal.

It's still a hierarchy of cost = reward:
> Class = Martial, Simple expert. Trained Advanced.
> Ancestry = One weapon, limited by an ancestry trait, gained a level later.
> General = All weapons of a class in a 1-2-3 progression, no scaling.

Class feats are worth more so they give the best option.
Ancestry is niche in who has it, or costs a general feat via adopted.
General feat is a jack of all trades but master of none.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gandalf is not a multiclass fighter. He is an example of how a high level wizard is going to be fine with a sword against lower level enemies because of the nature of level and proficiency.

The deal with class in PF 2 is that you are going to be at least 2 levels ahead or more of other characters in the things that class specialize in.

It gets tricky when the character concept is specific ancestry, class, and combat styles, but if you think of something in particular that you want, you can either design your own archetypes with the support of your GM, you can put in requests here and make sure designers and developers know of what kind of character you want to build, or you can try out different combinations of classes and MC feats until you get the closest to what you are looking for.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the thing we should realize is that there are a great number of wholly appropriate character concepts which one cannot yet reproduce in PF2 (e.g. a cleric of any god not in the core 20, any kind of tiefling, a witch, etc.). This is kind of why I want to quibble with the title of this thread, since this isn't the final version of PF2, it's the first version of PF2.

By highlighting the things that we want to play but can't yet we can figure out what new things we need to add. So the issue is less "I can't play a wizard who is an accomplished fencer and that's unacceptable" it's "I want to play a wizard who is an accomplished fencer, and the current tools don't let me achieve my vision of my character."

I just think that "change the current tools" is not as good a solution as "add more and different tools" particularly when we haven't seen a single "direct supplement to the core rules" book yet. I don't know what that general feat for trained proficiency is for really, since it seems like a bad feat, but I cannot see the whole picture.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Well not really, class feats for multiclassing are available to everyone, those two specific ancestry feats(which are more valuable than general feats) are limited to human ancestry, or others by paying a tax via Adopted. Haflings pay a lesser cost since their ancestry feat grants both adopted and an ancestry feat.

Yes really. Every ancestry has a weapon familiarity -> weapon expertise. You only need to get adopted ancestry if you don't want the weapons that your ancestry provides.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:


These are alternatives and options, there's more than one path to the goal.

It's still a hierarchy of cost = reward:
> Class = Martial, Simple expert. Trained Advanced.
> Ancestry = One weapon, limited by an ancestry trait, gained a level later.
> General = All weapons of a class in a 1-2-3 progression, no scaling.

Class feats are worth more so they give the best option.
Ancestry is niche in who has it, or costs a general feat via adopted.
General feat is a jack of all trades but master of none.

Right class feats are give the most. Ancestry is almost always a better option because most people don't actually need expert in more than one weapon and it scales better for classes that get master proficiecy. The general feat is a trap option.

201 to 250 of 480 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Deadmanwalking's Problems With The Final Version Of PF2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.