Deadmanwalking's Problems With The Final Version Of PF2


Rules Discussion

251 to 300 of 480 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Bardarok wrote:
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.

Seems like human's get a wider option range since they can pick any trait, but they don't get the crit specialization, that's kind of neat. More towards jack of all trades, master of none direction.

If a feat does what it's meant to do it's a trap. I guess Toughness is a reverse-trap because it does what it says it does but if you don't pick it you're giving up +1CON worth of hp and having more HP is 100% always better than having less hp.

If we combine them, we'll summon the shadow dimension.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

I think you are right that future books will make this a non-issue however I think it is still reasonable to be disappointed that there are trap options in the core and to ask for an errata to fix them. They might not be traps in the future if their 'real' purpose is to be prerequisites for future archetypes or there is another feat which enables further scaling or something like that. But the core is always the default and the first book people will start with it.


Bardarok wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

I think you are right that future books will make this a non-issue however I think it is still reasonable to be disappointed that there are trap options in the core and to ask for an errata to fix them. They might not be traps in the future if their 'real' purpose is to be prerequisites for future archetypes or there is another feat which enables further scaling or something like that. But the core is always the default and the first book people will start with it.

What if their purpose is to be the weakest option out of all current option when it comes to gaining extra proficiencies in weapon, armor or skills?

Since they cost the weakest feat (sans skill feats) out of all three feat options.


Bandw2 wrote:

]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...

Sorry, I missed that. Yes, they removed some dependency on DEX, or spread it more. That is a good thing. But with the way ability boosts and class proficiencies work, it is obvious that the designers believe that DEX is one of the important stats for unarmored casters, i.e. their meta. You can go against it, but at a cost. That's what I meant with metagame.

Also, you are actually arguing for DEX, because the general feats are the ones that grant initiative and perception (often also initiative, this being quite valuable). Stealth is another common initative, by the way. It gets more complicated later, when the classes offer expert training, too, but one can always retrain.

DEX ist still a good stat. Not the "I do everything" from before, but is two defenses in AC and REF, a couple of nice skills and meshes with the way unarmored proficiencies work. And relying on it alone frees up feats that grant nice bonuses to important stats.


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

What if their purpose is to be the weakest option out of all current option when it comes to gaining extra proficiencies in weapon, armor or skills?

Since they cost the weakest feat (sans skill feats) out of all three feat options.

Then that was a bad decision by the devs. New players will pick those feats and experienced players wont because there are better ways to accomplish the same thing. It's textbook ivory tower game design.


Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

What if their purpose is to be the weakest option out of all current option when it comes to gaining extra proficiencies in weapon, armor or skills?

Since they cost the weakest feat (sans skill feats) out of all three feat options.
Then that was a bad decision by the devs. New players will pick those feats and experienced players wont because there are better ways to accomplish the same thing. It's textbook ivory tower game design.

New players will do a lot of mistakes, probably forget that weapon finesse is a passive weapon trait now, or how sweeping works. I don't think we should change things based on the worst case scenario people might do.

Personally I'll be using general feat proficiencies where they fit. I'll find ways to deal being 1AC behind. Or I can pick up champion and be one AC ahead a 20DEX. Options are a good thing.

I don't think we should for example remove Skilled Training because a new player wouldn't realize he can't max all his skills with exception of playing Rogue.
It's still a nice option if you want diversity. Grabbing Trained Medicine helps a little, even if you'll never increase it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because it hit my LotR brain, Gandalf would be a Cleric of Ilúvatar or Manwë and probably of the Warpriest doctrine, since his power is divine and he was handy with Glamdring.

(Gandalf the White may have even become a multiclass Fighter, at some point, maybe.)

"Wizard" was just what the folk of Middle-earth called him - he's really more equivalent to an angel or divine spirit. Aasimar Warpriest Cleric of Manwë or Ilúvatar would be my build, eventually.

>.>


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

What if their purpose is to be the weakest option out of all current option when it comes to gaining extra proficiencies in weapon, armor or skills?

Since they cost the weakest feat (sans skill feats) out of all three feat options.
Then that was a bad decision by the devs. New players will pick those feats and experienced players wont because there are better ways to accomplish the same thing. It's textbook ivory tower game design.

New players will do a lot of mistakes, probably forget that weapon finesse is a passive weapon trait now, or how sweeping works. I don't think we should change things based on the worst case scenario people might do.

Personally I'll be using general feat proficiencies where they fit. I'll find ways to deal being 1AC behind. Or I can pick up champion and be one AC ahead a 20DEX. Options are a good thing.

I don't think we should for example remove Skilled Training because a new player wouldn't realize he can't max all his skills with exception of playing Rogue.
It's still a nice option if you want diversity. Grabbing Trained Medicine helps a little, even if you'll never increase it.

You keep falling back to the best case scenario for general feats: Wizards/Sorcerers/Cloistered Clerics picking up heavy armor and even then you admit it's probably not worth it since even you say the class feats work better because they scale to expert.

Skills aren't the same since trained in medicine never becomes completely invalidated by a class feature the same way trained in a weapon or armor does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A maximum MC caster is 5 levels behind a full class caster, if you go by spell access.

numerically, an expert weapon user (i.e. MC fighter) is 4 levels behind a legendary weapon user (Fighter)

Same with armor and AC.

For most characters, not human, General proficiency training can happen for the first time at level 3, putting you awkwardly two levels behind, until you actually get the feat, then equal until level everyone advances to expert in their class proficiencies, in which case you fall two levels behind again.

making the General feat automatically shift up at the same level will not happen by RAW. as a general feat, the earliest it is going to fit into the game (ie, a general feat that boosts a proficiency to expert) will be 15th level, if it exists at all. As an archetype, it probably wouldn’t happen much before 12th or 13th level for weapons, and 14th or 15th for armor. (based on their placement in the MC feat lists)

Exceptions are going to be for class based archetypes that change the base proficiencies your class gets from level 1 and we have no idea what those will look like.

It really seems like the developers are being very intentional in not making any non-skill proficiency higher than trained by a generic “any character thing” and tying expert+ to thematic builds, with the exception of saves which are incredibly limited in how they can progress with the whole +2 per proficiency rank.

If you are trying to house rule your own archetypes, you are probably fine as long as you follow these general principles.


Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

What if their purpose is to be the weakest option out of all current option when it comes to gaining extra proficiencies in weapon, armor or skills?

Since they cost the weakest feat (sans skill feats) out of all three feat options.
Then that was a bad decision by the devs. New players will pick those feats and experienced players wont because there are better ways to accomplish the same thing. It's textbook ivory tower game design.

New players will do a lot of mistakes, probably forget that weapon finesse is a passive weapon trait now, or how sweeping works. I don't think we should change things based on the worst case scenario people might do.

Personally I'll be using general feat proficiencies where they fit. I'll find ways to deal being 1AC behind. Or I can pick up champion and be one AC ahead a 20DEX. Options are a good thing.

I don't think we should for example remove Skilled Training because a new player wouldn't realize he can't max all his skills with exception of playing Rogue.
It's still a nice option if you want diversity. Grabbing Trained Medicine helps a little, even if you'll never increase it.

You keep falling back to the best case scenario for general feats: Wizards/Sorcerers/Cloistered Clerics picking up heavy armor and even then you admit it's probably not worth it since even you say the class feats work better because they scale to expert.

Skills aren't the same since trained in medicine never becomes completely invalidated by a class feature the same way trained in a weapon or armor does.

I used bard too earlier. I used wizards because that's what everyone was about, and because they cost the most. We can compare other classes if you want, but to be upfront, the builds that use General Feats to get armor they normally don't, are weaker AC wise until they get the armor they want. That much is clear and I don't disagree that Dex is better at lower levels. The core argument has always been against "X ceases to work after Y, ergo it's a trap feat".

Skills are exactly the same, they use the same proficiency mechanic, they give same bonuses, their DC rises with levels. You start with trained, you get some to expert then a few to master and even less to legendary. Rogue is best with skill proficiencies, fighter is best with weapon proficiencies, champion is best with armor proficiencies. There's a really whimsical take on what's invalidated, what's trap, what's same. Three things follow the same proficiency rules and two are treated differently than the third, but also one is treated differently than the other because ancestral feats add a curveball.

But if it helps, name a class or two and I'll give it a whirl focusing on armor via general feats then we can compare them to your dex version? With exception of monk since I've no experience with them. I've admittted that dex is better at the progression, but my stance should have been clear that the medium/heavy armor builds depend on getting to that point. The armor isn't invalidated because your dex bard gets +1AC if my medium armored bard is built for melee because I never planned to benefit from that proficiency in the first place. It's kind of like saying a bastard sword a fighter is trained in is invalidated because there's longswords with expert at that level. You didn't build around longsword so it's state has no impact on your lower proficiency build. Otherwise why have any trained advanced weapons if you also have expert martials at same level?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Skills are exactly the same

They aren't though, because your trained in Society is never going to be invalidated by having master in athletics. Uneven weapon and armor scaling is problematic because they compete directly against each other. Uneven skill scaling is less problematic because they don't.

That said, yeah, Paizo making it as difficult as they did to advance skills and making Rogue the only 'high skill' class were both bad design decisions, just bad for different reasons than the weapon and armor proficiency system is bad.

The signature skills system from the Playtest (and Starfinder to a degree) is similar to what's being talked about though... and that system was abandoned because it was terrible. So 'but skills' doesn't really feel like a good defense here when Paizo threw out the idea of restricting skill access along class lines. 'But skills' just makes me wonder why they didn't do the same thing with armor and weapons.


Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Skills are exactly the same

They aren't though, because your trained in Society is never going to be invalidated by having master in athletics. Uneven weapon and armor scaling is problematic because they compete directly against each other. Uneven skill scaling is less problematic because they don't.

That said, yeah, Paizo making it as difficult as they did to advance skills and making Rogue the only 'high skill' class were both bad design decisions, just bad for different reasons than the weapon and armor proficiency system is bad.

The signature skills system from the Playtest (and Starfinder to a degree) is similar to what's being talked about though... and that system was abandoned because it was terrible. So 'but skills' doesn't really feel like a good defense here.

If I build for heavy armor and don't build dex, then the unarmored proficiency hitting expert has zero effect on me. Actually since I didn't minmax dex, that route is invalidated to me from level 1.

You say invalidate like my +6Armor+2Prof=8AC stops functioning when I hit 13 because someone else with 18 dex now has +4Dex+4Prof=8AC. It doesn't. It's still 8AC vs 8AC because he wants to build max Dex and I don't?

Skill on the other hand get invalidated. Say you have 0 Wisdom. You get medicine trained. You use Treat Poison at level 5 - Hunting Spider. DC 21. You can cure it if you roll 19. But then 7-10 you can't succeed even with a natural 20. That's literally the skill being invalidated at from 7 to 20. Which means by the definition used around here, it's a trap feat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If I build for heavy armor

What about light armor? What about another class entirely? What about weapons? You seem really fixated on this one specific example rather than the broader topics being discussed.

Quote:
Which means by the definition used around here, it's a trap feat.

You seem to like putting words in people's mouths, too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Skills are exactly the same, they use the same proficiency mechanic, they give same bonuses, their DC rises with levels. You start with trained, you get some to expert then a few to master and even less to legendary. Rogue is best with skill proficiencies, fighter is best with weapon proficiencies, champion is best with armor proficiencies. There's a really whimsical take on what's invalidated, what's trap, what's same. Three things follow the same proficiency rules and two are treated differently than the third, but also one is treated differently than the other because ancestral feats add a curveball.

Again my problem is not that rogues are best with skills, fighters best with weapons etc. My problem is that a character of any class who uses the general feat to expand there options is better off using their class approved options.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
But if it helps, name a class or two and I'll give it a whirl focusing on armor via general feats then we can compare them to your dex version? With exception of monk since I've no experience with them. I've admittted that dex is better at the progression, but my stance should have been clear that the medium/heavy armor builds depend on getting to that point. The armor isn't invalidated because your dex bard gets +1AC if my medium armored bard is built for melee because I never planned to benefit from that proficiency in the first place. It's kind of like saying a bastard sword a fighter is trained in is invalidated because there's longswords with expert at that level. You didn't build around longsword so it's state has no impact on your lower proficiency build. Otherwise why have any trained advanced weapons if you also have expert martials at same level?

Bastard swords are martial but you probably shouldn't use advanced weapons that don't scale with your total proficiency either, use the ancestry feat or fighter feat to make it count as martial. The extra traits really aren't worth 2 to hit. And yes I think the general feats for those are also a trap option and I have no idea why they included being trained in them when you are expert in martial weapons.

I didn't bring up dex but I'll assume you mean someone using the paizo approved armor weapons and correspondingly trying to max their dex to match that AC.

Let's combare

1. A medium armor barbarian vs one who uses the general feat to use heavy armor

2. an unarmored wizard vs one who uses the general feat to use light armor

For both cases mine will take toughness instead of the armor proficiency feat.

EDIT: Assume human for stats and assume that other than toughens vs armor proficiency they took all the same feats


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
'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.

*sigh* i don't know if people have responded to this, but not really, maybe as a strawman.

it's more like the system should have better or worse options, not trap options. Generally i prefer ivory tower because without it, i kinda just disconnect from my character a lot quicker. it's like ikea I think, where because I spent less making it, i'm not as invested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If I build for heavy armor

What about light armor? What about another class entirely? What about weapons? You seem really fixated on this one specific example rather than the broader topics being discussed.

Quote:
Which means by the definition used around here, it's a trap feat.
You seem to like putting words in people's mouths, too.

I am? Guess Bardarok didn't say "Feats that are a good idea at low levels but end up making the character objectively worse at high levels are traps for new players who lack system mastery to avoid the issue." and taking Skilled Training for a skill like Medicine, which functions (barely) at level 1-7, but can't even cure poison on a natural 20 past that evades the "works at low level but not high level" definition.

My focus has always been building for a specific armor. Most people bring up fullplate wizard. I responded with that. We can do any class if you want, my point has been that Dex is the best at lower level and has no cost other than maxing Dex. If you don't want options, that's a great and amazing choice. My point has been that me having +8AC at level 12, then having +8AC at level 13th, doesn't invalidate my +8AC which will stick with me to level 20.

The fact that in this case, the foundation for a character is "I'm not maxing dex" means that I could get Unarmed Mastered, and it'd be weaker for the character that went the "I don't want dex." Plus we're talking about four classes of armor each with their niche. Breastplate isn't exactly same function as Fullplate since you want at least 12 dex.

If you built any character for breastplate with 12 dex, you'd get +7AC via general feats.
If Nethys himself came down and gave you Master Unarmored, but you already committed to the armor route, you'd only gain +1 dex +6 prof = 7AC.

@Bardarok: On it, lemme crunch the baselines. No ancestry and only the proficiency for armors. Assuming Str/dex leveled to match armor.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If I build for heavy armor
What about light armor? What about another class entirely? What about weapons? You seem really fixated on this one specific example rather than the broader topics being discussed.

This right here.

A wizard trained in heavy armor is behind the curve by level 15, but mostly fine.

A wizard in light or medium armor, or non-fighter, non-champion martials in heavy armor are not mostly fine.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
'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.

*sigh* i don't know if people have responded to this, but not really, maybe as a strawman.

it's more like the system should have better or worse options, not trap options. Generally i prefer ivory tower because without it, i kinda just disconnect from my character a lot quicker. it's like ikea I think, where because I spent less making it, i'm not as invested.

objectivity worse options are trap options. Changing the word you use doesn't change what they are. And yes that is an advantage to ivory tower game design; People who know the system well can get a lot of enjoyment out of flexing their system mastery and being good at a thing. It's just really hostile to new players or players who aren't interested in investing enough time to achieve system mastery, and have you seen the size of the CRB? It's a lot of time.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If I build for heavy armor

What about light armor? What about another class entirely? What about weapons? You seem really fixated on this one specific example rather than the broader topics being discussed.

Quote:
Which means by the definition used around here, it's a trap feat.
You seem to like putting words in people's mouths, too.
I am? Guess Bardarok didn't say "Feats that are a good idea at low levels but end up making the character objectively worse at high levels are traps for new players who lack system mastery to avoid the issue." and taking Skilled Training for a skill like Medicine, which functions (barely) at level 1-7, but can't even cure poison on a natural 20 past that evades the "works at low level but not high level" definition.

Trained medicine at high levels works great for fist aid though which is always useful so it is probably a pretty good use for skill training. A better example would be stealth since it's real hard to sneak past a leveled opponent with just trained at higher levels. Of course do to the text of Follow the Expert I think they aimed for a point where just +lvl would have a chance of success in which case lvl+2 would be good but I haven't thoroughly looked at the numbers.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Blackest Sheep wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

]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...

Sorry, I missed that. Yes, they removed some dependency on DEX, or spread it more. That is a good thing. But with the way ability boosts and class proficiencies work, it is obvious that the designers believe that DEX is one of the important stats for unarmored casters, i.e. their meta. You can go against it, but at a cost. That's what I meant with metagame.

Also, you are actually arguing for DEX, because the general feats are the ones that grant initiative and perception (often also initiative, this being quite valuable). Stealth is another common initative, by the way. It gets more complicated later, when the classes offer expert training, too, but one can always retrain.

DEX ist still a good stat. Not the "I do everything" from before, but is two defenses in AC and REF, a couple of nice skills and meshes with the way unarmored proficiencies work. And relying on it alone frees up feats that grant nice bonuses to important stats.

while i agree about spreading stuff from dex, i'm not actually arguing for a dex build.

probably the most efficient build would get light armor and prioritise int, wis and con.

remember at level 1 you only have so many ability boosts, just as an example for a wizard. you can either get 18 int, and have 2 14s and 1 12
i'll standardize it
[18,14,14,12]
[18,16,12,12]
[16,16,14,12]
(note non humans go to)
[18,16,14,12,0,8]
[16,16,14,12,12,8](and of course this isn't exhaustive)
my order of importance is probably int > wis-con > rest, how i order the rest between dex, charisma and strength is based on what i want to do with that particular wizard (if i'm building a high optimized wizard)

etc, basically asking for a 16 in dex is a tall order when it's fighting with con and wisdom.

in a true best wizard build dex is a tertiary stat and so if you can make up for that with light armor, it's probably REALLY worth the feat investment.

"but bandw2 what about level 13?"

well you just so happen to be wearing +2 armor from light armor, so you can either take your armor off and have the same AC or wear it. *shrug*, only matters if you have 18 dex or higher which, say it is your #4 pick each time with say a nonhuman [16,14,14,14,12,8], you'll get it at level 10, or you'll get it at level 15 if you're starting with 12. (which means your strength or charisma is 8 btw)

so imho, dex isn't that high on importance, just use magic to make your AC higher if you need it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Skills are exactly the same, they use the same proficiency mechanic, they give same bonuses, their DC rises with levels. You start with trained, you get some to expert then a few to master and even less to legendary. Rogue is best with skill proficiencies, fighter is best with weapon proficiencies, champion is best with armor proficiencies. There's a really whimsical take on what's invalidated, what's trap, what's same. Three things follow the same proficiency rules and two are treated differently than the third, but also one is treated differently than the other because ancestral feats add a curveball.

Again my problem is not that rogues are best with skills, fighters best with weapons etc. My problem is that a character of any class who uses the general feat to expand there options is better off using their class approved options.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
But if it helps, name a class or two and I'll give it a whirl focusing on armor via general feats then we can compare them to your dex version? With exception of monk since I've no experience with them. I've admittted that dex is better at the progression, but my stance should have been clear that the medium/heavy armor builds depend on getting to that point. The armor isn't invalidated because your dex bard gets +1AC if my medium armored bard is built for melee because I never planned to benefit from that proficiency in the first place. It's kind of like saying a bastard sword a fighter is trained in is invalidated because there's longswords with expert at that level. You didn't build around longsword so it's state has no impact on your lower proficiency build. Otherwise why have any trained advanced weapons if you also have expert martials at same level?
Bastard swords are martial but you probably shouldn't use advanced weapons that don't scale with your total proficiency either, use the ancestry feat or fighter feat to make it count as martial. The extra traits really aren't worth 2 to hit. And yes I...

Based on 13th since that's where "It's invalidated" keeps coming up, using highest armor or it's class:

Medium Armor Barbarian, min-stats 12dex, 16str(4 boosts), 1 General feat for +13HP(toughness), +1 Reflex from dex
Base AC 10: +4 Breastplate, +1 Dex(max for breastplate), +4 Proficiency = 19AC

Heavy Armor Barbarian, min-stats 18dex, 10str(4 boosts), Cost 1 General feat, +3 Reflex vs aoe from fullpate
Base AC 10: +6 Fullplate, +0 Dex, +2 Proficiency = 17AC
-
Unarmored Wizard, min-stats 18dex, 10str(4 boosts), 1 General feat for +13HP(toughness), +4 Reflex from dex
Base AC 10: +4Dex, +4 Proficiency = +18AC

Light Armor Wizard, min-stats 18dex, 10str(4 boosts), 1 Genereal feat, +4 Reflex from Dex
Base AC 10: +2 Leather Armor, +4 Dex, +2 Proficiency = +17AC

At 15th, the Unarmored Wizard will be able to reach +19AC total if he spends 4 ability points on 18-20dex. The Light Armored Wizard and Breastplate/Fullplate Barbarian has the option to pump Con to 20 for +1HP per level because their dex is capped. Or Wisdom for perception and initiative, etc.
Clarification: My goal has never been "Armor is better" or "Don't take dex". My stance is that General Feats are the weakest option to get armor and they don't become invalidate if you decide not to max dex. They're a path to 12-10 dex builds which open up other builds.

Garretmander wrote:

This right here.

A wizard trained in heavy armor is behind the curve by level 15, but mostly fine.

A wizard in light or medium armor, or non-fighter, non-champion martials in heavy armor are not mostly fine.

Just to be clear. I don't think I ever preached this working universally. Very few feats are universally good. I wouldn't take Ancestral weapons on fighter for example, or even barbarian. I personally would suggest going for breastplate or fullplate, to make a choice early on "Do I want to max(20+) dex and use no armor,do I want good(18-16) dex and use leather armor, do I want a bit(12-14) of dex and go medium armor, or do I not care(12-10) about dex and want fullplate." These choices come with costs, in this case 1-3 general feats.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Just to be clear. I don't think I ever preached this working universally. Very few feats are universally good. I wouldn't take Ancestral weapons on fighter for example, or even barbarian. I personally would suggest going for breastplate or fullplate, to make a choice early on "Do I want to max dex and use no armor, do I want a bit of dex and go medium armor, or do I not care about dex and want fullplate." These choices come with costs, in this case 1-3 general feats.

Ancestral Weapons is great for a Fighter or Barbarian if you want the Advanced weapons of that Ancestry. A Gnome Barbarian or Fighter with a flickmace is one of the game's better builds, for example.

But a General Feat that is only 'good' (in this case, I'd say it's adequate at best, but even if it was legitimately really good) for three Classes in the game and only if you take it three times, is a bad General Feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
while i agree about spreading stuff from dex, i'm not actually arguing for a dex build.

Maybe this is a matter of definition, but I consider folk in light armor to be DEX-based, meaning they will use their ability boosts for DEX.

Remember, you using a general feat for light armor means that other will use them for other stuff. For example Canny Acumen, which can bring perception to expert (to be retrained later), so your higher WIS just means you have a bit worse perception; one has slightly better REF, the other slightly better WILL, one has slightly better DEX skills, the other slightly better WIS skills. Not much to go between, and usefulness will vary from table to table. I am partial to stealth, to be honest, because at lower levels trained with good DEX will be more than adequate, but again, that is a matter of preference.

Going lightly armored is a simple trade-off, the numbers wander around a bit on the sheet, but it is fundamentally very close to unarmored. And since the lightly armored caster will in all likelihood raise DEX anyway, retraining later on is always an option. That is no trap, even though it might feel off that one gets better at stuff that is not exercised at all.

The more you have to invest, though, the worse it gets. Medium armor takes STR to not take a hit to speed and skills (as well as a bit of DEX), and STR gives few advantages, especially when compared to other attributes. Also a second general feat with an opportunity cost. Retraining becomes worse, as abilities are fixed. Heavy armor is worse still.

All doable, but the more you invest, the worse they get.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Blackest Sheep wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
while i agree about spreading stuff from dex, i'm not actually arguing for a dex build.
Maybe this is a matter of definition, but I consider folk in light armor to be DEX-based, meaning they will use their ability boosts for DEX.

it's more like he just doesn't want to spend his general feats on heavier armor...

he's wearing light armor with like 12-16 dex at level 20.

the better feats to spend your general feats are on canny acumen for +2 to init at various levels from perception, incredible initiative, for more initiative, then like toughness and fleet, and like he needs 16 charisma for incredible investiture, and since he isn't spending that money on weapons...

the reason you'll get the light armor is because it's like 2 AC very quickly.

for stealth just use invisibility


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Just to be clear. I don't think I ever preached this working universally. Very few feats are universally good. I wouldn't take Ancestral weapons on fighter for example, or even barbarian. I personally would suggest going for breastplate or fullplate, to make a choice early on "Do I want to max dex and use no armor, do I want a bit of dex and go medium armor, or do I not care about dex and want fullplate." These choices come with costs, in this case 1-3 general feats.

Ancestral Weapons is great for a Fighter or Barbarian if you want the Advanced weapons of that Ancestry. A Gnome Barbarian or Fighter with a flickmace is one of the game's better builds, for example.

But a General Feat that is only 'good' (in this case, I'd say it's adequate at best, but even if it was legitimately really good) for three Classes in the game and only if you take it three times, is a bad General Feat.

It can be yes, but it's a specific niche, which new players wouldn't know about. They are innocent to the ways of the flickmace. I don't agree that it's costly, that is very correct. Bad/good depends on build. Personally I'd prefer breastplate on ruffian/scoundrel rogue, bard, druid or ranger, meaning I wouldn't have more than 12 dex and lean towards melee STR, utility with Cha/wis/con, this way my saves would be fairly okay, social presence, wisdom skills and hp could be high.

Could be just me that decides what armor to pick based on what stat focus I want.


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


Based on 13th since that's where "It's invalidated" keeps coming up, using highest armor or it's class:

Medium Armor Barbarian, min-stats 12 dex, 16str(4 boosts), 1 General feat for +13HP(toughness), +1 Reflex from dex
Base AC 10: +4 Breastplate, +1 Dex(max for breastplate), +4 Proficiency = 19AC

Heavy Armor Barbarian, min-stats 18dex, 10str(4 boosts), Cost 1 General feat, +3 Reflex vs aoe from fullpate
Base AC 10: +6 Fullplate, +0 Dex, +2 Proficiency = 17AC

So at level 13 the barbarian who spent the feat on armor proficiency has:

+2 Reflex saves vs damage effects (which is most of them)
-1 on other reflex saves which is pretty rare

+2 to to Int, Wis, or Cha (Both barbs will start with Str 18 and Con 16, after that they have two 12s and two 10s so whatever isn't in dex must go to a mental stat)

-1 AC
-5 ft movement speed
and since we assumed the alternative was toughness -13 HP

At 19th level this increases to -4 AC and -19 HP over the other option. It doesn't seem like a good trade to me.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:


Unarmored Wizard, min-stats 18dex, 10str(4 boosts), 1 General feat for +13HP(toughness), +4 Reflex from dex
Base AC 10: +4Dex, +4 Proficiency = +18AC

Light Armor Wizard, min-stats 18dex, 10str(4 boosts), 1 Genereal feat, +4 Reflex from Dex
Base AC 10: +2 Leather Armor, +4 Dex, +2 Proficiency = +17AC

(you had a small typo in that leather armor has +1 not +2 ac but the total is right

So at level 13 choosing light armor nets you -1 AC and -13 HP assuming the other option was toughness.

Again looking like choosing the armor proficiency feat gives you a bad result

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:


At 15th, the Unarmored Wizard will be able to reach +19AC total if he spends 4 ability points on 18-20dex. The Light Armored Wizard and Breastplate/Fullplate Barbarian has the option to pump Con to 20 for +1HP per level because their dex is capped. Or Wisdom for perception and initiative, etc.

Full-plate barbarian actually can't pump Con since both barbs will likely start with Str 18 Con 16 and boost both every time as I mentioned above.

The wizard can boost con and manage to catch up in HP with the toughness wizard and still be 2 points behind in AC.

Or the unarmored wizard can boost Con themselves still be ahead in HP and continue having a higher AC.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:


Clarification: My goal has never been "Armor is better" or "Don't take dex". My stance is that General Feats are the weakest option to get armor and they don't become invalidate if you decide not to max dex. They're a path to 12-10 dex builds which open up other builds.

Now armor proficiency feat is best if you want to dump dex. That's probably true though with how important dex is for AC and reflex saves and the four boost system it seems relatively painless to get dex 10 at least 18 for mages.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the proficiency feats were meant to be gating for archetypes, then they should have been released with the archetypes.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Serum wrote:
If the proficiency feats were meant to be gating for archetypes, then they should have been released with the archetypes.

not if they didn't plan to release any other feats in the book. a general feats section with 2 feats in it, makes for poor formatting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Serum wrote:
If the proficiency feats were meant to be gating for archetypes, then they should have been released with the archetypes.
not if they didn't plan to release any other feats in the book. a general feats section with 2 feats in it, makes for poor formatting.

That does seem like the best possible argument for their inclusion in their current form.


Bardarok wrote:

So at level 13 the barbarian who spent the feat on armor proficiency has:

+2 Reflex saves vs damage effects (which is most of them)
-1 on other reflex saves which is pretty rare

+2 to to Int, Wis, or Cha (Both barbs will start with Str 18 and Con 16, after that they have two 12s and two 10s so whatever isn't in dex must go to a mental stat)

-1 AC
-5 ft movement speed
and since we assumed the alternative was toughness -13 HP

At 19th level this increases to -4 AC and -19 HP over the other option. It doesn't seem like a good trade to me.

1:1 cost wise, I think Toughness will win over any general feat tbh.

If we use mithral, the fullplate has 0 movement penalty.
I haven't looked at 19th since my focus has always been that the armor isn't turning useless overnight from 12th to 13th. If it starts at -1 AC, and the breastplate is capped on dex to ac, how can a +2 increase from expert > master add -3AC?

Bardarok wrote:

(you had a small typo in that leather armor has +1 not +2 ac but the total is right

So at level 13 choosing light armor nets you -1 AC and -13 HP assuming the other option was toughness.

Again looking like choosing the armor proficiency feat gives you a bad result

This one I agree with. I do not like light armor because of it's stat distribution. It's the worst option of them all in my opinion. It's just one under 20 dex at 15th, while adding just +1AC. My suggestion is to commit to a low or no dex build and go fullplate or breastplate, both which offer more special materials and specific magic armors.

Bardarok wrote:

Full-plate barbarian actually can't pump Con since both barbs will likely start with Str 18 Con 16 and boost both every time as I mentioned above.

The wizard can boost con and manage to catch up in HP with the toughness wizard and still be 2 points behind in AC.

Or the unarmored wizard can boost Con themselves still be ahead in HP and continue having a higher AC.

Would the unarmored wizard have enough stats to boost Dex, Int and Con? I was under the impression that we can get two stats up to 20 around 15th. I still have to get used to the new numbers so I could be wrong. I can't really defend the light armor wizard because I think out of all three classes, that armor is the worst. It commits to neither max dex nor the dumping of dex for another build path. Even breastplate could start with high Int and any other stat that fits their build, and add +2 dex at 5th level to cap the armor.

Bardarok wrote:
Now armor proficiency feat is best if you want to dump dex. That's probably true though with how important dex is for AC and reflex saves and the four boost system it seems relatively painless to get dex 10 at least 18 for mages.

It doesn't have to be best, and there's a lot more variables that play, so this might always seem skewed, especially as more content arrives. We can agree to disagree, but my point still is and was that if you're not interested in a dex build, say any caster who can safely attack each turn with cantrips or spells, they have the option to pump Con for survival and any combination of wis, cha or int(bard, cleric, wizard and sorcerers got pretty potent spells and rarely need to actually attack with melee or ranged). The armor check penalty on a caster only affects str/dex skills, but if you're going for neither, you can pump up utility stuff, more perception and better medicine/nature/diplomacy/lores.

The biggest upside is options tbh. Specific armors, special materials, and ability to retrain when new content comes. If you build into fullplate and an archetype comes with better proficiencies, you can retrain into it. I'd welcome an alternative to champion. If you go dex, you're kind of stuck with the dex, always bound by max dex cap on armors. It's safe, and better for new players, but narrow and strict.

In the samples above, the classes have choice until 5th/10th/15th. If the breastplate barbarian decides he actually wants fullplate, he can add 2 str and negate all fullplate penalties. Likewise, the fullplate can at 5th/10th/15th change his mind and step down to breastplate and get dex to 12 to max it.

Does general armor proficiency make you better than unarmored dex? Nope.
Can it keep up somewhat if used right? Yeah. I honestly don't care about the ivory tower label, all systems are gonna be optimized in a way you didn't think of by someone. Granted, until barbarian now, all examples that have been brought up have been vs expert proficiencies. I'd say that with a class that gets master medium, I'd stick to that and not upgrade.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serum wrote:
If the proficiency feats were meant to be gating for archetypes, then they should have been released with the archetypes.

Well, there was a book with a bunch of archetypes in it which was supposed to launch with the CRB and Bestiary, but did not solely due to logistical issues. So let's at least wait and see for that one (it comes out by the end of the month) before we conclude they have goofed.

As an aside, did anybody actually play a Wizard or Sorcerer in PF1 with Str > Dex? I want to know about this character.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Serum wrote:
If the proficiency feats were meant to be gating for archetypes, then they should have been released with the archetypes.

Well, there was a book with a bunch of archetypes in it which was supposed to launch with the CRB and Bestiary, but did not solely due to logistical issues. So let's at least wait and see for that one (it comes out by the end of the month) before we conclude they have goofed.

As an aside, did anybody actually play a Wizard or Sorcerer in PF1 with Str > Dex? I want to know about this character.

Wish I did, but so many spells required dex to hit back then, or least that's how it felt.

Plus dex to damage was readily accessible in multiple ways, so dex to hit, to damage, to ac, to reflex, to skills was a kind of must.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Would the unarmored wizard have enough stats to boost Dex, Int and Con? I was under the impression that we can get two stats up to 20 around 15th. I still have to get used to the new numbers so I could be wrong. I can't really defend the light armor wizard because I think out of all three classes, that armor is the worst. It commits to neither max dex nor the dumping of dex for another build path. Even breastplate could start with high Int and any other stat that fits their build, and add +2 dex at 5th level to cap the armor.

you can get 4 if you absolutely dump the other stats and are non-human or take voluntary flaws to get an additional boost.

you then get 2 stats at 16 and 2 at 14 and spend every boost on them. the other 2 stats are -8 or 10 though.

14 with 4 boosts is 20, so you'll have 4 20s at level 20.

oh wait you mean level 15? no yeah, it's impossible, i've been trying my darndest to see what the best ability score spreads you can get are.

edit: well you could potentially spend all your money on 2 apex items...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
1:1 cost wise, I think Toughness will win over any general feat tbh.

The armor proficiency feat looses out to no feat at all for the wizard and is at best an even trade for the barbarian. That's not a good sign.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If we use mithral, the fullplate has 0 movement penalty.

Sure but if you are being fair you need to let the medium armor barbarian spend that extra cash somewhere else.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:


Would the unarmored wizard have enough stats to boost Dex, Int and Con?

Yes you get to boost four stats every five levels, so actually probably both are boosting Con every time.

Lvl 1
Str 10 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha 10

Lvl 5
Str 10 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 19 Wis 14 Cha 10

Now beyond that the unarmored wizard can try and boost dex further to get higher AC
lvl 10
Str 10 Dex 19 Con 16 Int 20 Wis 16 Cha 10

lvl 15
Str 10 Dex 20 Con 18 Int 21 Wis 16 Cha 10

Or they can boost Cha or Str if that float their boat. The wizard who went with light armor doesn't can't increase their AC with dex anymore so they can take their pick between Str and Cha. Bully for them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
It doesn't have to be best, and there's a lot more variables that play, so this might always seem skewed, especially as more content arrives. We can agree to disagree, but my point still is and was that if you're not interested in a dex build, say any caster who can safely attack each turn with cantrips or spells, they have the option to pump Con for survival and any combination of wis, cha or int(bard, cleric, wizard and sorcerers got pretty potent spells and rarely need to actually attack with melee or ranged). The armor check penalty on a caster only affects str/dex skills, but if you're going for neither, you can pump up utility stuff, more perception and better medicine/nature/diplomacy/lores.

Even if you spend every boost on Con, Int, Wis, and Cha you still need to spend two general feats to net a benefit beyond level 13.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:


I honestly don't care about the ivory tower label

That is abundantly clear


Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
1:1 cost wise, I think Toughness will win over any general feat tbh.

The armor proficiency feat looses out to no feat at all for the wizard and is at best an even trade for the barbarian. That's not a good sign.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If we use mithral, the fullplate has 0 movement penalty.

Sure but if you are being fair you need to let the medium armor barbarian spend that extra cash somewhere else.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:


Would the unarmored wizard have enough stats to boost Dex, Int and Con?

Yes you get to boost four stats every five levels, so actually probably both are boosting Con every time.

Lvl 1
Str 10 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha 10

Lvl 5
Str 10 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 19 Wis 14 Cha 10

Now beyond that the unarmored wizard can try and boost dex further to get higher AC
lvl 10
Str 10 Dex 19 Con 16 Int 20 Wis 16 Cha 10

lvl 15
Str 10 Dex 20 Con 18 Int 21 Wis 16 Cha 10

Or they can boost Cha or Str if that float their boat. The wizard who went with light armor doesn't can't increase their AC with dex anymore so they can take their pick between Str and Cha. Bully for them.

Lvl 1 Fullplate bard/cleric/sorcerer/wizard relying purely on spells for attacks.

Str 10 Dex 10 Con 16 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha 10
Lvl 5
Str 10 Dex 10 Con 18 Int 19 Wis 14 Cha 12
lvl 10
Str 10 Dex 10 Con 19 Int 20 Wis 16 Cha 14
lvl 15
Str 10 Dex 10 Con 20 Int 21 Wis 18 Cha 16

Lvl 1 Breastplate bard/cleric/sorcerer/wizard relying purely on spells for attacks.
Str 10 Dex 10 Con 16 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha 10
Lvl 5
Str 10 Dex 12 Con 18 Int 19 Wis 14 Cha 10
lvl 10
Str 10 Dex 12 Con 19 Int 20 Wis 16 Cha 12
lvl 15
Str 10 Dex 12 Con 20 Int 21 Wis 18 Cha 14

Lvl 1 Fullplate bard/cleric/sorcerer/wizard dying gloriously in melee.
Str 12 Dex 10 Con 16 Int 18 Wis 10 Cha 10
Lvl 5
Str 14 Dex 10 Con 18 Int 19 Wis 12 Cha 10
lvl 10
Str 16 Dex 10 Con 19 Int 20 Wis 14 Cha 10
lvl 15
Str 18 Dex 10 Con 20 Int 20 Wis 16 Cha 12

These are handy, I haven't managed to sit down and plan out all the ability boosts. It's not the best, but it's alternative paths, the fun is to make them work.

Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:


I honestly don't care about the ivory tower label
That is abundantly clear

Labels flung around don't actually help much. The min-maxing of AC around here isn't much healthier than the white tower stuff. Powergame the barbarian in this certain way for max AC, etc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

On the topic of Sorceror/Spont Caster Multiclass Archetype, I honestly would appreciate a dev response on why a single slot/level with single spell known is viable "spontaneous caster" multiclass. I mean, eventually if you take Breadth you can actually call it Spontaneous Casting, and I can see why premise of less slots/Repertoire than base Class might lead them to this, but in the end is still just feels like something is very very off. Just adding +1 Spell Known would actually make it Spontaneous from the get go, without seriously disrupting balance vs Prep IMHO. It feels like they just didn't fully consider the details of this, but just proceeded from vanilla "one slot = one spell known" ignoring gameplay implications. I'm not sure if Signature Spell mechanic should be granted by default, or offered via APG Feat... But it does just feels like Errata to vanilla Spont Casting Feat is needed, not just "bandaid" Feats which can't address core Feat value (especially for non-Humans unable to grab bonus Class Feats, at least without Adopted).

I didn't quite follow all the Adopted Ancestry discussion, but noted a sentiment that "it should work [for everybody] like Cultural Adaptability" (Halfling Ancestry Feat = free Ancestry Feat from chosen Ancestry). I actually strongly disagree with that, whether example of Elf immediately taking Dwarven Unburdened*, Half-Elf/Orc niche being undercut, or simply over-all dynamic being pushed to use Adopted if there is no Feat cost. * While UNIQUELY allowing Dwarves to use Cultural Adaptability for Elf:Nimble feels justifiable, that is really band-aid for issue better served by new Dwarf Feats, ideally Heritages or Heritage dependent Feats to prevent Elves also grabbing them, which would facilitate quick and competitive Med/Hvy Armor speed.

I actually agree with the point that Class/Ancestry/General/Skill hierarchy isn't strictly explained (AFAIK), which relates to my critique during Playtest of "Class" actually being a poor name for something that in actuality need not relate to your class or ANY class... Given they equally apply to non-MC Archetypes (or for that matter, single "universal" Class Feats without Dedication if/when Paizo chooses to publish those). Which is why I advocated for a name not tied to class, but better directly indicating power level, I think I proposed "Heroic Feats". Certainly it is reasonable for game to explain up-front the different power level and scope expectations for these generic classes of Feats, that gives context for how/why they are different, not just "handing out" different kinds of Feats via different mechanics and assume that makes sense to people.

Some of the complaints around "misunderstanding" dynamic of proficiency gains actually tie into something I dislike about the formatting/presentation: everything is listed as text mashed together, even though all the basic proficiency math is really comparable to BAB/Saves which is amenable to matrix presentation. TEML can even be represented by color coding to save space, with grid spatially representing progression of basic proficiency math across levels. That would even help the unique abilities "pop out" easier upon quick perusal of class advancement table, since they wouldn't be smashed into a bunch of text for basic proficiencies which is really boilerplate IMHO.

But regarding Armor/Weapon General Proficiency, I really see them as having real value for real character builds, it feels like people fixate solely on comparing them by single metric where alternative build beats them, but having high DEX to consistently outmatch it requires dedication from the beginning with opportunity cost for other stats which some wish to ignore when advocating "10 STR build is best nothing else is legitimate". I mean, people are complaining about the value of General Feat, but what is actually lost if "needing" to boost DEX would mean abandoning a Background which would otherwise give you Feat you want and Stats you want? Just basic investment in STR, not even trying to match max DEX build, carries inherent and indirect benefits for plenty of stuff... Actually synergizing if you want to wear Heavy Armor AND a high Bulk martial weapons (usable with full spell profiency via Hand of Apprentice), as well as with Heavy Fortification Runes which only work with Med/Heavy Armor and further increase STR requirement. Merely being -1 AC doesn't negate potential attraction for that, I mean Crit Damage spikes are reasonably more of a worry. That it may be -1 AC vs the max DEX build is part of tradeoffs, but it's like people get tunnnel vision because they told themselves it was only about "best AC value" when Med/Heavy Armor actually have benefits beyond vanilla AC, not to mention the indirect benefits gained from other stats. Again, it doesn't even require symmetrical dedication to STR as the DEX build, so it's a viable approach for many people who might want to spread stat boosts around differently both at Level 1 and above. The poor value of CHA makes it an often dumped stat for anybody not focusing on it, but anybody focusing on CHA has a disproportionately tougher choice in spreading other stat boosts, and "maxing DEX" only accentuates that. IMHO there just really is plenty of builds which can get real persistent value from this being option, not to mention real legit niche for it being transient gear option (to later be forgotten/retrained).

I really think this "Ivory Tower" framing is b!!+!*~*, AFAIK that terms refers to disconnected elitist academia. I don't see anybody here making appeal to authority, constraining communications to chosen few, using un-necessary jargon etc. The topic is game system dynamics, so actually discussing that seems more than reasonable. Nothing stops anybody from doing so, so if anything constraining and isoolating discussion by refusing to step beyond chosen few's arbitrary focus on "max AC" is what smells of "Ivory Tower".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
tqomins wrote:
I'm generally just a little annoyed with unarmed attacks being all over the place like they are. Seems a better design would be to handle them like unarmored defense—they scale along with whatever else your class gives you. That would be better for all the same reasons the change to armor proficiencies from the playtest was a very good move: simpler all around, enables more concepts, doesn't have a real downside, prevents all these weird quirks.

Very happy to hear (on today's stream) that unarmed attacks should/will scale with simple weapon proficiency. Doesn't quite get the fighter quirk, but clearly that's the intent


Quandary wrote:

On the topic of Sorceror/Spont Caster Multiclass Archetype, I honestly would appreciate a dev response on why a single slot/level with single spell known is viable "spontaneous caster". I mean, eventually if you take Breadth you can actually call it Spontaneous Casting, and I can see why premise of less slots/Repertoire than base Class might lead them to this, but in the end is still just feels like something is very very off. Just adding +1 Spell Known would actually make it Spontaneous from the get go, but an additional slot (at some point) seems plausibly justified as well (if getting +1 Spell Known from get go, this slot may not even need to "come with" further +1 Spell Known, although Breadth slot would still), as well as considering granting Signature Spell mechanic. It just feels like Errata is needed, not "bandaid" Feats which can't address core Feat value (especially for non-Humans unable to grab bonus Class Feats).

I didn't quite follow all the Adopted Ancestry discussion, but noted a sentiment that "it should work like Cultural Adaptability" (Halfling Ancestry Feat = free Ancestry Feat from chosen Ancestry). I actually strongly disagree with that, whether example of Elf immediately taking Dwarven Unburdened, Half-Elf/Orc niche being undercut, or simply over-all dynamic being pushed to use Adopted if there is no Feat cost.

I actually agree with the point that Class/Ancestry/General/Skill hierarchy isn't strictly explained (AFAIK), which I critiqued in Playtest insofar as "Class" is actually a poor name for something that in actuality need not relate to your class or ANY class, given they equally apply to non-MC Archetypes (or for that matter, single "universal" Class Feats without Dedication if/when Paizo chooses to publish those). Which is why I advocated for a name not tied to class, but better indicating power level, I think I proposed "Heroic Feats".

Some of the complaints around "misunderstanding" dynamic of proficiency gains actually tie into something I dislike about the...

Favorited for later read, growing dumber and dumber as it is past 2am here. Good read so far, wish I could formulate that well :)

tqomins wrote:
tqomins wrote:
I'm generally just a little annoyed with unarmed attacks being all over the place like they are. Seems a better design would be to handle them like unarmored defense—they scale along with whatever else your class gives you. That would be better for all the same reasons the change to armor proficiencies from the playtest was a very good move: simpler all around, enables more concepts, doesn't have a real downside, prevents all these weird quirks.
Very happy to hear (on today's stream) that unarmed attacks should/will scale with simple weapon proficiency. Doesn't quite get the fighter quirk, but clearly that's the intent

Is there a way to view the stream if we missed the live?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Bardarok wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
1:1 cost wise, I think Toughness will win over any general feat tbh.

The armor proficiency feat looses out to no feat at all for the wizard and is at best an even trade for the barbarian. That's not a good sign.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
If we use mithral, the fullplate has 0 movement penalty.

Sure but if you are being fair you need to let the medium armor barbarian spend that extra cash somewhere else.

Corvo Spiritwind wrote:


Would the unarmored wizard have enough stats to boost Dex, Int and Con?

Yes you get to boost four stats every five levels, so actually probably both are boosting Con every time.

Lvl 1
Str 10 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 18 Wis 12 Cha 10

Lvl 5
Str 10 Dex 18 Con 14 Int 19 Wis 14 Cha 10

Now beyond that the unarmored wizard can try and boost dex further to get higher AC
lvl 10
Str 10 Dex 19 Con 16 Int 20 Wis 16 Cha 10

lvl 15
Str 10 Dex 20 Con 18 Int 21 Wis 16 Cha 10

Or they can boost Cha or Str if that float their boat. The wizard who went with light armor doesn't can't increase their AC with dex anymore so they can take their pick between Str and Cha. Bully for them.

<_> no you should have con and Wis over dex, you need init, going first is really important for wizards/casters, you can use the action before anyone has moved to aoe blast before your allies and enemies start to mingle, you can use it to buff before any allies have gone(so they're buffed on first turn) or protect them from enemy actions.

dex should be 16, con 20 and wis 18 at level 20.

like really, con is more important that dex, you need to overcome your lower fort save and HP applies to all attacks while dex is only ac and reflex.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@DMW I can understand your position that you think people will look first at general feats before archetypes, but I don’t think that’s a fair assumption. I’ve gotten a few people into ttrpgs, and none of them (at least from what they’ve told me) have looked at general feats for armor or weapon proficiency; they always went straight to multiclassing. Maybe it’s just me and the people I play with, but looking at the classes that do the thing I want the best just seems like the most logical and straightforward way. Honestly, I have not seen anyone who is afraid of multiclass complexity ever look to a wizard or any other caster though.

As the position that the proficiency feats are trap, I don’t think that is accurate at all, nor that including them makes for ivory tower game design, as the game never traps players into keeping their feats, and outside of the vacuum that is the change from class trained to expertise, these feats are very useful, especially the armor proficiency for casters (of course, I don’t think it’s realistic to believe anyone would choose to spend three general feats on armor proficiency and not understand what it does), which gives casters better survivability with at least one additional AC for just one feat for the entirety of a character’s formative career. If one AC makes this a bad feat, then I’m not sure why it matters so much when spell casters get one additional AC later on from expertise until they can get their dex up to 20 at level 15.

Midnightoker wrote:
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).

I actually answered this a few pages back. You might have missed it, as I posted at what would be the early morning in America, or you might have responded right after I did and missed my post.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Narxiso wrote:


Midnightoker wrote:
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).

I actually answered this a few pages back. You might have missed it, as I posted at what would be the early morning in America, or you might have responded right after I did and missed my post.

looking back on it, i've answer that question with "i don't think they're actually far enough behind where I think you can say they're worse off".

people just don't take that as an answer though as they still see "but i'm not expert in heavy armor" and ignore any given numbers I throw their way. my answer was "to be worse off, you had to have more than 16 dex" which as i've shown i don't think is something a wizard should build for if they're being optimal.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:


<_> no you should have con and Wis over dex, you need init, going first is really important for wizards/casters, you can use the action before anyone has moved to aoe blast before your allies and enemies start to mingle, you can use it to buff before any allies have gone(so they're buffed on first turn) or protect them from enemy actions.

dex should be 16, con 20 and wis 18 at level 20.

like really, con is more important that dex, you need to overcome your lower fort save and HP applies to all attacks while dex is only ac and reflex.

Build however you want it doesn't change the fact that light armor profocincy isn't worth it after level 13 no matter what stats your wizard has.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

I really think this "Ivory Tower" framing is b#!~~%$+, AFAIK that terms refers to disconnected elitist academia. I don't see anybody here making appeal to authority, constraining communications to chosen few, using un-necessary jargon etc.

This whole forum is the ivory tower. A brand new player wouldn't understand most of the jargon in this thread.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
On the topic of Sorceror/Spont Caster Multiclass Archetype, I honestly would appreciate a dev response on why a single slot/level with single spell known is viable "spontaneous caster" multiclass.

I really don't like this. Regardless of whether or not it's balanced, having one spell slot that you can cast one spell with does not in any way evoke the themes of spontaneous casting.

It also feels kinda bad because MC Wizards get a spellbook they can add spells to like normal. So instead of the Wizard MC being more flexible from day to day and the Sorc MC being more flexible from moment to moment, they're essentially the same except the Wizard can effectively change out their one spell each day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's say you're a cleric and multiclass into wizard, getting trained arcane proficiency. (This is also true for getting a primal innate spell from ancestry, for example.)

Your divine spell proficiency then increases, because that's central to the class. Your other spell proficiencies do not increase, meaning that these bonus spells you get don't scale.

I'd argue that this is a similar situation to taking a general feat to get weapons/armour outside the class, yet I'm pretty sure no one argues with this being the case. Or are we going to say that those spells are useless and are trap options? (On a side note, I'd say getting archetypes for this sort of thing would be fine.)

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
I didn't quite follow all the Adopted Ancestry discussion, but noted a sentiment that "it should work [for everybody] like Cultural Adaptability" (Halfling Ancestry Feat = free Ancestry Feat from chosen Ancestry).

I'm pretty sure this wasn't remotely the consensus. I agree with you that doing that is a bad idea, for example.

I also mostly agree on the Sorcerer Multiclass thing, as I mentioned previously. And on clarity between different Feat categories.

Quandary wrote:
But regarding Armor/Weapon General Proficiency, I really see them as having real value for real character builds, it feels like people fixate solely on comparing them by single metric where alternative build beats them, but having high DEX to consistently outmatch it requires dedication from the beginning with opportunity cost for other stats which some wish to ignore when advocating "10 STR build is best nothing else is legitimate". I mean, people are complaining about the value of General Feat, but what is actually lost if "needing" to boost DEX would mean abandoning a Background which would otherwise give you Feat you want and Stats you want?

The issue here is that you and many others are the ones fixating on a very niche case: A Wizard (or Sorcerer or Cloistered Cleric) who gets Heavy Armor (a 3 General Feat investment). This is almost literally the only build where General Proficiency Feats involving armor can ever be a good idea long term at all.

The issue is with every other build out there using these Feats and everyone who takes them. Because many people will due to the nature of the game and the nature of new players (who often care about things like 'wielding a cool weapon' more than things like actual effectiveness).

Quandary wrote:
I really think this "Ivory Tower" framing is b*$&$@+&, AFAIK that terms refers to disconnected elitist academia. I don't see anybody here making appeal to authority, constraining communications to chosen few, using un-necessary jargon etc. .

As Bardarok notes, this forum is the Ivory Tower. I'm one of the best optimizers I know, certainly the best in my current player group. I am also pretty much the only one who actually posts on this forum. My players are all smart people but I'm only certain they wouldn't make the mistakes I'm discussing here because I'd warn them not to. Absent that, several who are either less focused on mechanics or new to the game might easily make them.

A lot of people on this forum are acting like people need to be stupid to make these errors, or that nobody will ever make them. That's just not true in either case. All that's needed is someone making a character without reading the entire book, perhaps rushing a tad since they're doing it as part of a session with other people waiting on them, and that happens all too easily.

Quandary wrote:
The topic is game system dynamics, so actually discussing that seems more than reasonable. Nothing stops anybody from doing so, so if anything constraining and isoolating discussion by refusing to step beyond chosen few's arbitrary focus on "max AC" is what smells of "Ivory Tower"

Max AC will be extremely common simply because it's so easy to get and so obviously useful. Non-Monks without armor are an intentional exception (having more AC difficulties with the intent of being 'backliners'), and there will always be a few builds who lack it by a point or two, but it's gonna be the norm, simply because the Dex investment required for it combined with even Light Armor is so minimal comparatively.

tqomins wrote:
Very happy to hear (on today's stream) that unarmed attacks should/will scale with simple weapon proficiency. Doesn't quite get the fighter quirk, but clearly that's the intent

This is excellent news. I haven't had time to listen to the streams recently, but maybe I need to make time.

Cyouni wrote:

Let's say you're a cleric and multiclass into wizard, getting trained arcane proficiency. (This is also true for getting a primal innate spell from ancestry, for example.)

Your divine spell proficiency then increases, because that's central to the class. Your other spell proficiencies do not increase, meaning that these bonus spells you get don't scale.

I'd argue that this is a similar situation to taking a general feat to get weapons/armour outside the class, yet I'm pretty sure no one argues with this being the case. Or are we going to say that those spells are useless and are trap options? (On a side note, I'd say getting archetypes for this sort of thing would be fine.)

This is an interesting question. I'd be inclined to say no this isn't equivalent for four reasons:

#1: There are lots of non-attack spell uses where this restriction is meaningless. There are zero non-attack weapon uses, and zero non-defense armor uses.

#2: Spellcasting Archetypes grant so few spells that, speaking intuitively, most people are not gonna think these spells can be their main schtick for even a moment. Weapon and Armor Proficiency are effectively unlimited, and many people will thus intuitively think they can serve well as a primary melee combat or defensive strategy.

#3: Because there is no better way to get additional spells from a new list than this, while there are better Proficiency option for weapons and armor, which means that by doing this you get the best result possible for a second spell list. The same cannot be said for the General Proficiency Feats.

#4: Because this is a new player problem, largely, and most new players will avoid builds of the complexity involved in two spell lists almost automatically. This is the least important of these four reasons as there will be exceptions, but it remains relevant.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

This is an interesting question. I'd be inclined to say no this isn't equivalent for four reasons:

#1: There are lots of non-attack spell uses where this restriction is meaningless. There are zero non-attack weapon uses, and zero non-defense armor uses.

#2: Spellcasting Archetypes grant so few spells that, speaking intuitively, most people are not gonna think these spells can be their main schtick for even a moment. Weapon and Armor Proficiency are effectively unlimited, and many people will thus intuitively think they can serve well as a primary melee combat or defensive strategy.

#3: Because there is no better way to get additional spells from a new list than this, while there are better Proficiency option for weapons and armor, which means that by doing this you get the best result possible for a second spell list. The same cannot be said for the General Proficiency Feats.

#4: Because this is a new player problem, largely, and most new players will avoid builds of the complexity involved in two spell lists almost automatically. This is the least important of these four reasons as there will be exceptions, but it remains relevant.

Additionally, and this is in some respects an extension of point #2, the system doesn't really force you to choose between your Divine and Arcane spells, except on the very temporary basis of 'which one do I want to cast this turn' - you have full access to both at all times and don't need a whole bunch of money to maintain two concurrent sets of spells or a bunch of actions to switch between them if one becomes more useful than the other in a situation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
it's more like he just doesn't want to spend his general feats on heavier armor...

It is not just feats, it is also about raising STR, which is a non-retrainable resource that does very little for a pure caster. of of the few reasons to raise STR on a wizard are if you want to actually use it for more than just donning heavier armor, or if your campaign mostly plays in the level sweet spot where it is superior.

Bandw2 wrote:
for stealth just use invisibility

At 20th level, sure, trained skills are not hot anymore in any case. But at low levels? You cannot cast invisibility at first, and then it is one of your precious higher level slots.

And arguing like that is a fallacy, obviously, as the swiss army knife of full spellcasting often has options to circumvent a particular problem, but also the accompanying opportunity cost. Everything you spend is not available elsewhere.

Also, choices always have to be looked at over the assumed lifetime of a character. Of course, that is where the general proficiency feats are lacking, except in some cases like light armor on a wizard.

The whole spontaneous MC seems off. My first try at making a PF2 character was a port of a very old rogue with spellcasting concept, and I thought that sorcerer would be a fit, since the character is supposed to be high CHA, too, but especially at low levels, sorcerer MC casting was strictly inferior to wizard MC. Which is especially painful as this was about flexibility. The sorc MC gets a bit more spontaneous at 8th level, but the wizard MC can write spells in the spellbooks all the time. The trade-off between knowing less spells but being more spontaneous in the moment versus having access to more spells but having to dedicate resources was simply not there.

I hope that they clarify that sorcerers and the like can cast spells in higher spell slots without heightening them. It is still painful at lower levels, but gets better over time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I know I’m late to the party but full plate Wizards is something near and dear to me. I admittedly haven’t read every post, so if this has already been covered please let me know.

Quote:
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, and it works fine...right up until 11th or 13th level when it suddenly becomes mechanically terrible. Which, again, makes this a trap option, and bad game design policy, since some new players will use this option, and then experience mechanical inferiority without really understanding why.

Here’s a half built sample character that’s being built with an aim to retire at level 17 (if anyone feels the missing stuff is relevant I’m willing to add it):

Spoiler:
Human Wizard 15 with Fighter Archetype (Eldritch Knight build)

STR 20
Dex 12 (boosted at level 15)
Con 18
Int 20
Wis 18
Cha 10

Feats:
Human 1) Versatile Heritage (Light Armor Proficiency)
Human 1) General Training (Medium Armor Proficiency)
Wizard 1)
Wizard 2) Fighter Dedication
General 3) Heavy Armor Proficiency
Wizard 4) Opportunist
Human 5) General Training (Incredible Initiative)
Wizard 6) Fighter Resiliency
General 7) Toughness
Wizard 8)
Human 9)
Wizard 10)
General 11)
Wizard 12) Diverse Weapon Expert
Human 13)
Wizard 14)
General 15)

Class Features:
Background (Hermit)
Arcane Bond
Arcane Thesis (Spell Blending)
Lightning Reflexes
Magical Fortitude
Alertness
Wizard Weapon Expertise
Defensive Robes
Weapon Specialisation
Master Spellcaster


Now this wizard has clearly chosen to go for high wisdom over Dex because it boosts their will save and initiative bonus. Similar to the choice a full plate wearing Fighter might make. That feels like it is something that should be a valid choice to make.

Unarmoured AC = 30 = 10 (base) + 4 (Proficiency) + 15 (Level) + 1 (Dex)
+2 Full Plate AC = 33 = 10 (base) + 6 (full plate) + 2 (rune) + 15 (Level)

It’s 3 General Feats (which seem to be nowhere near as valuable compared to class feats) for +3 AC. Is that really considered a trap?

Has the meta game already determined that boosting Dex over other tertiary stats is optimal?

Out of interest someone who swapped the above character’s wisdom and Dex bonus would get the following changes:

+1 AC overall (cannot wear full plate)
-3 Initiative
-3 Will saves

3 General feats and -1 AC to get +3 initiative boost and +3 to Will saves seems like a pretty good trade to me.

What am I missing?

251 to 300 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.