Retraining rules and advanced weapon archetypes make "not being human" excessively punitive.


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Lost Omens World Guide has two archetypes which require proficiency in an advanced weapon as a prerequisite. All fighters have this at level 1, all classes with martial weapon proficiency can get it at level 1 with an ancestry feat or heritage to gain the general feat "weapon proficiency", all classes with simple weapon proficiency can get it at level 1 with both a heritage and an ancestry feat... that is, if you're human.

If you wanted to play say, an Elf Aldori Duelist who is not a fighter, the earliest you can get proficiency in the Aldori sword is 3rd level when you get your first general feat, or 7th level if you happen to be a rogue.

Theoretically, you could fix this via retraining your second level feat to the Aldori dedication except the retraining rules say

Quote:
When retraining, you generally can’t make choices you couldn’t make when you selected the original option. For instance, you can’t exchange a 2nd-level skill feat for a 4th-level one, or for one that requires prerequisites you didn’t meet at the time you took the original feat.

So an Elven barbarian is forced to wait until 4th level to take the Aldori dedication, and a Goblin rogue is forced to wait until 8th. I find that any time you take a lower level feat in a higher level feat slot it's unsatisfying, and while you will do this from time to time for class feats (such as if your barbarian wants both AoO and their 6th level instinct feat), starting the dedication late means you're likely to be late on other feats in the archetype, particularly if they have interdependencies.

A basic problem to confront in a high fantasy game is "why should I be human, I have a lot of experience being human already?" for sure, but we should be careful not to end up "forcing" people to play human characters in order to fulfill basic concepts of their characters, particularly since the human ancestry already has multiple things which are near the far extreme of the power curve for their category.


Didn't see that you already have to be trained for the archetype

That sucks quite a lot to be honest... I think I'll just let players pass on that one, I mean, they already need the archetype itself to have a progression for the weapon, why make them waste an additional feat on it?


4th level for champions/rangers/barbarians isn't terrible, but does feel kind of bad as you said to be taking lower level feats, especially when Paizo is making an effort to tie feat level to power this edition much moreso than 1e.

8th level to pick up a level 2 dedication as a rogue is really rough. Especially since rogues are ostensibly a more martial class but the way their proficiency works this is the same level a sorcerer, bard, alchemist or druid (etc.) can get into the same archetype.

While I don't many people are interest in turning them into Swordlords or Assassins, I kinda feel really bad for non-human wizards who can't get into the archetype until level 12 at the earliest. Even if you wanted dueling swords I can't see taking a level 2 feat in a level 12 slot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, "being a human for the bonus feat" is not a new thing by any means, since lots of builds in PF1 did that to get the combination of feats up at the earliest levels. But there we're talking about 2 levels between the human version and the non-human version of some combination of feats (e.g. anyone rushing to get spring or whirlwind attack in PF1).

But a human rogue can get proficiency in the Dueling sword at level 1, and take the archetype at level 2. A non-human rogue can't get proficiency in the dueling sword until level 7, and take the archetype at level 8.

So we've expanded a 2 level delay to a 6 level delay, which really feels bad.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Also, "being a human for the bonus feat" is not a new thing by any means, since lots of builds in PF1 did that to get the combination of feats up at the earliest levels. But there we're talking about 2 levels between the human version and the non-human version of some combination of feats (e.g. anyone rushing to get spring or whirlwind attack in PF1).

But a human rogue can get proficiency in the Dueling sword at level 1, and take the archetype at level 2. A non-human rogue can't get proficiency in the dueling sword until level 7, and take the archetype at level 8.

So we've expanded a 2 level delay to a 6 level delay, which really feels bad.

I still can't wrap my head about why they didn't make an aldori archetype that swapped some features around level 1 for everyone...


6 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Also, "being a human for the bonus feat" is not a new thing by any means, since lots of builds in PF1 did that to get the combination of feats up at the earliest levels. But there we're talking about 2 levels between the human version and the non-human version of some combination of feats (e.g. anyone rushing to get spring or whirlwind attack in PF1).

But a human rogue can get proficiency in the Dueling sword at level 1, and take the archetype at level 2. A non-human rogue can't get proficiency in the dueling sword until level 7, and take the archetype at level 8.

So we've expanded a 2 level delay to a 6 level delay, which really feels bad.

I still can't wrap my head about why they didn't make an aldori archetype that swapped some features around level 1 for everyone...

Because they haven't introduced those archetypes. Currently none change the chassis that dramatically. You are still your primary class above anything else (mechanically that is). Likely the archetypes that swap or alter core abilities instead of just class feats will only be suitable for specific classes. Few classes share enough of the exact same abilities in a quantity large enough to do even swaps.

Archetypes are cosmetic at this point (which is fine by me BTW).
I'm not sure there will be non-feat archetypes so much as class paths (like Doctrines & Warpriest).

And for the record, I don't have a problem with an advantage for human weapon gurus entering into organizations primarily composed of human weapon gurus. Who knows? Maybe the organizations want it that way?
Or maybe the archetypes made for specializing in one weapon weren't made to appeal to non-Fighters, but rather Fighters because that's their shtick. Most Prestige Classes in PF1 narrowed one's early class selection, right?

On the flip side, why is it so hard for a Dwarf to get as many innate Cantrips as a Gnome? Or for a Goblin Rogue to use an Elven Curve Blade as well as an Elf Rogue?
Humans have the advantage of versatility, but the other Ancestries have their advantages too. I'd rather it that way than have them just be outer facades on a homogeneous, generic PC blob. Choices matter.

Thematically, Rogues seem the only miss among classes. But one can be a rogue w/o being a Rogue so you can build your persona, if not the stats. Those archetypes still might be better paths toward that concept than the Rogue w/ Fighter MCD & taking feats at double the level. It may take longer for a Rogue, but w/ Dex to damage & Sneak Attack on a d8 versatile weapon, the payoff seems sweeter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Also, "being a human for the bonus feat" is not a new thing by any means, since lots of builds in PF1 did that to get the combination of feats up at the earliest levels.

To be honest, I was under the impression that "humans being bright blue for every possible build because the bonus feat is too strong compared to every other option" was one of the things Paizo was going to fix in this edition.

Cabbage is right, this design imposes a massive penalty on anyone that doesn't want to play a human and it's only going to get worse as more archetypes are printed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Also, "being a human for the bonus feat" is not a new thing by any means, since lots of builds in PF1 did that to get the combination of feats up at the earliest levels.

To be honest, I was under the impression that "humans being bright blue for every possible build because the bonus feat is too strong compared to every other option" was one of the things Paizo was going to fix in this edition.

Cabbage is right, this design imposes a massive penalty on anyone that doesn't want to play a human and it's only going to get worse as more archetypes are printed.

Only for some archetypes, it won't impact anything that doesn't have similar requirements. Nor will it impact as much as different races gain different ancestry feats to obtain similar requirements, nor will it impact class feats in the same way (from what we can read about them currently)

It is an advantage, but I am not willing to say that it is a huge one for humans.

I mean, elves are getting ancient elf heritage, which is a way to get into multiclass dedications early on. Which is also powerful in its niche.

Sovereign Court

11 people marked this as a favorite.

So elf rogues aren't good at something that setting-wise is a human fighter thing? I don't see an "excessive" problem here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
So elf rogues aren't good at something that setting-wise is a human fighter thing? I don't see an "excessive" problem here.

Think about how easy it will be for humans to qualify for an archetype that requires elf weapons and try that again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, there's a big difference between "I like this concept, but if I tweak this variable it will come on a bit earlier" and "If I want this concept, I have only one choice with which it is actually achievable."

Certainly there are some things which should be primarily of interest to certain ancestries, but those should be primarily cultural (e.g. most Rivethun adherents are going to be dwarves) not "I worship Achaekek via murder" or "I duel in the Aldori style." Sure, Rostland is going to be primarily human (emphasis on *primarily*), but Mediogalti Island" is a hive of scum and villainy which sees all sorts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm houseruling that everyone gets a general feat at first level. This cuts down on the gap between human and non-human considerably and just feels better. I'm kinda curious why we don't get a general feat at 1st anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

What? Did you really think just anyone could become an Aldori Swordlord? Just like that? /tongueincheek


Ravingdork wrote:
What? Did you really think just anyone could become an Aldori Swordlord? Just like that? /tongueincheek

All the level 2 humans say YES!


So at the risk of getting this moved (again) to homebrew, what are the potential repercussions to completely ignoring the "you can't retrain to something which you did not meet the prerequisites for at the time" clause?

After all there is a "generally" in there.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really see problem with humans or fighters or human fighters getting earlier access to certain archetypes nor do I see it being "punishing". I mean, other classes and ancestries can still get them even if its later on.

I just don't think all archetypes should be universally "you can get them at level 2 earliest". Like I get why you might be annoyed about it, but I don't see why they should all universally be available on level 2 for everyone.

(Also, Aldori dueling style IS cultural. I'd argue same applies to Mediogalti Isle as well since religion is cultural thing as well plus they do have their own nation :P)


CorvusMask wrote:

I don't really see problem with humans or fighters or human fighters getting earlier access to certain archetypes nor do I see it being "punishing". I mean, other classes and ancestries can still get them even if its later on.

I just don't think all archetypes should be universally "you can get them at level 2 earliest". Like I get why you might be annoyed about it, but I don't see why they should all universally be available on level 2 for everyone.

If it's going to be a level 2 feat then it should be a level 2 feat. This is the equivalent of some ancestries not being able to pick up Brutish Shove at 2nd.

Giving the dedication feat a higher level prereq is also a solution you could consider, though naturally all of the feats would have to be stronger to justify that. Which illustrates the problem, really.

Dark Archive

I mean, I still don't see why something being level 2 feat means you HAVE to be able to pick it at level 2.

There are some skill feats that are level 2 feats because rogue can pick them at level 2, while for every other class they can pick them at level 3 only.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
So elf rogues aren't good at something that setting-wise is a human fighter thing? I don't see an "excessive" problem here.

Absolutely.

My first thought on reading the OP was "the majority of Aldori duelists *should* be from the fighter class."

The notion that some other non-fighters or non-humans have to jump through a few hoops, or wait a few more levels just doesn't shock me.

And the idea that this trend might continue with the release of further dedications and achetypes, and that more and more players might be drawn to playing human characters (even if for strictly mechanical, optimising-oriented reasons) instead of non-human ones doesn't particularly trouble me either.

IMHO there *should* be strong reasons for wanting to play a human. Some folks will always prefer playing other races anyway, optimising be damned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be clear, my objection is not "humans have an easier time accessing things" it's that because of this humans are able to take the dedication with a much less valuable feat (a feat 2) than others who are forced to take it as a feat 4 or a feat 8.

I would have no objection waiting to 8th level for an Elf Aldori Duelist, for example, if they could then retrain their second level feat to the Aldori dedication. The price you pay for not being human is "waiting" and "having to spend downtime" rather than "you are using a valuable feat slot on a less valuable feat" as well as all of that.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I would have no objection waiting to 8th level for an Elf Aldori Duelist, for example, if they could then retrain their second level feat to the Aldori dedication.

I hear you. I haven't really thought about the retraining rules, but the restrictions placed on retraining seem a bit excessive. Nothing we can't all live with, but I'm not sure they are strictly necessary.

Sovereign Court

Arachnofiend wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
So elf rogues aren't good at something that setting-wise is a human fighter thing? I don't see an "excessive" problem here.
Think about how easy it will be for humans to qualify for an archetype that requires elf weapons and try that again.

That's rather hypothetical. Why should an elf-oriented archetype have symmetrical requirements? They could easily make for example a spell warrior archetype that lets you cast cantrips through strikes with elven weapons. It takes a human much more hoop-jumping to get that than an elf who can just pick up an innate cantrip as an ancestry feat.

And even so, stealing stuff from other cultures basically is a racial ability for humans, so yeah, they're a better at it than others are doing it to them. That's not a mistake, that's what humans are.

On the other hand, humans are also so mundane with no real unique physiological traits, that most of their abilities can eventually be poached, the "as long as the ancestry feats don’t require any physiological feature that you lack, as determined by the GM" clause of Adopted Ancestry doesn't protect their stuff.

Case in point: what is supposedly a human thing is casually accessible to elven fighters. It takes slightly more effort for elven rangers/barbarians/champions. It's just elven rogues that have difficulty getting to a human fighter thing. Boo-hoo.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
I'm houseruling that everyone gets a general feat at first level. This cuts down on the gap between human and non-human considerably and just feels better. I'm kinda curious why we don't get a general feat at 1st anyway.

At each odd level you either get an ancestry feat or a general feat:

1: ancestry
3: general
5: ancestry
7: general
9: ancestry
11: general
13: ancestry
15: general
17: ancestry
19: general

So that's why.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For me it boils down to one thing kind of.
Humans are the jack of all trades for getting into things.
Martial archetypes are open to martial classes before others.
Magic archetypes are open to magic classes before others.
Save monk, no martial is easily gonna enter Magic warrior or any other archetype that requires focus spells or casting earlier than the intended type of class (martial/caster).

That sounds actually right to me. I don't think Red Mantis archetype is done wrong because my elven fighter can get in there before my elven wizard. And if I choose human, that's a specific power based choice and I have to change my aesthetic around that, but if I really wanted an elven aldori as soon as possible, logic says go Fighter, not wizard.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

So at the risk of getting this moved (again) to homebrew, what are the potential repercussions to completely ignoring the "you can't retrain to something which you did not meet the prerequisites for at the time" clause?

After all there is a "generally" in there.

The retaining rules are way too harsh, I think everything but level is fine to ignore. Mark Seifter even is ignoring some parts of the retaining rules and he wrote them:

"In my game I would allow flavor restrictions to be retconned for those feats (and did for Lion Blade in WftC) if you could have just as easily done them at lower level"

Granted that's a separate concern… but you can think you could have made the character as a human as justification…


Arachnofiend wrote:
Think about how easy it will be for humans to qualify for an archetype that requires elf weapons and try that again.

Not sure if the Human picking up Elf weapon archetype is the same as well. There's a lot of variables here. Firstly, the Elf will gain more weapons trained for the cost of same level 1 ancestry feat. Secondly, the human can't pick up an advanced elven weapon unless he is trained in all martial weapons, so that limits the class choice scope a lot. Thirdly, the human with the elf weapon feat can't grab the ancestry feat which allows to him to gain the critical specialization effect unless they use Adopted Ancestry, but that means anyone can do that if we go there.

In the end, the Human picking up the elf weapon gains 1 martial elf weapon proficiency and cannot grab critical specialization feat. If there was an elven weapon archetype, chances are it's easier and more optimal to pick it up as an elf anyway, just like how human is better for some, and casters are better for some. It's almost like most archetypes are open to everyone, but the cost and entry level vary with your choices.

I personally like that those choices have weight.


Retraining wrote:
If you don’t remember whether you met the prerequisites at the time, ask your GM to make the call.

This is the one specific line that makes it seem much more restrictive than it needs to be. That said it also says it’s up to a GM to decide. Rogue does seem like the one specifically getting shafted for a Finesse Weapon path; so maybe a Rogue specific Feat allowing them to gain Proficiency in an Agile or Finesse Martial or Advanced Weapon of their choice would be an appropriate fix.

As for the retraining, unless you want to be a stickler, i’d say if you can meet the prerequisites with current class features or a feat chain it would be fine. An Example being Rogue would still have to take Aldori Dualist as early as a level 8 feat because of needing the two weapon training feats to access it.


One way to fix this could be by making up a background. Would it be busted if a background gave a general feat instead of a skill feat?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
ofMars wrote:
One way to fix this could be by making up a background. Would it be busted if a background gave a general feat instead of a skill feat?

Mechanically? Yes. General Feats are strictly better than Skill Feats. There's a reason you can spend General Feats on Skill Feats and not vice versa.

Weapon Proficiency specifically is not a great General Feat and might be less damaging, but the precedent would be very bad in the long run.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
My first thought on reading the OP was "the majority of Aldori duelists *should* be from the fighter class."

Should the majority of red mantis assassins be fighters too?

Maybe it works fine for the aldori duelist, but "be a human or be a fighter" is going to be a recurring theme with any and every archetype centered around advanced weapons going forward, regardless of the flavor of the archetype.

Wheldrake wrote:


IMHO there *should* be strong reasons for wanting to play a human. Some folks will always prefer playing other races anyway, optimising be damned.

I mean, some folks will want to play humans too. I don't see why that means humans should have extra mechanical incentives just because.

Or, even if they do, why those incentives need to be as extreme as delaying your whole build by up to seven levels.

CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, I still don't see why something being level 2 feat means you HAVE to be able to pick it at level 2.

You don't, but Paizo has made an effort to tie feat level to power this edition, so being forced to burn a level 8 or level 10 or level 12 slot on a level 2 feat can feel pretty bad.


Though we don't have the rules yet, a deity of Achaekek would also make a very good Red Mantis Assassin. I don't have a point here, but I just wanted to point it out.


Albatoonoe wrote:
Though we don't have the rules yet, a deity of Achaekek would also make a very good Red Mantis Assassin. I don't have a point here, but I just wanted to point it out.

It will be interesting to see how they handle "deities whose favored weapons are advanced weapons" since presumably they will keep continuity for favored weapons between editions, so there's an issue with Achaekek, and a few others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ironically Fighters are actually a pretty poor choice for going into Aldori Duelist. The main perks of that archetype are identical to feats that Fighters already have, there's close to zero reason to invest in it.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Ironically Fighters are actually a pretty poor choice for going into Aldori Duelist. The main perks of that archetype are identical to feats that Fighters already have, there's close to zero reason to invest in it.

Well, the Aldori riposte is 2 levels earlier than the fighter's dueling riposte, which is something. But the Aldori duelist can't take advantage of the dueling dance stance that lets them always have parry up (at least until the Swordlord is printed.)

My guess is if you wanted to be a fighter who is an Aldori duelist, you'd benefit from getting legendary proficiency with an advanced weapon with a level 2 feat instead of a level 6 feat, and then you'd just try to angle for Swordlord with the minimal investment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dueling Riposte comes later because the Fighter is getting another, better einhander feat at 2 because they don't have to worry about wasting a class feat on a skill increase just so they can get abilities they actually want later.

I... really hate the dedication feats. At least Aldori Duelist and the other LOWG archetypes bump you up to expert so you can potentially qualify for a skill feat early.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly at this point I'm pretty convinced this is a systemic issue that isn't going to have an easy fix.

Moving all Combat Feats to Class Feats and then gating proficiency heavily (with a lackluster General Feat that requires further investment to even stay relevant) are just part of the design of the system.

Of the few things I don't like about PF2, it's the number 1, but it's not exactly something with an easy work around. The initial structure of the game is hinged on not allowing people to use armor and weapons outside their bubble. The fact that Humans/Fighters have a fast track to everything is just a consequence of that choice.

Barring adding a General Feat that straight up adds a single weapon to your class pool, it's just not something that can be done. I recall a lot of people in this thread wholly against that due to infringing on Fighter/Ancestry.

Now that it's clear that "just take Fighter MCD" isn't an ideal solution to what will continue to grow as an issue (as more archetypes centralized around weapons will come) has the sentiment changed?


It's possible a switch hitter Fighter might take the Aldori Duelist Dedication feat to gain access to a melee weapon that scales at the same rate as their bow. I don't know if that would be efficient or beneficial mechanically given the action cost associated with switching, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Some archetypes are going to be better for one class, others will be better other classes. Archetypes have replaced Prestige Classes, at least in part, and some of those pretty much had classes as prerequisites. I don't see any issue with this.


Fumarole wrote:
Some archetypes are going to be better for one class, others will be better other classes. Archetypes have replaced Prestige Classes, at least in part, and some of those pretty much had classes as prerequisites. I don't see any issue with this.

Yes, some prestige classes did have strict requirements such as "cast 2nd level spells" or "+2d6 Sneak Attack"

However, those Prestige classes were generally restricted to things that required you have those things to be able to participate in the concept at all. There were also multiple avenues to accomplish them that were not even remotely close to the current bottleneck.

Now, Aldori Duelists and Red Mantis assassins are most accessible by Fighter or Humans (and only a Human that selects the Free General Feat).

So an Elf Rogue can't be a Red Mantis Assassin until they reach level 7 at the earliest, where they have to spend both General Feats on Weapon Proficiency and then their Class Feat.

Meanwhile, the Human Fighter gets to be a Red Mantis at level 2.

That's a 5 level difference in investment, and it shows favoritism to Humans and Fighters unnecessarily.

Compared to old prestige classes (most of which do not fall into the same restrictive prerequisites that enforce one ancestry/class) it's far more restrictive.

Does it really make sense to say that Red Mantis Assassins are primarily Humans/Fighters and Rogues/Rangers/etc. to be penalized?

Even then, forcing Rogues/Rangers/etc. to be restricted to Level 2 Class Feats as level 7 characters is a severe tax.

If the Shadow Dancer Prestige class in PF1 had a prerequisite of "Perform(dance) 7 ranks" you can almost bet that no one outside a Bard or Dervish Dancer would even consider it (and even then, it's a straight up tax for anyone else).

Instead, it has a rank requirement of 2, which is reasonable but a smaller tax.

If the Dedication read: "You must be proficient in Martial Weapons" and then gave Training in Sawtooth Sabre and added it to your class pool if you already had Training, that'd be tolerable.

As is though, it's "be a Fighter or wait til level 7 and then spend two generals and a precious Class Feat so you can swing a specific weapon and get Expert Stealth (which at level 7, if you were playing to your theme, you would already have or potentially even have Master).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

Meanwhile, the Human Fighter gets to be a Red Mantis at level 2.

That's a 5 level difference in investment, and it shows favoritism to Humans and Fighters unnecessarily.

Compared to old prestige classes (most of which do not fall into the same restrictive prerequisites that enforce one ancestry/class) it's far more restrictive.

What prestige class could you get into at level 2 in P1? They all had Feat, BAB, or Skill requirements that kept them all at leve 5+
Quote:

Does it really make sense to say that Red Mantis Assassins are primarily Humans/Fighters and Rogues/Rangers/etc. to be penalized?

Even then, forcing Rogues/Rangers/etc. to be restricted to Level 2 Class Feats as level 7 characters is a severe tax.

The Fighter gets something early. That's not penalizing everyone else.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The penalty is making characters use more powerful feat slots for weaker feats because of their class or ancestry choice. The problem is fundamentally with the retraining rules.

PF2 differs from PF1 in that the higher level feats are intended to be more powerful than the lower level feats, unlike how in PF1 Weapon Focus was sometimes a completely reasonable thing to take at 13th level. Spending a higher level feat slot on a low level feat is not something a PF2 character should be asked to do again and again.

Like, proof of concept: a fighter has 14 class feats which are level 1 or level 2. A human fighter, with the flexibility class features, can take all of them on one character. This is also pretty much the weakest 20th level fighter you can build.


Rysky wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Meanwhile, the Human Fighter gets to be a Red Mantis at level 2.

That's a 5 level difference in investment, and it shows favoritism to Humans and Fighters unnecessarily.

Compared to old prestige classes (most of which do not fall into the same restrictive prerequisites that enforce one ancestry/class) it's far more restrictive.

What prestige class could you get into at level 2 in P1? They all had Feat, BAB, or Skill requirements that kept them all at leve 5+
Quote:

Does it really make sense to say that Red Mantis Assassins are primarily Humans/Fighters and Rogues/Rangers/etc. to be penalized?

Even then, forcing Rogues/Rangers/etc. to be restricted to Level 2 Class Feats as level 7 characters is a severe tax.

The Fighter gets something early. That's not penalizing everyone else.

I mean just because the entry point has been moved doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter anymore.

And “the fighter gets something early” isn’t the problem, it’s that other classes have to sacrifice level 7 feats for a level 2 set of abilities. PossibleCabbage said that above.

And it unnecessarily favors them, not all RMA are Fighters or humans that selected a General feat.

Not to mention the fact that calling these “Prestige Classes” is a huge stretch if we’re talking between editions, in reality they’re higher prerequisite feat chains when you do a mechanics comparison between editions.

And in the respect of that making the best choice for RMA hands down humans and fighters does not seem like a feature to me, but flavor your cereal however you want.

Edit: ninja’d by possiblecabbage

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Spending higher level feats is a concern, but again that's not the Fighter's doing.

And a part of it is flavor, all Red mantis to my knowledge have been Humans and Half Elves (and one elf in a novel).


Are you saying RMA should be exclusively humans and Fighters by nature and that it’s a good thing?


Retraining into a thing that wasn't possible to you when you were at the level that you are retraining is IMHO the only sensible way to do it, unless you want to riddle it with exceptions to exceptions to prevent stuff like "so I now retrain my sorcerer spells known and make most of them high level instead of sticking to what was pickable at a given level".

I also don't have a problem with human-centric fighter-dominated cultural archetype being easier to get as a human fighter than when you are not. Then again, you might make a joke that this is actually a feature, as it protects you from getting into a bad archetype centered around a bad weapon : P.


Fighter can get in at level 2 (Cleric will probably be the same)

Champion, Ranger, and Barbarian can get in at level 4 (Level 2 if Human)

And Everyone else (aside from Wizard) can get in at level 8 (Level 4 if Human)

For the most part this doesn’t seem that bad. I do feel there needs to be broader options available other than just through Human. Rogue seems to be left out in the cold by sheer chance though; technically Bard as well, but they’re also full caster now.

As for the RMA, I’d honestly expect them to mostly be Fighters or Rangers rather than Rogues. There’s not much about them that sounds like a Rogue unless you conflate assassin with sneaky backstabber.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Are you saying RMA should be exclusively humans and Fighters by nature and that it’s a good thing?

Well, it's more like no non Human or Half Elf (or Half Orc) Rogues (or non-Cleric casters, I guess). Anyone who's a Cleric, Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian, or Champion can easily hit Red Mantis Assassin by 4th level (2nd level for a Cleric) regardless of Ancestry. All Red Mantis Assassins I can find stats for in PF1 were Rangers, Fighters, Rogues, or Clerics. Presumably once we have LE Champions, those would be very appropriate as well.

Of those, most Ancestries can qualify at 2nd to 4th level with only Rogue necessitating being Human or Human-adjacent. That's less of a 'Humans can't be this' and more 'Rogues have to jump through hoops to be this', IMO. And it's hardly the only Archetype some Classes have more trouble qualifying for than others.


This rule isn’t exclusive to current Archetypes, It applies to any archetype with an exotic weapon as a prerequisite and it’s still systemic based on gated proficiency.

Anyone here can like that if they care to, it just isn’t something I like at all. You basically need to flavor humans as the weapon master ancestry to justify it in world (Golarion or not). Ultimately if that works for you, then glad to hear you’re having fun.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I guess it's a question of how many Archetypes are going to require Advanced Weapon Proficiency?

From a setting standpoint Humans have been the advanced weapon master ancestry though.

Aldori? Human.

Rondelero? Human.

Followers of Achaekek (sawtooth saber) and Zon-Kuthon (spiked chain)? Mostly human.

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Retraining rules and advanced weapon archetypes make "not being human" excessively punitive. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.