I do feel that champion and fighter archetypes could use a little revamp. Casters are legendary at casting and if you pick a caster archetype you can go up to master in something you don't normaly do. Most other classes are legendary at something and their archetypes give you master at that proficiency.
Champion- Armors, every class has its own but i belive none is lower then expert so if you pick champion dedication you will be at expert level, there is not much to gain from there.
Fghter - is legendary with weapons but you can go up to expert same thing or lower then you class (you only gain more weapon knowledge you dont have the option to focus on one weapon group and raise to master)
These talents should be more meaningful (we are talking about 2 talents, for a caster thats alot to sacrifice)
I do feel that champion and fighter archetypes could use a little revamp. Casters are legendary at casting and if you pick a caster archetype you can go up to master in something you don't normaly do. Most other classes are legendary at something and their archetypes give you master at that proficiency.
Champion- Armors, every class has its own but i belive none is lower then expert so if you pick champion dedication you will be at expert level, there is not much to gain from there.
Fghter - is legendary with weapons but you can go up to expert same thing or lower then you class (you only gain more weapon knowledge you dont have the option to focus on one weapon group and raise to master)
These talents should be more meaningful (we are talking about 2 talents, for a caster thats alot to sacrifice)
Champion is the only real choice for classes that want to dump dex but don't want to gimp their whole characters by the end of the game.
And remember fighter dedication gives you martial weapon proef too. It's literally the only way to get it with all martial and simple weapons. Besides that it's the easiest way to get access to AoOs.If anything i feel like the champion archetype feels overpowered, while the fighter one feels where all of them should be. I do think both should get a different option with time, but mostly because a martial get almost nothing from the paladin dedication and a martial get nothing from the fighter one, but it's not because they are weak but instead because martials have no reason to pick them for now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters have Legendary but Spells lack item or as many common means to boost check/DC as Weapons/Armor.
So Spellcasting is really a special case distinct from other areas that can depend on further bonuses.
Legendary isn't exactly an automatic entitlement for each class, Alchemist doesn't offer anything Legendary for example.
Master is really the baseline for high proficiency level that you can only normally get from base Class not Multiclassing.
Base Classes also only get Master in Class DC, with Archetypes only giving Trained (although advancement to Expert seems reasonable IMHO)
Champion is the only real choice for classes that want to dump dex but don't want to gimp their whole characters by the end of the game.
Two class feats is going to have a greater impact than the -1AC you will have levels 15-20 if you go the trained via general feat route in many cases. Gimped having to be compared to normal AC the class would have of course.
There are reasons to go champion and desire the extra 2 AC expert gives, but when it comes to being gimped or not, well, there is more to consider.
(same reason I wouldn't suggest dumping dex just to wear armour alone, there has to be some other gain from it, whether it means a higher initiative modifier, extra HP for a low HP class or even more skill ranks/languages)
Right, it's about the indirect implications, although I wouldn't equate the 1 AC difference in both directions, since one has Fortification and one doesn't... Fortification and 1 AC both negating Crits, although math is distinct. Which ends up making Champion MCD Heavy Trained/Expert Proficiency more valuable.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are legendary at casting and if you pick a caster archetype you can go up to master in something you don't normaly do.
Going Master casting via Multiclassing takes a long time and requires you to be legendary in a certain skill, which is a significant investment for any character since most will only ever have 3 skills at legendary. Not to mention that it takes at least 4 class feats, more likely 5 (Tradition Breadth) if you want to make good use if it
Champion- Armors, every class has its own but i belive none is lower then expert so if you pick champion dedication you will be at expert level, there is not much to gain from there.
Expert Heavy Armor is pretty good. Having it go up to Master would allow Casters to match (and in many cases surpass!) the AC of martials which would be way too much. I could see something like a level 18 feat granting Armor Specialization being added, though.
Fghter - is legendary with weapons but you can go up to expert same thing or lower then you class (you only gain more weapon knowledge you dont have the option to focus on one weapon group and raise to master)
Again, master is too much. Doesn't matter if it's one weapon, one weapon group or all weapons since few characters will ever wield/upgrade more than one weapon anyway. You don't want a Wizard shooting a bow as well as a martial. If anything, I'd add Shield Block to Fighter Dedication, making it grant up to 3 general feats, just like Champion Dedication. Or make Greater Weapon Specialization available as a high level feat.
we are talking about 2 talents, for a caster thats alot to sacrifice
I couldn't disagree more. With the possible exception of the bard, no caster class so far has nearly enough good feats that sacrificing two of them would cause any issues. I find it much harder to fit the 5 spellcasting feats of a caster dedication in a martial build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well explained ans totally agree, apart from armor lvl 18 feat.
I don't think some minor resistance to a single physical damage type is too much for a 18th level feat. It could come with some caveat, maybe requiring Legendary Athletics or something like that.
But anyway, Champion Dedication is perfectly fine as it it. The optional Armor Specialization was just an idea :)
By being expert in heavy armor you trade 1 AC ( eventually you will have master with light or medium armor, which will give e you 1 more AC than expert + heavy armor ) for the no need of dex.
I was mostly thinking about getting Champion Dedication on a caster. Martial character either have at least Medium armor (which can cap at Dex 12) or want high dex anyway. Only exceptions I can think of right now is the Mutagenist Alchemist (if you even count that as "martial") and maybe some Scoundrel Rogues.
Eventually, a caster could get 1 more ac with plates, but that's it.
Not needing Dex is actually pretty good, especially for casters with no Armor proficiency. The thing is, you're eventually "only" 1 AC behind, but only IF you hit Dex 20, which is impossible to do before level 15 and even then it has already cost you 6 ability boosts.
Assuming the character wants to have some martial prowess (why would he multiclass otherwise?), a caster probably wants his caster ability maxed, Strength at 16 and at least some Constitution. If you want another ability score (like Wisdom for saves and Perception or Charisma for Divine Font), it's probably much easier to get Champion Dedication than keeping your Dex maxed.
It't not always the BEST choice, but it is a very reasonable way to improve your defense for a pretty large number of characters.
I like the idea of ArmorSpec via Champion Multiclass partly because it feels too few characters actually use the mechanic which makes armors more distinct than "AC cap + Proficiency/DEX req". I considered Warpriests may deserve it too, along with Expert Martial & CritSpec. I would honestly consider a Champion Multiclass ArmorSpec Feat at Level 12 (Fighters get it at 11, Champions 7) with Expert at 14 (Hellknights even earlier at 12).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They sacrifice their legendary casting proficiency and get expert and master quite a bit later than other casters. Even ignoring spell attack and spell DC, this makes their buffs easier to dispel and can give them a hard time counteracting anything.
Thinking about one example above a mage shooting a bow, you will not hit better then a fighter even at master. Why? Because of proficiency +6 vs +8, stats dex probably will not be your main stat +5 vs +7, so you will have 11 vs 15, 4 points of difference while today we have 6. Damage you will still be behind because of weapon specialization. Maneuvers you will have alot less because every one will be a talent cost and even so you get lvl1 or 2 feat and can buy up to level 10 feat sacrificing a level 20 wizard feat. But the mage can cast spells, yeah he can but because of action economy you probably won't be doing a lot cast a spell and fire a bow or fire a bow and cast a spell.
Therefore i don't se how mages can be better at fighting even with master level.
If you want to build a arcane archer sort of you are better by going fighter wizard dedication then wizard fighter dedication.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking about one example above a mage shooting a bow, you will not hit better then a fighter even at master. Why? Because of proficiency +6 vs +8
You shouldn't compare anyone's chacne to hit to the fighter's legendary proficiency. Hitting stuff is the Fighter's whole shtick and he's always the best at it. You should compare to every other martial, who all cap at master.
stats dex probably will not be your main stat +5 vs +7
True. But the caster still has plenty of stuff he can do with my main stat, including casting spells at Legendary proficiency.
so you will have 11 vs 15, 4 points of difference while today we have 6.
If a 4 point difference is your goal, rejoice! You're already 4 points behind all martials. And you have a much easier time buffing your attacks with spells.
Damage you will still be behind because of weapon specialization.
Damage is behind until you lob a fire ball in a group of 5 enemies. Of course the caster is weaker when it comes to weapon damage. But he can do so much more than attacking with his weapon.
Maneuvers you will have alot less because every one will be a talent cost and even so you get lvl1 or 2 feat and can buy up to level 10 feat sacrificing a level 20 wizard feat.
I'll take full legendary spellcasting over maneuver feats every day of the week. Why trip one enemy when I can cast Slow on 10?
But the mage can cast spells, yeah he can but because of action economy you probably won't be doing a lot cast a spell and fire a bow or fire a bow and cast a spell.
Seeing how a two action spell is often more effective than two martial Strikes, adding a MAP-less bow attack every round seems like a good deal.
Therefore i don't se how mages can be better at fighting even with master level.
You're not. You're not even better than the other martials because you lack their class abilities (Hunter's Edge, Rage and so on). The point is, you're still very very good at spell casting and shouldn't also be too close to the martials when it comes to physical attacks.
If you want to build a arcane archer sort of you are better by going fighter wizard dedication then wizard fighter dedication.
Assuming you mean a character who mostly uses his bow over his spells?
Yes, I'd definitely go Fighter>Wizard right now. But that's just the thing, if I could get Master Proficiency via Multiclass, I'd definitely go Wizard>Fighter. It would simply be a clear cut superior option.
See thats the point. Multiclass martial dedication is alot weaker then his counter part caster dedication. If you want a hybrid you should pick martial then dedicate into caster, doing the opposite is not a very good viable option.
And im not even convinced by their dual class proposal (although no playtest is available)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not actually convinced that all the dedications aren't way to strong for what you get out of them compared to regular class feats.
Master to legendary is a 2 point difference ( eventually 3 depends the apex at end game levels ), which is not that much. Even in terms of dc.
Yeah, but then again, the Cloistered Cleric doesn't suffer this penalty and still reaches Expert Weapon Proficiency (albeit at a later level). He lacks Armor Proficiency, but that can be remedied via Champion Dedication. Picking up Shield Block is also not too big an investment.
The only things the warpriest really gets over the Cloistered in the long run is Master Fortitude save. Which is nice, no doubt, but still less useful than Legendary casting.
Note that I don't think the Warpriest is bad by any means. But even if he doesn't sacrifice too much, he also doesn't really gain that much a Cloistered Cleric can't simply get in some other way.
It comes down to either getting a bunch of proficiencies for free and being stuck with Master casting or buying thos proficiencies with feats and going up to Legendary. Both are fine, really. But I don't see how the Warpriest is supposed to be an overpowered hybrid.
For what it's worth, I do agree that the Warpriest shouldn't get Armor Specialization for free.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
See thats the point. Multiclass martial dedication is alot weaker then his counter part caster dedication. If you want a hybrid you should pick martial then dedicate into caster, doing the opposite is not a very good viable option.
And im not even convinced by their dual class proposal (although no playtest is available)
1.) The Dedications seem fine, for the reasons people have been giving above.
2.) "Not Viable" is not the same as "Not Optimal". Even if you take the position that they might be slightly below average, they are still perfectly viable.As a forum community, we really need to get out of the mindset that you can only be viable by being optimal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See thats the point. Multiclass martial dedication is alot weaker then his counter part caster dedication. If you want a hybrid you should pick martial then dedicate into caster, doing the opposite is not a very good viable option.
The dedications are always the secondary thing your character can do. You don't lose anything from your base class (other than feats which aren't required to fulfill your class's basic function). If you want to primarily use your weapon, you'll go Martial>Caster. If you want to cast spells and whack stuff when you have nothing better to do, you go Caster>Martial.
If anything, you could criticize the fact that there's no middle way.
If multiclassing to martial can get you Master Proficiency (which is the base line for weapon proficiencies), multiclassing to Caster should get you 9th level spells. The lack of damage on the martial multiclass should be more than balanced by the greatly geduced number of spell slots on the caster multiclass.
Comparing a martial class to a wizard, look at it this way:
Martial Multiclass gets about 60% of a true martial's power. (That number is made up but I don't think it's too far off, actually) Lower Proficiency and less damage.
Caster Multiclass gets less than 50% of a caster's power. Lower Proficiency, half as many spells of level 1-6, only a quarter at levels 7 and 8, no 9th level spells at all (I'm ignoring 10th level spells here as those are techincally their own class feature and not part of the regular casting).
So even if my 60% estimation for the martial multiclass is a bit too generous, I would say it balances out pretty well, especially since caster still requires more feats and a Legendary skill.
Well thinking about other games is lets say 10 levels fighter 10 wizard works the same way as 10 wiz and 10 fighter.
Back to archetypes i feel that lets say you have a class and you just scratch the surface of another class, 90% 10%, going up to 70% 30% (these are made up) why this numbers since you don't lose getting an archetype, well actually you do, every archetype feat you pick it was traded from one feat from you class therefore you are losing something from your class and becoming more of other but you still maintain your core class features.
So if you are a martial to become a caster you can dive alot more than a caster can at martial, at the cost of class feat.
For a martial almost every feat counts for new maneuver but you can let go to cast spells 2 for each slot if you really are into it, but casters dont have that option, with a good build you can have a 6 point difference that is 30% more chance to miss with alot less damage and versatility meaning that you probably whant to stick with your cantrip for attacking even at secondary it won't do.
When i mean viable is something that you can really use not a feat that you will buy just for the sake of style but at the same time not outshinning that other class. Martial to caster > Viable, Caster to martial > humm i dont think is viable Martial > martial works great (not always thou, some classes don't mix well together), Caster>Caster great too (more spells hell yeah)
Some dedications give you active things - actions like Rage, Hunt Prey, or spellcasting - whereas others give you passive things - proficiencies, ect.
I feel like some people undervalue the passive things that are given to you, but are equally as good as the active.
Well thinking about other games is lets say 10 levels fighter 10 wizard works the same way as 10 wiz and 10 fighter.
Using this analogy, PF2 gives you the choice between Martial 15/Caster 10 or Caster 15/Martial 10. Doesn't seem bad in comparison.
I also don't think the level numbers I just used are anywhere near correct, see below.
Back to archetypes i feel that lets say you have a class and you just scratch the surface of another class, 90% 10%, going up to 70% 30% (these are made up) why this numbers since you don't lose getting an archetype, well actually you do, every archetype feat you pick it was traded from one feat from you class therefore you are losing something from your class and becoming more of other but you still maintain your core class features.
You're placing way too much worth on Class feats. There's no way a caster investing 5 feats to fighter dedication loses 50% of his power. The same is true vice versa. I can't think of a single class that doesn't have multiple feat levels that don't have anything I really want (depending on build of course). Sacrificing feats I wouldn't really want or use to get some abilities of another class easily makes my character stronger than he'd be otherwise.
For a martial almost every feat counts for new maneuver but you can let go to cast spells 2 for each slot if you really are into it, but casters dont have that option
Why don't casters have that option? There's plenty of class/combat style defining feats available via dedication. AoO, Champion's Reaction, Hunt Prey + Double Slice/Hunted Shot, Sneak Attack, Monk Stances and so on. And pretty much all of those are usable at will, compared to the much more limited number of spell slots a caster multiclass grants.
with a good build you can have a 6 point difference that is 30% more chance to miss with alot less damage and versatility
Again, it's 4 points. And the Caster>Martial can more easily use buffs and debuffs to even the odds because he's much better at spellcasting (number of spells, spell levels, proficiency and higher caster ability score).
meaning that you probably whant to stick with your cantrip for attacking even at secondary it won't do.
I'm honestly not sure whether a cantrip beats an Expert Weapon or not. Might be worth investigating.
When i mean viable is something that you can really use not a feat that you will buy just for the sake of style but at the same time not outshinning that other class.
Getting Master Weapon via fighter dedication would at the very least outshine every other martial dedication.
Caster to martial > humm i dont think is viable
Have you played such a character? If so, what's your experience? What's wrong with it?
___________________________________________________
EDIT: Did some quick testing with a Caster>Fighter Multiclass, at level 12 and 20.
At level 12 the cantrip (d6) always deals less damage than 2 melee Strikes (d8 or higher). Cantrip + Strike is better than 3 strikes.
At level 20, the Legendary Proficiecy pushes the Cantrip ahead by a decent margin. Cantrip + Strike is still the most effective.
I don't play, im GMing but i've tried to make a characters for a player with elf Wizard/Fighter concept.
The main problem was this:
Fighter with wizard, Good Hp, good AC, low dex, lots of maneuvers because of fighters 2 free talents and 2 slot magics and master caster, Legendary melee.
Wizard with fighter dedication, low Hp, high investment in dex for AC lowering perception, few combat maneuver, legendary casting, focus spells, expert melee.
Im simply not happy with the second. Because:
Hp it will matter since he wants to go melee
AC investing in DEX to compensate AC is not some major feature cause also increase his Reflex but at the same time lowers his will and Iniciative, by the end of the day is a matter of choice from build there for not much of a problem.
Melee strike 6 points of difference so, 30% chance to miss with much less damage, while the other in casting the difference is 4 points 20% more chance to miss but you can still cast support magic.
Focus points were the best thing with the seccond build.
For style and better chances hand of the aprentice is better then using melee, and even still cantrips are better, if thats the case why hold a sword, better hold a staff for more casting.
Level 10 spell thats the greatest thing of this build
Conclusion: there was so much more to gain going from fighter to mage. Mage to fighter looks more of a style aproch.
Have you included accelerated in calculations?
Have you included accelerated in calculations?
I assume you mean accuracy? Yes, I did. Did the calculations against an enemy of the same level.
As for your previous post, it sounds like you want a fighter with magic, not a caster with melee. For such a concept, fighter>caster is the way to go, no question.
Still doesn't mean caster>fighter is bad. You can't apply all builds to all concepts.
A player in one of my groups wanted a dex-based melee character, went with fighter and now thinks PF2 sucks because the character didn't work out too well. This is totally ignoring the fact that the fighter isn't meant to be a dex based melee character. Rogue and possibly Ranger fit his concept much better.
A player in one of my groups wanted a dex-based melee character, went with fighter and now thinks PF2 sucks because the character didn't work out too well. This is totally ignoring the fact that the fighter isn't meant to be a dex based melee character. Rogue and possibly Ranger fit his concept much better.
I would heavily contest the bolded statement. Not only is Dex one of the Primary choices, their ability to exploit +10 for crit fishing on a Rapier is certainly strong.
I have a Dex-based Fighter with the free hand feats that works just fine and can easily toe to toe with same level enemies. She uses a whip at range if is able, has excellent athletics and acrobatics, a SOLID AC despite not using Heavy Armor or a strong shield (does have a buckler though).
The NPC is good in practice and objectively on paper (her saves are great too). I'm not sure what concept your player was specifically going for but the blanket statement that a "melee dex character" is bad/unintended is certainly not true in my experience.
Have you included accelerated in calculations?I assume you mean accuracy? Yes, I did. Did the calculations against an enemy of the same level.
yes. Thats it.
As for your previous post, it sounds like you want a fighter with magic, not a caster with melee. For such a concept, fighter>caster is the way to go, no question.
Fair enough.
Still doesn't mean caster>fighter is bad. You can't apply all builds to all concepts.
No not at all is just that i was trying to say is that fighter can be better at doing caster stuff then casters doing fighters stuff.
A player in one of my groups wanted a dex-based melee character, went with fighter and now thinks PF2 sucks because the character didn't work out too well. This is totally ignoring the fact that the fighter isn't meant to be a dex based melee character. Rogue and possibly Ranger fit his concept much better.
Yeah but fighter with dex and bow its kind of awesome, atk of opportunity with bow its crazy if you mix with cleric dedication it becomes more awesome.
the dedications to me are a mixed bag.
a barbarian trying to get AoO or some fighter feats essentially wastes the dedication feat.
The Ranger dedication is pretty bad for most people
i think they should change all the dedications to give some level of proficiency and a small class unique thing.
fighter dedication should give you martial, armor, and AoO for instance. champion should be more or less the same but instead of AoO you get the healing touch equivalent.
like as it is, a lot of dedications just aren't good at all for classes that already have similar backgrounds.
the dedications have that feeling of old pf1 where you'd have to wait for like level 4 or so before you can even start getting things that fit your concept. like the only reason i think anyone would get ranger dedication is to get the animal companion...
it really makes almost no sense for say a barbarian to try for the ranger dedication, and i don't think that's how they should be set up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the dedications to me are a mixed bag.
a barbarian trying to get AoO or some fighter feats essentially wastes the dedication feat.
The Ranger dedication is pretty bad for most people
i think they should change all the dedications to give some level of proficiency and a small class unique thing.
fighter dedication should give you martial, armor, and AoO for instance. champion should be more or less the same but instead of AoO you get the healing touch equivalent.
like as it is, a lot of dedications just aren't good at all for classes that already have similar backgrounds.
the dedications have that feeling of old pf1 where you'd have to wait for like level 4 or so before you can even start getting things that fit your concept. like the only reason i think anyone would get ranger dedication is to get the animal companion...
it really makes almost no sense for say a barbarian to try for the ranger dedication, and i don't think that's how they should be set up.
I couldn't agree more. I was wishing that dual class could be some sort of fix to that and be able to make good multiclass 50/50
the dedications to me are a mixed bag.
a barbarian trying to get AoO or some fighter feats essentially wastes the dedication feat.
The Ranger dedication is pretty bad for most people
i think they should change all the dedications to give some level of proficiency and a small class unique thing.
fighter dedication should give you martial, armor, and AoO for instance. champion should be more or less the same but instead of AoO you get the healing touch equivalent.
Barbarian gets aoo by lvl 6
No need to take any dedicationHe could take fighter for power attack and furious focus though.
Ranger dedication offers twin Takedown and relentless stalker. Also many ranged feats. Hunter prey too.
To me both are definitely ok.
the barbarian essentially lost a feat, since the dedication gives nothing and then you get feats at half your level down...
twin takedown requires you to use hunt prey(remember no hunter's edge), which does nothing for non-native rangers (okay you can track and seek him better), so you're using an action to be able to use twin-takedown against it. almost all their abilities are only against hunted prey and so you have to use an action to hunt them to use any of their abilities if you're going non-animal companion route.
and i have no idea what you mean by relentless stalker...
Melee strike 6 points of difference so, 30% chance to miss with much less damage, while the other in casting the difference is 4 points 20% more chance to miss but you can still cast support magic.
Don't Elven Wizards have the option to grab expert training in elven weapons plus longswords, shortswords, longbows, shortbows? I would think that would put the accuracy difference at +4 for Wizard/Fighter at higher levels, if you have identical stat distributions. Of course, with identical stat distributions, that would put the fighter only +2 behind on spells.
If anything, you could criticize the fact that there's no middle way.
There's not much room there to balance any further because all the other martial chassis would only be +2 to hit with weapons ahead of the wizard given identical stat lines. If the wizard ends up with mastery, then you've got identical accuracy to the martials plus full casting. The martials, assuming the same stat line as the wizard, are generally at most only 2 behind the wizard in accuracy as well.
Lets take a fighter who has hit legendary with 1 class of weapons (so level 13).
Str 20/Int 18
13 + 8 + 5 + 2 (+2 weapon) = +28 to hit
Compare to a champion
Str 20/Int 18
13 + 6 + 5 + 2 = +26 to hit
Compare to a Elven wizard with Elven weapon expertise (so only spending 3 ancestry feats)
Str 20/Int 18
13 + 4 + 5 + 2 = +24 to hit
I'm curious what the middle ground in people would like to see for a hybrid class?
On the spell side, the wizard gets many more powerful spells than the fighter/wizard. If the fighter has spent MC dedication, breadth, and 2 spell casting feats (so half their class feats) at 13th they have:
1st: 2 / 2nd: 2 / 3rd: 1 / 4th: 1
Wizard at 13th having spent ancestral feats only so far:
1st: 4 / 2nd: 4 / 3rd: 4 / 4th: 4 / 5th: 4 / 6th: 4 / 7th: 3
That doesn't look very comparable to me. The wizard has more 6th and 7th level spells than the fighter has in terms of total spells 4th and below.
Str 20/Int 18
13 + 8 + 5 + 2 (+2 weapon) = +28 to hitCompare to a champion
Str 20/Int 18
13 + 6 + 5 + 2 = +26 to hitCompare to a Elven wizard with Elven weapon expertise (so only spending 3 ancestry feats)
Str 20/Int 18
13 + 4 + 5 + 2 = +24 to hit
wizard at 13th level can't have 20 str, just an fyi. highest start is 16 at level 1 so they'd at most have 19 strength.
Any class loses a feat for a dedication.
Since a barbarian doesn't have a strong single target attack, fighter dedication is imho a must.
About twin takedown, it is a strong single target attack ( more than power attack, untill furious focus ), so using an action to track your prey us totally worth it, since it will be 1 roll with no map for both attacks.
Relentless stalker is a reaction which allows you to follow your target. You will be saving a stride action.
Not mandatory, but an extra choice ( since aoo won't occour 100%of the times ).
As you can see, both dedications are viable.
You simply don't find balanced the fact that you won't get stuff from the fighter dedication since you already have it.
I say, given the bonuses is still worth it. Definitely.
1st, casters gaining fighter or champion actually gain something with the dedication, proficiencies, as well as martials getting casting dedication gain casting.
the barbarian has given up something like no escape or fast movement/wounded rage/swipe for power attack, something that only adds another dice.
oh relentless stalker,
twin-takedown is a single action that gives you 2 strikes with 2 seperate weapons. after using an action that gives no other benefit sure it combines the damage, but this can be worse if you're exploiting weaknesses.
and you still haven't gotten anything for your 2nd level in the meantime.
While I favor the martial MCD caster for the gish, you really are low on spells and pretty much need to pick up a Focus Spell for the extra casting it gives you. (Staves are another route if it's low-level spells like True Strike you're after.)
Also, a caster dipping martial (even if via Ancestry or General Feats instead of an MCD) gets a 1-action attack via Strike. 1-action spells are rare and a limited resource. Sure, you're not attacking as well as a martial's first attack, but your Strike's comparable to their second attack...which essentially it is for you since you can cast most of your spells and still get a Strike.
Not that a caster doesn't have plenty of options to use with that 3rd action, but that Strike is a perk to damage that's hard to duplicate.
As long as the caster doesn't fool themselves into thinking they can hold the front line (w/ a few exceptions) they should do fine w/ a nice ranged weapon. Plus there are some feats that are gems like a Rogue's Mobility or if you invest enough, Resiliency is a significant boost to hit points for Wizards or Sorcerers.
One just has to shift out of the 3.x/PF1 mindset and remember the value of proficiencies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest problem with the fighter and champion dedications is simply that it's possible to derive basically nothing from a class feat except for "training in a single skill" if you happen to already have martial weapons or your preferred armor from your class.
Like Barbarians who take the fighter dedication get "training in acrobatics, athletics, or another skill and trained in fighter DC". A fighter who takes the champion dedication gets "training in religion and another skill, trained in champion DC, bound by anathema."
There should probably be an alternative entry to those dedications for people who already have martial weapons or heavy armor.
A player in one of my groups wanted a dex-based melee character, went with fighter and now thinks PF2 sucks because the character didn't work out too well. This is totally ignoring the fact that the fighter isn't meant to be a dex based melee character. Rogue and possibly Ranger fit his concept much better.I would heavily contest the bolded statement. Not only is Dex one of the Primary choices, their ability to exploit +10 for crit fishing on a Rapier is certainly strong.
I have a Dex-based Fighter with the free hand feats that works just fine and can easily toe to toe with same level enemies. She uses a whip at range if is able, has excellent athletics and acrobatics, a SOLID AC despite not using Heavy Armor or a strong shield (does have a buckler though).
The NPC is good in practice and objectively on paper (her saves are great too). I'm not sure what concept your player was specifically going for but the blanket statement that a "melee dex character" is bad/unintended is certainly not true in my experience.
I agree that a Dex-Based fighter is totally possible, even in melee. The character in question is a dual-wielding damage dealer, though. And there's no denying that this works much better with a strength build. We're also still level 1, which really doesn't help. Neither does starting with 12 Strength.
A Dex 18, Str 14 character who increases both every 5 levels will never be more than 2 points of damage behind a Str 18 character. This is only for the damage modifier after the dice, of course, and strength based weapons tend to have larger damage dice as well.
As for Crit Fishing, there's not much (if anything) in Dex that helps with that. A Strength build has the same attack bonus and can also use a Rapier. Or a Pick, for even greater crits.
But yeah, a well build Dex-Based Fighter with decent starting Strength is totally playable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest problem with the fighter and champion dedications is simply that it's possible to derive basically nothing from a class feat except for "training in a single skill" if you happen to already have martial weapons or your preferred armor from your class.
Like Barbarians who take the fighter dedication get "training in acrobatics, athletics, or another skill and trained in fighter DC". A fighter who takes the champion dedication gets "training in religion and another skill, trained in champion DC, bound by anathema."
There should probably be an alternative entry to those dedications for people who already have martial weapons or heavy armor.
This bugged me initially (and may still depending on mood). Then I realized that it's warriors that benefit most from picking up broader warrior skills. The casters gain a whole lot from the first MCD feat, but don't have the proficiency progression to support it or most feats (except the ones that increase proficiency or do a trick not tied directly to attacking). The warriors gain a whole lot. I believe it's the Barbarian-Double Slice build that won a recent DPR comparison. Most archers are going to want to dip Fighter for Point-Blank Shot, which would be a must if the MCD feat was better than it is.
The MCDs martial-mix-n'-match allow for some really innovative combos so I think they're fine as is.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest problem with the fighter and champion dedications is simply that it's possible to derive basically nothing from a class feat except for "training in a single skill" if you happen to already have martial weapons or your preferred armor from your class.
Like Barbarians who take the fighter dedication get "training in acrobatics, athletics, or another skill and trained in fighter DC". A fighter who takes the champion dedication gets "training in religion and another skill, trained in champion DC, bound by anathema."
There should probably be an alternative entry to those dedications for people who already have martial weapons or heavy armor.
This bugged me initially (and may still depending on mood). Then I realized that it's warriors that benefit most from picking up broader warrior skills. The casters gain a whole lot from the first MCD feat, but don't have the proficiency progression to support it or most feats (except the ones that increase proficiency or do a trick not tied directly to attacking). The warriors gain a whole lot. I believe it's the Barbarian-Double Slice build that won a recent DPR comparison. Most archers are going to want to dip Fighter for Point-Blank Shot, which would be a must if the MCD feat was better than it is.
The MCDs martial-mix-n'-match allow for some really innovative combos so I think they're fine as is.
They're fine if a bit of a tax to access other feats.
Still, a future 'advanced fighter dedication' with prerequisites of trained in martial weapons that gives an alternate bonus would be nice to see.
I agree that a Dex-Based fighter is totally possible, even in melee. The character in question is a dual-wielding damage dealer, though. And there's no denying that this works much better with a strength build. We're also still level 1, which really doesn't help. Neither does starting with 12 Strength.
Funny that was the one part that I was like "well, if you wanted to be a dual wielder it's a lot tougher to make it work". In that sense, I think that Double Strike with Rapier and Shortsword is still pretty good, but might struggle to outpace a fighter with a traditional build.
I would argue the damage aspects you mentioned are gained back through higher mobility and more versatility with Acrobatics, and higher ability to contribute with ranged attacks (thrown weapons become very good). Not all monsters will have AoO (or something akin to it) but that's a fair amount of avoided damage that AC just isn't going to get you.
Still, a future 'advanced fighter dedication' with prerequisites of trained in martial weapons that gives an alternate bonus would be nice to see.
I don't really see need for this, in that we already see specific Archetypes which grant normal Class Feats, sometimes at earlier level than MCD of normal Class. Value of Martial MCD is they offer very wide range of power abilities, while a theme Archetype will be more limited and have "weak Feats" of it's own. Once into a MCD you can cherrypick very strong Feats than can synergize great with own Martial abilities (most being based around attacks).
I think just appreciating value of one more Trained skill is good thing to practice, it's valuable on it's own, often serves as pre-req for Feats, and MCD granting i potentially frees other General Feat or Skill Increase. Obviously this is more so with Rogue (2) but I think does apply to e.g. Fighter/Barb/etc.
Re: Warpriest, I think Expert weapons is fine when Master is martial baseline (well Martial+++ with class abilities) considering spell buffs etc, but I don't see any reason to not grant it to all Martial weapons, which you are Trained in early on. Doing that doesn't make them any better at using those than with Favored Weapon, it just makes them equal options. I believe designer intent has never been to force people to use Favored Weapon, just that it is valid option. Right now they just make other Martials not a valid option, which seems silly as hinges (sub)class balance entirely on choice of Deity.
I guess you could add a part to the end that if you already have these prof you instead gain X.
Also, a caster dipping martial (even if via Ancestry or General Feats instead of an MCD) gets a 1-action attack via Strike.
You can strike without multiclassing.
As long as the caster doesn't fool themselves into thinking they can hold the front line
I mean, the fact that a caster can dump all these feats into improving their weapons and armor and still have the idea of them fighting properly be 'foolish' seems like evidence that there's a problem here.
You're basically saying it's a trap. Since when were traps good things?
I guess you could add a part to the end that if you already have these prof you instead gain X.
They already do for skill proficiencies, and spellcasting always grants something (cantrips) even if you were proficient,
so really only Armor/Weapon proficiency is potentially a "nothing".They could grant specific benefit if you already have "everything" normally granted of that area, e.g. Fighter could grant Trained: All Advanced Weapons if you already have all Martial Weapons Trained. Not sure what Champion would offer if already Trained in Heavy, especially since many who that applies to (Fighters) already have Shield Block as well.
Alternatively, just "choose one General Feat" since that is flexible (which avoids problem of granting specific thing which somebody might already have).
In case of Fighter Multiclass the later Multiclass Feat "Diverse Weapon Expert" (12) grants Trained in (all) Advanced Weapons (and Simple/Martial:Expert), but it could have clause saying if you already are Trained in any Advanced Weapon it goes to Expert.
Also, a caster dipping martial (even if via Ancestry or General Feats instead of an MCD) gets a 1-action attack via Strike.You can strike without multiclassing.
As long as the caster doesn't fool themselves into thinking they can hold the front lineI mean, the fact that a caster can dump all these feats into improving their weapons and armor and still have the idea of them fighting properly be 'foolish' seems like evidence that there's a problem here.
You're basically saying it's a trap. Since when were traps good things?
I see three reasons to go Fighter Dedication for a caster:
- 2-action spell + 1-action Strike. Excellent third action alternative.- AoO disabler. Instead of taking a free attack or Step like crazy, you smash the AoO enemy.
- Sustained caster. If your DM likes long adventuring days, it can be very interesting to get some alternate actions besides cantrips.
So, it's fine by me. Dedications give you things that are on par with your feat choices, I don't see an issue there.