advancing Proficiency for advanced weapon training for non-fighters


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion


Fighters gain advanced weapon training proficiency advancement from leveling, but is there someway to increase proficiency for other classes? For example, if a lvl 1 Dwarven Ranger takes weapon proficiency to learn how to use a Dwarven Axe, is he stuck at the proficient level all the way to level 20+?


If he takes dwarven weapon familiarity (first level ancestry feat), "For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons"


nicholas storm wrote:
If he takes dwarven weapon familiarity (first level ancestry feat), "For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons"

Poor example on my part, apologies. Perhaps it would be better to say that if a human wants to use a Dwarven battle Axe, or to gain mastery in using the sawtooth saber? How does one gain proficiency in non-hereditary advanced weapons passed the proficiency level?


Aseroth_Blackward wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:
If he takes dwarven weapon familiarity (first level ancestry feat), "For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons"
Poor example on my part, apologies. Perhaps it would be better to say that if a human wants to use a Dwarven battle Axe, or to gain mastery in using the sawtooth saber? How does one gain proficiency in non-hereditary advanced weapons passed the proficiency level?

Fighter multiclass dedication, 12th level take Advanced Manuever in order to gain the Fighter Advanced Weapon training feat to make all advanced weapons in a weapon group count as martial.

Then if you have expert martial proficiency, you now have expert proficiency with those advanced weapons. If you have master martial weapon proficiency (because you're a champion or something), then you also have master proficiency in those weapons.


So basically, you have to be some form of fighter to be able to effectively use advanced weapons that you can't learn through your heritage. That feels, quite flawed.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The lack of any follow-up option to increase weapons or armor that you gain proficiency in via General Feat (up to the proficiency level you already have in some other weapon/armor) is a glaring flaw, yes.


There are specific solutions for specific weapons: Sawtooth Sabers have the Red Mantis Assassin archetype. Aldori Dueling Swords have the Aldori Duelist archetype.

There are ancestral options too, like the various ancestral weapon feats or Unconventional Weaponry for a Human.

But outside that, yeah, the only way to gain generic proficiency with an advanced weapon of your choice is the aforementioned Fighter feat.

For better or for worse, PF2 has made it difficult for characters to pick up weapons that aren't tied to their choice of ancestry or class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aseroth_Blackward wrote:
So basically, you have to be some form of fighter to be able to effectively use advanced weapons that you can't learn through your heritage. That feels, quite flawed.

Given the fighter class is all about using weapons, why does that feel flawed?

I mean, you're essentially asking for a general feat to provide some variation on military level training (possibly provided by an army, marital monastery, lone wandering knight, etc) to be able to effectively use an usually difficult to master weapon. Personally that sounds like fighter training to me.

However, there are other options, more akin to an English Longbowman growing up with the weapon.

For your human example, Unconventional weaponry would work for the dwarven battle axe. If it was an elf, they could use Adopted Ancestry to grab the dwarven weapon familiarity feat at 5th.

Sawtooth saber would require the multiclass fighter dedication though.

Is there a particular build you're working on that this is causing a problem for or breaking its concept in some way?


Aseroth_Blackward wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:
If he takes dwarven weapon familiarity (first level ancestry feat), "For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons"
Poor example on my part, apologies. Perhaps it would be better to say that if a human wants to use a Dwarven battle Axe, or to gain mastery in using the sawtooth saber? How does one gain proficiency in non-hereditary advanced weapons passed the proficiency level?

For the Dwarven Battle Axe, you take Unconventional Weaponry.

For the Sawtooth Sabers, The Red Mantis Assassin Dedication.


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

Red Mantis Assassin dedication is a very specific character choice to keep up proficiency level with a weapon that isn't unique to that organization.

It's like saying "take champion dedication, or hell knight archetypes if you want your heavy armor proficiency to keep up with your other proficiencies. It works, but there needs to be a much less character defining way to do something that basic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not basic.
In fact, one might label them advanced. Perhaps even uncommon.
That's the point.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

"Become better with the weapon that you've been using as you level up, instead if somehow only increasing proficiency in things that you haven't been fighting with" is a basic form of progression. If you can become trained with a sawtooth saber, you have acquired a sawtooth saber, and you adventure and fight things with your sawtooth saber, gaining experience until you are a more capable, more powerful adventurer, it does not follow that you should only be able to gain greater skill with other weapons, unless you join the Red Mantis.

I'm not saying it should be free, and you need to be able to progress with no further feat investment, but for the only feats that allow you to progress being tied to things like joining the Red Mantis makes no sense.

Same for armor proficiencies. Not being able to become more proficient in fighting in heavy armor unless you become the sworn champion of some deity does not make sense from a game play system perdpective or from a lore and simulation perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:

"Become better with the weapon that you've been using as you level up, instead if somehow only increasing proficiency in things that you haven't been fighting with" is a basic form of progression. If you can become trained with a sawtooth saber, you have acquired a sawtooth saber, and you adventure and fight things with your sawtooth saber, gaining experience until you are a more capable, more powerful adventurer, it does not follow that you should only be able to gain greater skill with other weapons, unless you join the Red Mantis.

I'm not saying it should be free, and you need to be able to progress with no further feat investment, but for the only feats that allow you to progress being tied to things like joining the Red Mantis makes no sense.

Same for armor proficiencies. Not being able to become more proficient in fighting in heavy armor unless you become the sworn champion of some deity does not make sense from a game play system perdpective or from a lore and simulation perspective.

I'd probably wait until the APG comes out to make any broad statements about how this will be handled.

It is unlikely that weapons or armor proficiencies will be tied to anything other than class/archetype feats, but the odds of their being some more generic versions of those kinds of feats seems likely. They just won't likely move your proficiency beyond your class proficiencies or Expert, which ever is higher.


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

I'm definitely only speaking about how it should be handled, not how it will be handled.

I do think it's justified to say that this is the kind of fundamental progression that should have been handled in Core.

I absolutely would not think that you should be able to use General Feats beyond the proficiency levels native to your class. I've said before that there shold be follow-up general feats to increase your purchased proficiency to the level of your existing proficiencies and no higher


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hiruma Kai wrote:


Given the fighter class is all about using weapons, why does that feel flawed?

It's fine if you highly value protectionism and niche identity.

But it's a frustrating design paradigm if instead you value character customization and the ability for players to express unique concepts more than that or don't think weapon/armor choice should be a significant component of class identity.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm personally betting on an Archetype along the lines of "Weapon Master" starting off in the mid-single-digit levels which provides Weapon Training in Advanced and lower Weapons and follow up Feats in the Archetype that raise it to Expert and then Master. I do NOT expect that anyone other than Fighters are EVER going to get Legendary Weapon Training in more than a SINGLE Weapon though, doing that would materially diminish the edge Fighters have over all other classes in terms of being the top-rank Martial Characters.


So i'm looking at converting some P1 weapons to P2 for a campaign setting that I am working on. The problem I have with advanced weapons that quickly became apparent is that they are a tier of weapon that, barring certain conditions, no one can really use except for fighter.

While it is not currently an issue because of the 4 advanced weapons that I am aware of (from the core rulebook), are racial weapons. But the sawtooth sabers show the issue that future weapons are going to run into. Unless some specialized feats come out to allow other classes to use them, advanced weapons are not going to useful to anyone but a fighter unless they have some sort of racial link to the weapon.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aseroth_Blackward wrote:

So i'm looking at converting some P1 weapons to P2 for a campaign setting that I am working on. The problem I have with advanced weapons that quickly became apparent is that they are a tier of weapon that, barring certain conditions, no one can really use except for fighter.

While it is not currently an issue because of the 4 advanced weapons that I am aware of (from the core rulebook), are racial weapons. But the sawtooth sabers show the issue that future weapons are going to run into. Unless some specialized feats come out to allow other classes to use them, advanced weapons are not going to useful to anyone but a fighter unless they have some sort of racial link to the weapon.

I will note, if your concern is converting Pathfinder 1st edition weapons to Pathfinder 2nd edition weapons, that exotic weapons don't automatically convert to advanced. Most pathfinder 1st edition exotic weapons are uncommon simple or uncommon martial weapons. Some are just straight up plain martial, like the bastard sword.

Kama, nunchaku, spiked chains and so on are simply uncommon martial weapons.

So its possible when you write up the old 1st edition weapons in 2nd, you could simply make them uncommon martial weapons.

Of course, that means keeping in mind balance considerations. Advanced weapons have larger damage dice and more or better traits than their martial counter parts. The developers clearly had some kind of point budget combined with certain over arching rules for each of the 3 tiers of weapons (simple, martial, advanced). For example, no simple or martial agile weapon has damage dice larger than 1d6. No simple or martial 1-handed finesse weapon has damage dice larger than 1d6. Even if the budgets looks like they should allow them.

Sawtooth sabers are essentially a straight upgrade from short swords in the vast majority of cases (only where an enemy has resistance to slashing but not piercing would they be better). After the 1st attack, sawtooth saberes are effectively 1d6+1 damage die instead of 1d6, better than any other agile weapon.

Similarly, the Aldori dueling Sword is the only 1d8 1-handed finesse weapon. These are straight up higher damage versions of their martial equivalents.

At high levels, proficiency in such weapons is like having PF1 weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization (+4 damage on Major Striking weapon for example) compared to their martial weapon counterparts. Weapon proficiency is, as far as I know, the only general feat that can increase your effective damage with every Strike you make (at least at levels 1-4).

So its not just a question of concept, but also a question of becoming the optimal choice for more damage.

Which is why I think the developers made the decision to have scaling proficiency beyond trained to cost class feats, not general feats. Class feats tend to offer improved combat performance, while General feats seem to be more defensive or utility focused. If a general feat was introduced at 7th or 11th level to provide expert or scaling proficiency, it starts to become an optimal feat for combat for all classes using weapons.

Of course people might disagree with that assessment, but I can certainly see why the developers went the way they did. There's a certain logic to it.

As it stands a fighter's advanced weapon proficiency for all weapons outside their chosen group scales as:
Trained 1-12
Expert 13-18
Master 19-20

Any martial class that gains master martial proficiency at 13th by spending 1 general feat, then retraining out and spending 2 class feats, can achieve:
Trained 3-11 (1-11 if human)
Expert 12
Master 13-20

That looks useful to me, especially in the 1-4 and 12-20 levels, where an advanced weapon is going to be straight up superior to the martial weapons. Of course, 2 class feats tends to be worth more in terms of combat power than 2 general feats, so its a harder decision to make I think.

I don't think we should compare to a fighter's chosen weapon group proficiency because then you'd need to factor in a ranger using hunter's edge, a rogue using 1d6-4d6 sneak attacks, a barbarian using dragon rage for +16 extra damage (8 more than the fighter's weapon specialization), and so on. Its not a fair comparison to just look at the proficiency in that case, since a fighter's higher than normal weapon proficiency is what they get instead of hunter's edge flurry benefit or sneak attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:
It works, but there needs to be a much less character defining way to do something that basic.

Have you considered the possibility that it really doesn't?

To me Paizo clearly wants you to choose Fighter if you don't want to jump through hoops like taking a highly specific build choice such as an ancestry or archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
It works, but there needs to be a much less character defining way to do something that basic.

Have you considered the possibility that it really doesn't?

To me Paizo clearly wants you to choose Fighter if you don't want to jump through hoops like taking a highly specific build choice such as an ancestry or archetype.

Considered. Dismissed as rubbish when the only hopes to jump through for straightforward things like armor proficiencies are ones that come with heavy concept implications.

If you needed to take a fighter dedication to improve, say, medium armor proficiency on an alchemist, to keep up with your light armor proficiency, that would be fine, since it would be spending resources on being better at fighting, which is concept neutral. Instead, the hoops that exist to jump through and spend your resources are things like Champion, which is emphatically not.

Same for sawtooth sabers, and the only hoop that you could jump through, to continue using them effectively after getting access and proficiency, being to join an organization of assassins.


HammerJack wrote:

Considered. Dismissed as rubbish when the only hopes to jump through for straightforward things like armor proficiencies are ones that come with heavy concept implications.

If you needed to take a fighter dedication to improve, say, medium armor proficiency on an alchemist, to keep up with your light armor proficiency, that would be fine, since it would be spending resources on being better at fighting, which is concept neutral. Instead, the hoops that exist to jump through and spend your resources are things like Champion, which is emphatically not.

Same for sawtooth sabers, and the only hoop that you could jump through, to continue using them effectively after getting access and proficiency, being to join an organization of assassins.

You mean in order to learn the secret Shaolin fighting techniques you have to join the Shaolin first? Who would have thought...

P.S.: I agree on basic stuff e.g. armour proficiency.


Ubertron_X wrote:
HammerJack wrote:

Considered. Dismissed as rubbish when the only hopes to jump through for straightforward things like armor proficiencies are ones that come with heavy concept implications.

If you needed to take a fighter dedication to improve, say, medium armor proficiency on an alchemist, to keep up with your light armor proficiency, that would be fine, since it would be spending resources on being better at fighting, which is concept neutral. Instead, the hoops that exist to jump through and spend your resources are things like Champion, which is emphatically not.

Same for sawtooth sabers, and the only hoop that you could jump through, to continue using them effectively after getting access and proficiency, being to join an organization of assassins.

You mean in order to learn the secret Shaolin fighting techniques you have to join the Shaolin first? Who would have thought...

P.S.: I agree on basic stuff e.g. armour proficiency.

I think what Hammerjack is getting at is that all weapons and armor under the sun, at least for the purposes of keeping your proficiencies at expected values, are "basic stuff".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:

"Become better with the weapon that you've been using as you level up, instead if somehow only increasing proficiency in things that you haven't been fighting with" is a basic form of progression. If you can become trained with a sawtooth saber, you have acquired a sawtooth saber, and you adventure and fight things with your sawtooth saber, gaining experience until you are a more capable, more powerful adventurer, it does not follow that you should only be able to gain greater skill with other weapons, unless you join the Red Mantis.

I'm not saying it should be free, and you need to be able to progress with no further feat investment, but for the only feats that allow you to progress being tied to things like joining the Red Mantis makes no sense.

Same for armor proficiencies. Not being able to become more proficient in fighting in heavy armor unless you become the sworn champion of some deity does not make sense from a game play system perdpective or from a lore and simulation perspective.

Just because you use something all the time does not automatically mean you will become better at it. If you aren't doing it properly, you're not going to get better.

There is also a talent cap. No matter how hard I try, I'm never going to be Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Bruce Lee, Serena Williams, Michael Johnson, Wayne Gretzky, etc...

Sure, I can become a proficient, some might even say trained, basketball player, golfer, martial artist, etc.., but becoming a master or a legend requires a certain amount of innate ability.

A class isn't just a profession, it's a calling, representing both your training and your talent.

Becoming a master with a Sawtooth Saber or Dueling Sword isn't something just anyone can do.

But that's all flavor.

Mechanically, this is the price we pay for having no Spellcasting penalty on any armor, and allowing martial classes to be special.

There is literally nothing preventing a Wizard from running around in Full Plate (well walking anyway, probably doesn't have 18 STR), except that they aren't good at it. A General Feat that let them get to Master would be way too good.

I guess there maybe be some kind of vanilla "Armor Master" Dedication. But I don't think this should ever move out of Class Feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
HammerJack wrote:

Considered. Dismissed as rubbish when the only hopes to jump through for straightforward things like armor proficiencies are ones that come with heavy concept implications.

If you needed to take a fighter dedication to improve, say, medium armor proficiency on an alchemist, to keep up with your light armor proficiency, that would be fine, since it would be spending resources on being better at fighting, which is concept neutral. Instead, the hoops that exist to jump through and spend your resources are things like Champion, which is emphatically not.

Same for sawtooth sabers, and the only hoop that you could jump through, to continue using them effectively after getting access and proficiency, being to join an organization of assassins.

You mean in order to learn the secret Shaolin fighting techniques you have to join the Shaolin first? Who would have thought...

P.S.: I agree on basic stuff e.g. armour proficiency.

I think what Hammerjack is getting at is that all weapons and armor under the sun, at least for the purposes of keeping your proficiencies at expected values, are "basic stuff".

Maybe that is incongruent with Golarion-as-a-setting and it is being reflected properly with the rules being more tightly coupled to setting.


@Hiruma Kai

Interesting. One point though. The idea behind advanced weapons according to the core rulebook is that Advanced weapons have more advantageous traits than martial weapons, not just larger damage dice.

Regardless, your analysis does make sense. I think part of my concerns will be dependent on how many advanced weapons end up coming out. If it continues to be a small more specialized group, well, time will tell I suppose.


HammerJack wrote:
Zapp wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
It works, but there needs to be a much less character defining way to do something that basic.

Have you considered the possibility that it really doesn't?

To me Paizo clearly wants you to choose Fighter if you don't want to jump through hoops like taking a highly specific build choice such as an ancestry or archetype.

Considered. Dismissed as rubbish when the only hopes to jump through for straightforward things like armor proficiencies are ones that come with heavy concept implications.

Then prepare to be disappoint.

If you want access to the fighter's toys without having to carry the baggage, you'll have to find another game.

Quote:
Same for sawtooth sabers, and the only hoop that you could jump through, to continue using them effectively after getting access and proficiency, being to join an organization of assassins.

Yes?

You say this like it's a bad thing?

If items ahead of the curve didn't come with costs, nobody would use the normal items, and the superior ones would become the new curve. At this point nothing would be gained.


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

At what point have I said there shouldn't be costs?

I have said there should be ways to pay those costs that are not concept-defining. This is not the same statement.

Needing to use class feats is fine, that's paying a cost. Needing to buy into fighter is fine, that's paying a cost and can fit any character that is focusing attention on their martial skills. Needing to buy into Champion or Red Mantis is not, because it is deeply restrictive in lore and concept in ways that paying the same costs (in terms of class feats and being restricted, at least temporarily, from another dedication) buying into fighter is not.


HammerJack wrote:

At what point have I said there shouldn't be costs?

I have said there should be ways to pay those costs that are not concept-defining. This is not the same statement.

Needing to use class feats is fine, that's paying a cost. Needing to buy into fighter is fine, that's paying a cost and can fit any character that is focusing attention on their martial skills. Needing to buy into Champion or Red Mantis is not, because it is deeply restrictive in lore and concept in ways that paying the same costs (in terms of class feats and being restricted, at least temporarily, from another dedication) buying into fighter is not.

It's definitely a large flaw in the system, but I think there's a really good chance they'll address it with the apg.

I don't think it's intentional, it really doesn't seem like that with the content they currently have, it's just caused by the lack of options because the system is new.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
citricking wrote:

It's definitely a large flaw in the system, but I think there's a really good chance they'll address it with the apg.

I don't think it's intentional, it really doesn't seem like that with the content they currently have, it's just caused by the lack of options because the system is new.

"Thank you for selling me the solution to the problem you caused."

They gotta sell books after all, and there's only so many pages for the core book, but I hear 'Just wait until X book' an awful lot.

I mean, I'm buying them, so it works.


Kasoh wrote:

"Thank you for selling me the solution to the problem you caused."

They gotta sell books after all, and there's only so many pages for the core book, but I hear 'Just wait until X book' an awful lot.

I mean, I'm buying them, so it works.

Well, yes and no. The "problem" of the CRB is that the dedicated armour centric character in the CRB is the Champion, not the Fighter, which is weapon centric. As such it makes total sense that the Champion is providing increased armour proficiency whereas the Fighter is providing increased weapon proficiency when used to multiclass. Mechanically this is 100% fine and expected. The problem that Hammerjack rightfully pointed out is that the Champion comes with a big load of roleplaying concepts whereas the Fighter is a blank sheet. Maybe the situation will improve when we get neutral champions (if we do get those at all).


True Neutral Champion FTW!
-When others display apathy, you must enthusiastically embrace that.
-When others show enthusiasm, you must douse it as if they were being ironic.

Teenagers sign up in droves. Or not.
Matters what food & tunes you got.

But y'all are right, the armor line of proficiency is tainted.
Yet I don't think it's as simple as an armor archetype, except merely to get to Expert (like Champion does), plus maybe some mobility, DR, & bullrushing. Master will likely remained locked by class unless Paizo develops a way to trade a different Master proficiency (most likely Weapon).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Kasoh wrote:

"Thank you for selling me the solution to the problem you caused."

They gotta sell books after all, and there's only so many pages for the core book, but I hear 'Just wait until X book' an awful lot.

I mean, I'm buying them, so it works.

Well, yes and no. The "problem" of the CRB is that the dedicated armour centric character in the CRB is the Champion, not the Fighter, which is weapon centric. As such it makes total sense that the Champion is providing increased armour proficiency whereas the Fighter is providing increased weapon proficiency when used to multiclass. Mechanically this is 100% fine and expected. The problem that Hammerjack rightfully pointed out is that the Champion comes with a big load of roleplaying concepts whereas the Fighter is a blank sheet. Maybe the situation will improve when we get neutral champions (if we do get those at all).

I mean, only if you want it to. If you're just taking Champion Dedication, and Diverse Armor Expert, breaking Anathema has exactly zero effect on you. You don't have to roleplay anything Champion-like at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I for one appreciate niche protection.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Things like not allowing other classes to duplicate the fighter's superior progression of weapon proficiency and the champion's superior progression of armor proficiency is niche protection that should remain.

Not having options to progress proficiency with equipment not standard to a class within the limits of that class's proficiency chassis offers nothing of value.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:

Things like not allowing other classes to duplicate the fighter's superior progression of weapon proficiency and the champion's superior progression of armor proficiency is niche protection that should remain.

Not having options to progress proficiency with equipment not standard to a class within the limits of that class's proficiency chassis offers nothing of value.

I agree. There should be more options that extend proficiency like Dwarven Weapon Expertise: Whenever you gain a class feature that grants you expert or greater proficiency in certain weapons, you also gain that proficiency for battle axes, picks, warhammers, and all dwarven weapons in which you are trained.

The Elven and Hobgoblin versions of this are quite good as they cover a range of weapons.

An armour option would be also be nice, and not unbalanced as Champion/Hell Knight/Knight Vigilant do it already. I think we are going to get tired of PCs multiclassing into Champion....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed with HammerJack on all accounts.

Too for Simple weapons, too for Martial weapons, independent of (but also inclusive to) Ancestry, when reasonable Proficiency purchased with correspondingly proportional Feat Resources is at play.

Fortunately, and perhaps evidenced by developer silence on the issue, I expect Advanced Players Guide to offer one or more solutions. But, I admit that is mere speculation on my part.


HammerJack wrote:

Things like not allowing other classes to duplicate the fighter's superior progression of weapon proficiency and the champion's superior progression of armor proficiency is niche protection that should remain.

Not having options to progress proficiency with equipment not standard to a class within the limits of that class's proficiency chassis offers nothing of value.

Fav'ed and quoted.

The price to get new weapon or armor options (at the same level of proficiency you already have for others) should be fair and not heavily force your character into any concept you may not like (unless the weapon or armor is really specific to an organization, or such).
As it is, that price is one general feat for roughly half your carreer; then it suddenly jumps to two class feats, possibly with additional roleplay baggage, with the general feet you took that is now hanging there, useless, forcing you to retrain as soon as possible.
Releasing new archetypes could help, but won't change the abrupt price jump. Maybe making an archetype general feat (there are some already, in the form of skill feats) would help a little more, as at the point where you have taken the dedication you only need to retrain your general feat into the new, stronger (scaling) one.

The place of proficiency general feats is rather strange.
They work perfectly until the mid levels, then you have to retrain them.
If trained proficiency is a requirement for these new archetypes that may be coming, the price to use your favorite weapon or armor in the mid levels goes even higher, because you need to keep your general feat(s) too.


Proficiency feats are General Feats mainly because they get you to a minimal level of competence. General = generic for the most part.
So yes, it'll take Class Feats (likely the slightly more valuable MCD ones) to open up more competitive options.

So Master in weapons and full-casting will likely never meet (and I only grant the chance because of the mysterious Magus).
To get to Expert in medium armor (and Master in Fortitude), Warpriests had to give up a rank of proficiency in spellcasting. The other full-casters can't get there at all, yet that +2 w/ spells also represents casting about 1/3 better (offensively & w/ crits involved, that is). That's hefty, trading out a major portion of one's offense.

So what price to get to Expert in heavy armor?
It's a bigger step up than light to medium, increasing your AC max while also allowing ignoring Dex. How does one balance AND keep it from being just a numbers game? For now, you gotta sync up w/ the Champion.
So you can ignore Dex if you boost this noncombat stat over here, Charisma. And then tying it to anathema and using up one's MCD makes this about more than just numbers. Good, right? I think so, otherwise I can see myself auto-choosing an easier route.

And the exotic weapons have similar strong ties to RPing choices, otherwise numbers might overshadow there too. Looks like Paizo's being intentional here, plus they've said they want to make interesting choices not based on pure numbers. Cool.

So what are people proposing here that's similar and not numbers based?
Because while I keep hearing about unfulfilled concepts, the arguments all seem based on numbers: wanting a higher proficiency in better armor or weapons. You can get those if you go with the Golarion RP concepts tied to those.
If those concepts don't suit you, then what offensive proficiency are you willing to trim like the Warpriest? Or what side stat would you invest in like the Champion MCD?

Also, I'm assuming these unseen character concepts are thematic rather than mechanical. Other than tricks like Captain Andoran throwing his might shield, I'm hard pressed to think of fighting concepts that couldn't be done with a Fighter chassis, hence gaining access to heavy armor + advanced weapons.


Keep in mind that even if you do feel the need to make a heavy RP investment in the Champion Dedication for example, even though mechanically you really don't, with the release of Gods and Magic, you can literally be a Champion of Atheism by choosing the Laws of Mortality in place of a Deity, or a Champion of Karma (Sangpotshi), or a Champion of Greed (Prophecies of Kalistrade).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / advancing Proficiency for advanced weapon training for non-fighters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.