So, we are comparing apples (medium armor) and oranges (heavy armor) now?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again - if a player takes armor proficiency for heavy armor on their character that normally gets medium armor and then doesn't boost dexterity, their AC is better for most levels of the game and the same for the rest of the levels of the game as it would be had they stuck with medium armor from their class and the same attitude towards dexterity.
It's not a trap. It works intuitively, and does what it advertises.
It also doesn't leave you so far behind on AC as to really even notice that you aren't at the highest you can possible have - you'd have to be "carefully reading through some behemoth rulebook" or "pour over character build threads" to figure that one out - because the 1 point you are missing out on will be entirely overshadowed by the d20's variance.
But why is it wrong to keep the +1 up to level 20, if it was ok to have it before?
And what about an heavy armor rogue? Or barbarian? They become master with their baseline armor, but are stuck with trained in the one that they invested feats to use.The answers here are about how you can homebrew, retrain, work around the fact that general feats for proficiency are broken. It is not fine that a wizard needs to invest two class feats just to fight with a spear as well as their sorcerer friend does with no investment.
So, we are comparing apples (medium armor) and oranges (heavy armor) now?
if you were wondering why he said +1 instead of +2, yes.
most builds that go for training in heavy armor, will only be 1 behind being expert in medium and 3 behind if they get master.
a wizard who doesn't get light armor training will be 2 behind until level 15 at the earliest(well 1 behind after 5). even if you count getting expert(in unarmored at level 13), they still won't have full dex to get +5 to AC.
so given all the rhetoric a wizard is constantly behind what their AC 'should' be.
Behind? Sure and to a degree. Im not saying to let them get to master or legendary. We are talking expert here (the same as everyone's unarmored expertise gets to at some point).
Ultimately, if the game allows the player to invest character development options that allows their character to use armors and thus comfortably allocate some ability score boosts in places other than dexterity then does a 180 and invalidates those choices after 10+ levels of play, that is a flaw in core design. Either the choice should not be allowed at all or it should be at least be moderately supported at all levels of play.
The current implentation is neither of those things and thus folks are understandably upset.
Again - if a player takes armor proficiency for heavy armor on their character that normally gets medium armor and then doesn't boost dexterity, their AC is better for most levels of the game and the same for the rest of the levels of the game as it would be had they stuck with medium armor from their class and the same attitude towards dexterity.
It's not a trap. It works intuitively, and does what it advertises.
It also doesn't leave you so far behind on AC as to really even notice that you aren't at the highest you can possible have - you'd have to be "carefully reading through some behemoth rulebook" or "pour over character build threads" to figure that one out - because the 1 point you are missing out on will be entirely overshadowed by the d20's variance.
But why is it wrong to keep the +1 up to level 20, if it was ok to have it before?
And what about an heavy armor rogue? Or barbarian? They become master with their baseline armor, but are stuck with trained in the one that they invested feats to use.
The answers here are about how you can homebrew, retrain, work around the fact that general feats for proficiency are broken. It is not fine that a wizard needs to invest two class feats just to fight with a spear as well as their sorcerer friend does with no investment.
i mean the wizard is reading books while the sorcerer is doing other things(probably going to parties the high charisma bastards). so it makes sense he's better at using weapons, imo. (not to mention he might be a divine sorcerer)
also yeah, rogue and barbarian get master at 19, they'll be 3 behind in AC there.
anyway you're misunderstanding "wrong" with not supported in the rules.
a human wizard who goes heavy armor by level 3, will have +5 armor (16 strength so only halfplate or splint mail at level 3), a wizard who does not, will at most have +3 from dex. and they maintain this +2 AC until level 13.
if they go champion dedication isntead, they of course, maintain the +2 until level 15 where it becomes +1.
After meditating on this a bit, these are the general feats I will offer my players:
Superior Armor Training (general feat) → 11th level. Treat heavy armor as medium, medium as light OR light as unarmored for proficiency purposes only. You must be Trained or better in the affected armor. Note: this is only beneficial if your proficiency with the lower armor type is higher. You may take this feat multiple times, each time for a different armor type. The effects can be cumulative.
Superior Weapon Training (general feat) → 11th level. Treat a single weapon you are Trained or better in as unarmed in terms of proficiency (example: “longswords” but not “martial weapons”). Note: this is only beneficial if your unarmed proficiency is higher. You may take this feat multiple times, each time for a different weapon.
The superior armor one is "nested" and funkily worded. So I will need to explain to my player how best to approach the feat. Light armor wouldnt even count as expert for a wizard that took this for light armor until he hit level 13 (but he could still take the feat at 11 and thus retrain into it at 13). It leaves the option for heavy at the very least. Expert medium and, especially, light are very attainable for the wizard at significant investment. It also lets the ranger go heavy armor if the spirit moves him.
The player has more flexibility in such an implementation. There are more outs and fewer traps. The wording is crap and its clunky but I will take that over the current implementation.
Also such an implementation ties the efficacy of these feats to the character's unarmed and unarmored proficiencies. This reins in their power while expanding player options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to use a weapon or a certain weapon, or category of armor, is generic stuff: if it wasn't, those general feats would not exist.
And getting expert with those is part of the generic stuff, because every one does that with no particular investment. Being trained after level 11 (or 13) is not enough: your friends will fight better against enemies whose attack or AC will go up faster because the game assumes expert proficiency. Getting expert by that point is not something extra: it's just being able to do what you were already doing before.
Power Attack and Furious Focus, instead, are not assumptions of the game: they are cool options that a single class can take. Your character doesn't suddenly become incompetent because they don't have them.
It's very simple. Take my example hoplite wizard, and their friend the hoplite sorcerer.
The wizard spends a general feat to be able to fight with their weapon of choice; the sorcerer starts with better weapon skills, so they can take Fleet to have more mobility instead.
Now, they can fight equally well with the spear; the sorcerer has a slight advantage in movement. Are they balanced? I guess so, the developers made both those general feats, and I didn't hear anyone screaming that the Weapon Proficiency general feat is better than its peers.
So, they fight side by side and get to level 10. Are they still balanced? I guess so, they probably gained different abilities and both now have a shining magical spear, but nothing changed proficiency-wise.
Level 11: the sorcerer becomes expert, the wizard does not. Suddenly, the wizard has to spend months retraining, forgetting a metamagic option and giving away their familiar just to keep fighting with the same skill their friend has; if they don't, they start missing much more and doing less damage when they hit.
But you are insisting that it's fine, because they have to make choices and sacrifices. Yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But why is it wrong to keep the +1 up to level 20, if it was ok to have it before?It's not "wrong", it's just not how the game works... just like it's not "wrong" that the same investment that can get you a potential and possibly temporary bonus to AC could temporarily boost a save or Perception (Canny Acumen) and no one seems to think that's a problem or could just get you a +2 to initiative rolls that never gets less useful, or could make you capable of holding your breath longer (which in most campaigns is almost entirely irrelevant).
That there's no +1 to AC forever feat isn't "wrong" - but that doesn't mean having one would be "right."
So, the game gives you an option to do that, and apparently that's fine. The option only works up to a certain level, and there isn't any reason to explain why it should stop after that.
I know that's how the game works, and that's why I have been saying for months that it's a flaw.
the reason, btw you don't see people bringing up weapons much, is unlike heavy versus unarmored, there isn't a choice between 2 stats. a wizard using a spear will need strength regardless of his proficiency, and so he will ALWAYS be hitting worse and for less damage. 16 strength is a tough buyin if all you're using it for is to-hit, when you'd probably be doing more with spells...
But you are insisting that it's fine, because they have to make choices and sacrifices. Yeah.
yeah, one of those choices was to play a wizard and not a sorcerer even though you knew sorcerer would be able to do it better...
You have to invest in a dedication to get better bonuses than a general training.With how bland and samey armor choice apparently is, having to waste a dedication on it is very silly.
You should dedicate Champion if you want to uphold the tenets of good or punish evil, defend and heal your allies. You should dedicate fighter if you want to learn interesting fighting techniques. You know, stuff that follows the theme of being a part of that class.
"Going champion was the easiest way to get master heavy armor training" is not very flavorful and shouldn't be a solution to this problem.
If a class started with its basic proficiencies and at certain levels got Proficiency upgrades the same way skills do, that would have solved a lot of this so that you can add a new armor or weapon to your list and start getting better at the thing you're using.
More so than any of the math, randomly (not really random, but moving on) getting better at weapons or armor you aren't using is what makes this feel silly.
Wait
You forget that champion is not a defender of light, and that we will see Soon more tennets for both neutral and evil characters.
So while i do agree that currently you have to fight for the good side, it is also true that it is something temporary.
They could have given that perks to fighters too. But to use at least 2 class feat to unlock expert would be mandatory.
@megistone: it is always about a trade and balance. Or else I won't need to go with a fighter dedication, as a champion, to learn how to give a power attack. This could be silly too, but here the fighter is the one who has the right to use a power attack move.
if you only pick up the dedication and the expert armor, you lose nothing for breaking your anathema.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the reason, btw you don't see people bringing up weapons much, is unlike heavy versus unarmored, there isn't a choice between 2 stats. a wizard using a spear will need strength regardless of his proficiency, and so he will ALWAYS be hitting worse and for less damage. 16 strength is a tough buyin if all you're using it for is to-hit, when you'd probably be doing more with spells...
yeah, one of those choices was to play a wizard and not a sorcerer even though you knew sorcerer would be able to do it better...
But you are insisting that it's fine, because they have to make choices and sacrifices. Yeah.
Then just delete the general feats, so that no wizard will ever dream of being a spear user. Is that better for the game?
I mean, the choice and sacrifice is clear: burn a general feat to be able to do what the other class can do as their baseline.There is no reason it should only work up to a certain level, and then stop.
<snipped for space>
But you are insisting that it's fine, because they have to make choices and sacrifices. Yeah.I have a question. It's more something that I'd like you to ask yourself and deeply consider the answer to than a question I am asking because I need your answer:
If it's a worthwhile goal for a wizard to be able to use a spear as well as a sorcerer... why isn't it an equally worthwhile goal for a wizard to be able to use a spear as well as a fighter? Where should the line be drawn for dividing things that can be part of a class theme and things that cannot?
The answer is simple: first, wizards can already use comparable weapons, and do become experts with them. No one is asking to get master proficiency or better.
Second, the fact that armor and weapon proficiency general feats were published means that expanding your character's toolbag is an intended option to have. Except that it stops working at level 11 or 13.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know that's how the game works, and that's why I have been saying for months that it's a flaw.
If this is a flaw, it's the flaw of being a class-based game - not of the feat itself.
You can take a feat to step outside your class' theme without multi-classing - that's a bonus.
You can multi-class to blend the themes of more than one class into your character - that's also a bonus.
Since the game offers up both of those, and is class-based, there needs to be a reason why you would do one rather than the other. That is delivered via multi-class options being both more potent (so there is an incentive to choose them rather than the other option) but also more costly/restrictive (so there is an incentive to choose the other option rather than them).
They can't provide equal benefit - not even in these weird edge cases of a player wanting just one very specific element that isn't part of their class' theme like a wizard using a weapon or a war priest wearing heavy armor.
I wouldn't mind if getting a dedication for proficiency was mandatory. Instead, we have a different option that just doesn't work -> flaw.
You say, but if it worked, then the dedication feat would be useless... -> flaw.I love this game, and if you check my posts I defend most of its design choices. But this doesn't mean that everything is perfectly fine because it was printed this way.
EDIT to avoid making another post:
...stops working...useless hyperbole.
No, it really does. Getting a penalty to attack and damage, or to AC, with nothing to balance it, is a bad trap. Expectially because there is no mechanical reason why you should start eating that.
The answer is simple: first, wizards can already use comparable weapons, and do become experts with them. No one is asking to get master proficiency or better.
Second, the fact that armor and weapon proficiency general feats were published means that expanding your character's toolbag is an intended option to have. Except that it stops working at level 11 or 13.
It doesn't stop working though. The difference between trained and untrained in light years different than trained and Expert.
A wizard trained in heavy Armor can reach level 20 and have a higher AC than that same wizard who never trained in Armor, because Proficiency + Armor + Dex is a variable formula. No armor and no Dex investment and expert unarmored proficiency is behind trained heavy armor + no dex. In fact, without considerable dex investment heavy armor training works out pretty well for a wizard, even just getting it trained, you just have to survive levels of having a pretty low AC until you get the proficiency.
The general feats exist to get you trained proficiency because you CANNOT wear armor or use a weapon you are untrained in past level 3 or 4. The concept is not under-powered, it is impossible. At level 11 or 13 or 17 or 19, your character trained in a weapon or Armor is still that character, doing your character's thing, they are just not getting better at as fast as they might be getting better at something else. Expert represents specialized training, training which requires some level of class based investment.
the reason, btw you don't see people bringing up weapons much, is unlike heavy versus unarmored, there isn't a choice between 2 stats. a wizard using a spear will need strength regardless of his proficiency, and so he will ALWAYS be hitting worse and for less damage. 16 strength is a tough buyin if all you're using it for is to-hit, when you'd probably be doing more with spells...
yeah, one of those choices was to play a wizard and not a sorcerer even though you knew sorcerer would be able to do it better...
But you are insisting that it's fine, because they have to make choices and sacrifices. Yeah.Then just delete the general feats, so that no wizard will ever dream of being a spear user. Is that better for the game?
I mean, the choice and sacrifice is clear: burn a general feat to be able to do what the other class can do as their baseline.
There is no reason it should only work up to a certain level, and then stop.
Here's the thing
Everything in this game is ultimately arbitrary. There is no reason for any number to be at any given value. I understand you want it to be higher, but there's no reason as well that you should be able to go above trained with general feats.
Everything in this game is ultimately arbitrary. There is no reason for any number to be at any given value.That's not true at all. The numbers exist to reinforce the game's themes and inspirations, to offer interesting choices to the players, and to ensure a fair and even opportunity for each player to excel. If changing a rule can improve one of those areas without hurting the others, there's no reason not to make the change.
Sure and that can happen any number of ways, and not all themes are supported. Why some are and others aren't is due to the system's arbitraryness.
I can't play a dragon, :/ even one designed to be balanced in the system without houserules. (Look at my profile page where I did just that) there's no reason for that either...
All systems that attempt to order things have inherent arbitraryness. It's why is called arbitration. This isn't a bad thing, simply something to keep in mind, houserules are for dealing with this arbitraryness.
|
the reason, btw you don't see people bringing up weapons much, is unlike heavy versus unarmored, there isn't a choice between 2 stats. a wizard using a spear will need strength regardless of his proficiency, and so he will ALWAYS be hitting worse and for less damage. 16 strength is a tough buyin if all you're using it for is to-hit, when you'd probably be doing more with spells...
yeah, one of those choices was to play a wizard and not a sorcerer even though you knew sorcerer would be able to do it better...
But you are insisting that it's fine, because they have to make choices and sacrifices. Yeah.Then just delete the general feats, so that no wizard will ever dream of being a spear user. Is that better for the game?
I mean, the choice and sacrifice is clear: burn a general feat to be able to do what the other class can do as their baseline.
There is no reason it should only work up to a certain level, and then stop.Here's the thing
Everything in this game is ultimately arbitrary. There is no reason for any number to be at any given value. I understand you want it to be higher, but there's no reason as well that you should be able to go above trained with general feats.
Why?
|
|
Everything in this game is ultimately arbitrary. There is no reason for any number to be at any given value.That's not true at all. The numbers exist to reinforce the game's themes and inspirations, to offer interesting choices to the players, and to ensure a fair and even opportunity for each player to excel. If changing a rule can improve one of those areas without hurting the others, there's no reason not to make the change.But it would.
What you can do is a homerule, if the current rulest is not what you are looking for.
But if the whole discussion is about the role of general stuff, then, since the rules are this way, you can just try to figure out why they did that way instead of what you think it would be "right to do".
Good point. Too bad that no one seems interested in doing that.
What is the relative weight/power of the different kind of feats?
Why?
Why not?
See above on arbitration, the system can't account for everything, so you'll need to make changes yourself.
The more time goes on we may have feats that do what people want, but for now if they want them, they need to ask their gm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything in this game is ultimately arbitrary. There is no reason for any number to be at any given value.That's not true at all. The numbers exist to reinforce the game's themes and inspirations, to offer interesting choices to the players, and to ensure a fair and even opportunity for each player to excel. If changing a rule can improve one of those areas without hurting the others, there's no reason not to make the change.Sure and that can happen any number of ways, and not all themes are supported. Why some are and others aren't is due to the system's arbitraryness.
I can't play a dragon, :/ even one designed to be balanced in the system without houserules. (Look at my profile page where I did just that) there's no reason for that either...
All systems that attempt to order things have inherent arbitraryness. It's why is called arbitration. This isn't a bad thing, simply something to keep in mind, houserules are for dealing with this arbitraryness.
You're oversimplifying things. The themes in question are those of heroic fantasy, the hero's journey, and the myths associated with those, such as King Arthur, Saint George, Greek myths, and the works inspired by them. Playing as a dragon contradicts those themes because the Hero's Journey requires the hero to begin weak and mundane, and to develop over time.
Yes, as you start digging into minutia, at some level of detail, you start to see partially arbitrary decisions made on heuristic, rather than detailed consideration, but you haven't come close to that level of detail in your analysis yet.
Click on my name and then look over my dragon stuff, I don't think it's impossible to have a weak mundane start as a dragon...
At least only as weak and mundane as several other ancestries anyway. A leshy sorcerer isn't exactly mundane but possible within the rules.
So why that and not easy spear weilding wizards? The system is partly arbitrary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it really does.Nope. Not doing what you want it to do is not the same as ceasing to do what it previously did.
It absolutely ceases to do what it previously did: you don't keep up with monsters AC/attack bonus, which assume that you become an expert. Thus, since level 11/13, you become actively worse against appropriate level threats, and actively worse in respect to the rest of your group.
Here's the thing
Everything in this game is ultimately arbitrary. There is no reason for any number to be at any given value. I understand you want it to be higher, but there's no reason as well that you should be able to go above trained with general feats.
If everything is arbitrary, there's no reason at all to be talking about rules. Yet there are tons of people posting and discussing them.
So, if you have a concrete reason to explain why after level 11 or 13 the balance has to change, please disclose it. So far, the answers to my question have been variations of: 'that's the way it is', or 'roll another class instead'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the game DOES assume less than "maxed out" numbers, but not with regards to proficiency. Expert, not just trained, is the minimum baseline assumption at the higher levels of the game. Why? Because the Wizard becomes an expert in daggers and unarmored defense at later levels (and numerous other examples of other classes shoring up their primary contributory numbers (weaker saves, et al) to Expert, at minimum). Why does the Wizard class do this? What, pray tell, is so universally "wizardy" about being slightly better than minimally trained in shanking people with a mundane dagger that EVERY Wizard, across all races, ancestries, nations, backgrounds, colleges, all of them, will eventually get better at it? What is so universally "wizardy" about being slightly better than minimally trained at dodging people that they all get Expert in unarmored defense as a minimum?
Heck, if there were examples of classes (no, not individual characters of players who have what is somehow the unmitigated gall to use equipment outside the Standard Approved Proficiencies, but classes) that start a character at Trained in some combat critical aspect (a form of attack, an AC calculation, a saving throw) and left him there all the way to level 20, you'd have a point. That that does not happen is how you know that Expert at higher levels is the minimum expectation*.
*In fact, there is a glaring example of exactly that occurring in almost all of the classes: unarmed attack proficiency. They almost all start at at least Trained and do not progress further. And all of them to a one got errata'd into progressing in step with the other weapon proficiencies of the class. Why? Besides the Monk, it's not the iconic attack form of any other class (maybe the Animal Barbarian and the Wild Shape Druid, but that just argues that those specific subclasses needed the accuracy, not the classes writ large).
Again, it got fixed because the game math has a minimum expectation of how big those numbers are supposed to be. By level 20, you are to have +20 for the level (and not one number less) and +4 for the proficiency level (and not one number less). The item bonuses to attack or defense can vary. The ability score can vary. Not the +24.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...assume that you become an expert.That is inaccurate, and even misleading.
The game assumes not the "become expert" part, but rather the rough number at which your AC will end up - and as demonstrated numerous times, but ignored because facts are inconvenient for an emotional argument, if you are trained in heavy armor and have not invested in dexterity you will have the same AC as expert proficiency in medium armor but still no investment in dexterity would provide.
That is to say: if you take this feat, your AC will be "good enough" according to the game math.
Just like if you start your key ability score at a 16 instead of an 18 you are "good enough" - the game assumes less than perfectly arranged numbers.
Why would you not invest in dexterity if you are under the cap?
Stat boosts are plentiful enough that you have to make a deliberate decision to not invest at all in a given stat.
Builds that are deliberately suboptimal are not a good basis for comparison. Doubly so in PF2 where it is not so easy to actually make a suboptimal build.
Here's the thing
Everything in this game is ultimately arbitrary. There is no reason for any number to be at any given value. I understand you want it to be higher, but there's no reason as well that you should be able to go above trained with general feats.
If everything is arbitrary, there's no reason at all to be talking about rules. Yet there are tons of people posting and discussing them.
So, if you have a concrete reason to explain why after level 11 or 13 the balance has to change, please disclose it. So far, the answers to my question have been variations of: 'that's the way it is', or 'roll another class instead'.
right, we've explained how the rules are, several people, including myself, have given forth various ways to houserule it. beyond that there isn't much reason to discuss anything else.
ultimately why you can't do it is because someone in paizo thinks that expert proficiency should be locked behind class feats, without knowing who that is or the ability to talk to them, or understand why they made the system this way, there isn't really anything to discuss.
my opinion is that the proficiencies aren't going to matter much to most games because most people won't go above level 10 or so. the people who do, can house rule to their life's-content. i'm not sure how this system could be improved. (my opinion on dedications is that almost all of them should give prof in something, not just fighter or champion. but there's no reason my opinion should become the default ruleset)
...assume that you become an expert.That is inaccurate, and even misleading.
The game assumes not the "become expert" part, but rather the rough number at which your AC will end up - and as demonstrated numerous times, but ignored because facts are inconvenient for an emotional argument, if you are trained in heavy armor and have not invested in dexterity you will have the same AC as expert proficiency in medium armor but still no investment in dexterity would provide.
That is to say: if you take this feat, your AC will be "good enough" according to the game math.
Just like if you start your key ability score at a 16 instead of an 18 you are "good enough" - the game assumes less than perfectly arranged numbers.
Why would you not invest in dexterity if you are under the cap?
Stat boosts are plentiful enough that you have to make a deliberate decision to not invest at all in a given stat.
Builds that are deliberately suboptimal are not a good basis for comparison. Doubly so in PF2 where it is not so easy to actually make a suboptimal build.
well i mean, maybe 16 dex is fine for you and you'd like to demoralize to make enemies weaker to your spells, so you'd rather be investing in charisma.
Wizard's have, imo, 3 main stats and the other 3 are of equal importance or change based upon build. int(to do the killing)-> Wisdom(saves and init) -> con(saves and HP)
AC can be mitigated with a shield or just by using longer ranged spells or staying away from enemies. you can also pick up light armor prof if it's really important.
You can survive a constant -1 penalty of course, but the main reasons because you are fine starting with a 16 in your main stat are that it's a -1 only for half of your carreer, and that you have a +1 somewhere else to compensate.
A -2 is much worse, expecially if you get it in exchange for nothing just because you are levelling up. Is your PC completely gimped? Well, no, but you lag behind noticeably.
@Bandw2: I would have appreciated if the developers had clearly stated something like: "You are not supposed to step out of your class' proficiencies, unless you take dedications. The general feats for proficiency aren't meant to let a character reliably use a particular weapon or armor, and they exist only as a relatively low price option to match the requirements for dedications that may or may not exist in the future".
At that point, I would have published those general feats only when (and if) they would turn out to be useful, but at least we would have known the intention behind them.
But missing this, or any other design of mechanical reason for the general feats not scaling, I will keep hoping that it's a mistake and that it can be rectified soon.
Yes, the game DOES assume less than "maxed out" numbers, but not with regards to proficiency.If the game can handle not maxing out your ability scores, then it's not just down to whether you have a proficiency of X rating or Y.
As an illustrative example, +15 is +15 whether that's because you're an expert with a lower ability score or trained with a higher ability score or however else you might have reached that number.
As for the specific example of unarmed attacks being errata'd, I would say that it is possible that is a special case. It is a common trope in fantasy stories that heroes get captured, or disarmed, or are otherwise in a position that their standard choice of weaponry isn't on hand and they need to fight anyway - but it has been a long-standing issue with role-playing games that if you didn't specifically focus on unarmed combat it was always a cripplingly bad thing to do, so if a GM set up a scenario where no one could have weapons a common result was player agitation. To the point that it then became GM advice to never do those kind of scenarios without expressly warning your players before hand so they could prepare appropriately.
Unarmed attacks getting the relevant boost in PF2 means those scenarios are no longer unpalatable to players, even if they need to be taking the -2 penalty to attack rolls to make their damage lethal because of the no-weapon scenario happening to involve enemies immune to nonlethal damage.
To conclude and clarify: I don't think unarmed strike errata proves what you think it proves.
Again, the unarmed errata is a specific example of classes going from Trained at level 20 to at least Expert at level 20. Pre-errata, you were already getting +level to attack (so, +20 by level 20) and +2 for being Trained (so, +22 total). The game had already improved the situation for being able to portray scenarios where the hero is captured and disarmed without being hopelessly gimped.
More accurately, P2E, pre-errata, was just as capable of letting captured/disarmed characters remain viable through their unarmed attacks as it is of letting characters that don't adhere to their Standard Approved Proficiencies remain viable. Before the errata, a high level Wizard's (and most of the other classes') unarmed attacks remained at Trained JUST LIKE a high level Wizard's proficiency in, say, spears that he gets through a weapon proficiency feat remained at Trained.
If Trained is supposed to be sufficient for a high level Wizard with proficiency in a spear through a general feat, why wasn't it sufficient for the unarmed attacks of almost all the classes? Why wasn't all of that left to "oh, just juggle in an(other) dedication progression if it's that important"?
If Trained is supposed to be sufficient for a high level Wizard with proficiency in a spear through a general feat, why wasn't it sufficient for the unarmed attacks of almost all the classes? Why wasn't all of that left to "oh, just juggle in an(other) dedication progression if it's that important"?The answer to your question is already present in the post you are quoting while asking it, but I'll restate for clarity:j
Because a high-level wizard using a spear isn't a scenario 'forced' on the player by the campaign like being only able to use your unarmed attacks is, and because sometimes with an unarmed attack you have to take a -2 to your attack roll because of it being nonlethal - so the extra attack bonus from increased proficiency that's built into the game is a "benny" tossed out for those situations.
Not proof that your spear-wielding wizard doesn't "work" because of lower proficiency.
What about being forced to a ritual duel with strict rules (spear and shield)? What about a cursed spear grifted onto their hand? What about an artifact spear that boosts arcane spellcasting like a staff?
Scenarios where the PC is 'forced' to use a spear aren't inconceivable, but I don't think that's the point.The point is that the games gives you the illusion that you can customize your character to use the weapon or armor you like, but after a while it burdens you with unjustified penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being adequate at using weapons and armor at high levels (because lets be honest, Expert isn't all that great in the first place), is design space reserved for some level of class specialization. Either you get them for free through your class, or you invest class feats in those proficiencies to progress. Unarmed strikes have been folded into a basic competency of all adventurers everywhere. Spear proficiency is not. It nearly is, because wizards are the only one not proficient in it, but the class was specifically designed to be as terrible as possible with weapons, and probably would only have unarmed proficiency and maybe staff proficiency if there wasn't decades of baggage attached to wizards having a couple of default weapon proficiencies. It is pretty clear at this point in PF2s game development that this was a very intentional design decision for the core game.
If you hate that, the game is incredibly easy to modify. Go ahead and house rule all the general feats you want, or grant increased proficiencies for free in your home games. I am going to be modding the heck out of PF2 to run a survival horror version of the first book of the strange Aeons campaign where the characters slowly realize they have links to specific greater old ones and have special focus powers that have rather gruesome ways to recharge focus. I know that these additions will not be balanced for all games everywhere, but with a party of 3 facing PF1 level challenges in PF2, I tune the balance in to be right for my campaign.
I understand that many people who feel most passionately about increased proficiencies being tied class feats feeling unfair just want a developer to tell them why. Perhaps starting a new thread asking specifically for an explanation for this design decision, with a focus on the theoretical underpinnings and consequences of limiting general feats to only granting trained proficiency in anything, including skills, with only one exception (Canny Accumen, and indirectly Additional Lore, although that is exclusive to one of the least valuable skills in the the game). It would be interesting to hear why Canny Accumen gets to be the exception and how developers recommend handling ideas that end up underpowered at higher levels while there is not support yet for those specific options.
However, it is my strong suspicion that the answer will be that the official options of PF2 are being designed to tell the story of Golarion, not your homebrew character ideas. They want to focus on making specific narrative options available as quickly as possible to fit in well with the adventures and world content that they are producing, AND the Gamemaster guide is going to focus heavily on giving you as a GM the tools you need to create the content that you need to tell the stories you want.
Letting Expert proficiency generally fall into the realm of General feats or lower means having only one degree of separation between what you can expect to get from your class as your strong proficiencies (Master) and what any random character is capable of getting. It is collapsing the concept of base attack bonus being tied to class choices into a 2 level margin. Some of us realized that this was going to be a consequence of boosting proficiency levels from a +1 to a +2 and argued against that decision in the playtest, exactly because it was going to force every class to advance to expert on all starting character options and that this was going to be more limiting to the game than expanding options, but we lost because people felt that the +1 made all characters feel too same-y.
So, if you have a concrete reason to explain why after level 11 or 13 the balance has to change, please disclose it. So far, the answers to my question have been variations of: 'that's the way it is', or 'roll another class instead'.It seems like this has yet to be answered sufficiently.
Because it is not the balance that is changing. Level 11-13 is the arbitrary point (based upon developer analysis) where all CLASS features make a jump in proficiency level, because of the nature of proficiency bonuses equalling a +2. General feats are not class features. Proficiencies given as a part of class identity have an obligation to keep up at a certain level.
SO why can I pick these things as a general feat option if they will fall behind eventually? Because the General options are about preparing your character to invest further, through class feats, into better options that will be gated by trained proficiency.