|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With a welcome change coming in the form of Alchemist getting medium armor proficiency in the last FAQ and playtest gunslinger having legendary proficiency in firearms. My friends and I are wondering if other classes might receive similar treatment.
The martial classes could all get legendary proficiency, without upsetting the system. Even if they have to wait until level 17 or something- it seems like a good deal to me. If not that, maybe a feat to give players the option for legendary proficiency with one weapon group or something.
For the spellcaster classes, as many have mentioned, the next round of FAQs would be the perfect time to have them upgrade their spellcasting proficiency at the same level as martial characters get their weapon proficiency upgrades. Its kinda weird how they just lag behind.
Like I said these proposed updates definitely won't upset the system, they'd just iron out some of the oddities of the system.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree about accuracy proficiencies. Non-fighter martials getting legendary muscles on the Fighter's turf. I would prefer that casters' accuracy improves through item bonuses to spell attack rolls, since spell save DCs are fine, IMO.
That said, I think most classes would benefit from changes to Perception and saving throw proficiencies.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The option of being legendary in a single group is deceptively strong given that legendary proficiency with a single weapon group is functionally very close to having it with them all once you're probably using only your strongest magical weapons because of the way runes work, or at most you're using a larger damage dice weapon + agile weapon of the same group for dual wielding; also archetypes such as Mauler will scale other weapons to match your highest proficiency.
With that said, it's not going to happen, Martial classes and their features are balanced around having Master prof., and upgrading it would imply stripping class features (as the language for the playtest 'slinger indicates) if the power curve is to be maintained.
Besides, how is upgrading everyone to Legendary an "oddity" when the only case of a class going to Legendary in weapons up to this point was the Fighter? They're an exception, not the rule, the same way only Monks can reach legendary in any save and Champions get legendary heavy armor; just because everyone wants a piece of that pie doesn't make it an "oddity" that others don't have it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now if you're talking about giving the Alchemist the regular martial progression for simple weapons/alchemical items/bombs, homogenizing caster progression to be a bit less strict or solving the Wizard weapon proficiency charlie foxtrot now that's a whole 'nother can of worms that could see tweaks here and there if the changes coming in the 2nd printing CRB errata are seen as insufficient.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I would hope for Prophiciency upgrades is more in the line of updating classes with specific Prophiciencies (Wizard, Rogue, Bard), Racial Prophiciencies and maybe favoured Weapons of some gods updated to include newer and possibly better (or more) options
The prophiciency level in general is not a big problem (I would argue for Swashbuckler getting legendary with fencing weapons or a chosen category though, would fit their bill and probably not hurt balance to much)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
You may note that all of those master-capped martials have significant damage bonuses tied to their class features. The Fighter does not, because being more accurate than usual is his damage bonus. If all the other martials were Legendary too then there'd be close to no reason to play a Fighter.
You may note that all of those master-capped martials have significant damage bonuses tied to their class features. The Fighter does not, because being more accurate than usual is his damage bonus. If all the other martials were Legendary too then there'd be close to no reason to play a Fighter.
At best, you could wager a 20th level feat to grant this sort of power. Largely because 20th level feats give you some pretty powerful things that aren't replicated elsewhere. But also because there is such a minority of games at this power level (or greater) going on that the tiniest infringement here isn't really all that significant.
I mean, a 20th level Barbarian giving up his capstone feat for a +2 to hit/crit and +2 damage from specialization isn't the worst thing in the world for both him and the balance of the game. Same goes for giving him a +2 AC and armor specialization feat. After all, being limited to Medium Armor and not likely to use a Shield, Barbarians aren't still going to have more armor than Champions.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
No.
On the other hand, there's some slight chance Wizard could get Simple Weapons at some point. That's probably the only proficiency change I see as realistic, right now it's a meme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
On the other hand, there's some slight chance Wizard could get Simple Weapons at some point. That's probably the only proficiency change I see as realistic, right now it's a meme.
I don't think they'll do that, but I wish they would. The idea that Wizards automatically become Expert with clubs but have no idea how to use a mace is weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving the other martial classes legendary proficiency would overpower them dramatically. Gunslinger is fine because it doesn't have another mechanic.
The only adjustment that needs to be made is that alchemists need master proficiency.
Giving the other martial classes legendary proficiency would overpower them dramatically. Gunslinger is fine because it doesn't have another mechanic.
The only adjustment that needs to be made is that alchemists need master proficiency.
Also no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only existing class martial that I think needs a path to legendary accuracy is the monk, where you can do a class archetype that trades "legendary unarmed defense" for "legendary unarmed attacks."
The only existing class martial that I think needs a path to legendary accuracy is the monk, where you can do a class archetype that trades "legendary unarmed defense" for "legendary unarmed attacks."
Same can be said for Fighter. Problem is that if they did that, Fighter would have faster Armor progression than even a basic Champion. They'd have a much slower Weapons progression, true. But starting at Expert for armor is pretty OP for them.
Giving it to a barbarian would be imo quite overkill because of how reckless abandon works.
Not saying that a barbarian would be safe being 50% or less hp ( 200hp more or less ) and low AC all the time, but that he would achieve a better attack roll than a fighter.
Because every Barbarian is going to take a certain feat combination that only triggers on certain unfavorable conditions?
The Barbarian is paying for it by not having a capstone feat that gives him extra utility effects, such as more DR, the ability to Earthquake Stomp basically at-will, and so on. Plus, it's 20th level. You might play them for a few sessions at best, and then it's on to a new adventure. Or it's some homebrew Epic Level/Mythic scenario, in which case there are more than likely much better things on the table than +2 to hit and damage.
If a +2 to hit and damage at 20th level is really that infringing on Fighters' identity, then Fighters need a better defining feature than "I have 2 more to-hit than anyone else." Especially when other classes now, like Gunslinger, are going to infringe on those identities in certain ways.
Also no.Giving the other martial classes legendary proficiency would overpower them dramatically. Gunslinger is fine because it doesn't have another mechanic.
The only adjustment that needs to be made is that alchemists need master proficiency.
why?
No.
On the other hand, there's some slight chance Wizard could get Simple Weapons at some point. That's probably the only proficiency change I see as realistic, right now it's a meme.
I legitimately think it’s just there so hand of the apprentice isn’t so strong at level 1 for human.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
why?Also no.Giving the other martial classes legendary proficiency would overpower them dramatically. Gunslinger is fine because it doesn't have another mechanic.
The only adjustment that needs to be made is that alchemists need master proficiency.
They might actually start hitting with bombs. ;)
I watched a stream with a developer where it was mentioned that classes have a mathematical formula that is calculated for every class to keep them somewhat balanced.
I imagine Legendary is a huge + number to that formula.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sign me up for wizards getting simple proficiency, I already houserule this.
I also don't see alchemists getting master proficiency in bombs, and they don't need it imo.
But but but, I can see alchemists getting master in unarmed and simple weapons at the normal martial rate and would appreciate this.
Bombers will generally ignore light cover, do damage on misses in an AoE and have access to quicksilver mutagen which puts them at one higher than they would normally be with attack bonus.
So in 80-90% of circumstances their attack modifier is only one lower than that of a ranged martial (as lite cover is hard to avoid) with better results on a hit and miss.
Splash doesn't seem exciting, but the higher level a character gets the more appreciated it will be. Expanded splash doing 7-10 damage per target in a 10ft emanation even on a miss isn't something to sniff at. If allies are often in splash range, then they invest in rings of resistance.
And that is before optimising to use with double slice (via the ranged feat).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only existing class martial that I think needs a path to legendary accuracy is the monk, where you can do a class archetype that trades "legendary unarmed defense" for "legendary unarmed attacks."Same can be said for Fighter. Problem is that if they did that, Fighter would have faster Armor progression than even a basic Champion. They'd have a much slower Weapons progression, true. But starting at Expert for armor is pretty OP for them.
One issue with the Champion being the armor specialist is that it seems a bit weird to have that niche gated behind an alignment/religion commitment. Other classes that are the best at something do not carry that sort of baggage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sign me up for wizards getting simple proficiency, I already houserule this.
Seems reasonable. I suspect they are limited to what they have becasue of traditional wizard flavour reasons.
I'd prefer some sort of bonus to encourage them to use traditional weapons. Like some spell bonus/feat or rune that only works while wielding a dagger or staff.
I also don't see alchemists getting master proficiency in bombs, and they don't need it imo.
But but but, I can see alchemists getting master in unarmed and simple weapons at the normal martial rate and would appreciate this.
Its too abusable. Because of all the ways of expanding on that. Better would be a +2 status bonus with bombs, or something like that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One issue with the Champion being the armor specialist is that it seems a bit weird to have that niche gated behind an alignment/religion commitment. Other classes that are the best at something do not carry that sort of baggage.
I'm really waiting for some Champion paths that let you be someone who is not interested in gods, like "Champions of the Green Faith" or "Champions of the Rules of Mortality" or "Rivethun Champions" or "Sangpotshi Champions" should be possible.
Making the armor specialist also "Someone who is really invested in a cause" works, you just need to expand the set of valid causes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see wizards get proficiency with simple weapons because of the reasons others have mentioned, and I'd also like to see alchemists get legendary proficiency with, well, alchemy.
Like, it's weird to me that a class who devotes themselves to creating alchemical items, can even make a Philosopher's Stone at 20th level if they want, don't get a legendary proficiency with their class DC and, therefore, can't actually get to legendary with alchemical items.
If you want alchemists to get legendary proficiency their bombs and poisons both need to be drastically weakened.
Too many effects apply on hit/crit and even removing splash AoE from the equation wouldn't do enough to not make it the most powerful ranged character in the party. Higher level foes would pretty quickly melt to sticky bomb barring unlikely luck and even stuff like dread ampules coupled with debilitating bomb effects would just wreck enemy defenses.
That said, I would like to see alchemists automatically get legendary in crafting for free. That would be a fun and less imbalancing way of representing their mastery of alchemical skills.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Legendary with weapons shouldn't be considered a general feature to pass out, imo.
Yes, both Fighters and Gunslingers have it right now, but they have it because they don't have another DPR mechanic of their own. That extra +2 to hit is functionally their version of Rage or Sneak Attack, not a system wide mechanic. It should be considered a special class feature more than anything else.
As for proficiency changes, I wouldn't mind seeing Wizards get simple, it's a bad legacy feature that they don't.... To be honest, they should probably just get rid of fixed-list proficiency altogether. Give wizards simple, give rogues martial. It's much cleaner that way.
I also think maybe Alchemists should get master. A whole bunch of alchemist builds are expected to make attacks of some kind and they aren't proper casters, I think the current paradigm just makes a lot of builds feel less than stellar.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I do not particularly like the current paradigm (I think making Fighter and now Gunslinger's main class feature +2 to hit is not good for the game), it's too ingrained with the system's balance to change now.
I can 100% get behind making caster DC proficiency 5/13/19 though, those levels where you are behind feel really bad. Giving Wizards all simple and Rogues all martial would be a positive change as well, imo. Heck, Investigator is Rogue 2: Electric Bogaloo and it has all martial proficiency, not to mention how the current arrangement makes Rogues not proficient in any future Rogue-ish weapons that get released.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to see the War Priest get some better proficiencies admittedly, to put it more in line with the PF1 version. I suppose there are ways of making a similar theme with multiclass archetypes, but at this point the name War Priest has a history that it should live up to, IMO.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't know why they didn't make class traits for weapons, the way they did for feats. Give a weapon the Rogue trait, say that rogues are proficient with all weapons with the Rogue trait, and then you're set for life. P1E's unchained monk even did this, really expected it in P2E too.
It would create a long list of traits to add to every weapon and every new class (and Paizo does like making new classes) would require adding a trait to a pile of weapons. Broad categories in the class (simple, martial) are lower word-counts.
I have been educated. Out of curiosity, why would this be more disruptive than the scaling to legendary with spells that casters get? Don't their spells duplicate a lot of those effects? Is it because alchemists could make more top-end items with their infusions or is there something else I'm not seeing?
Casters don't get scaling item bonuses on top which leaves them 4 behind bombs, poisons are ongoing and pretty brutal with fails inmediately triggering increases in stages and the alchemist's prof is used for all characters using them.
And then there are debilitating bombs which are flexible strong debuffs that would hit easier with the damaging bombs and be swapped through faster. Alchemists are already strong debuffers but this would make them even better.
An optimized alchemist in mid levels onwards would be comfortably and reliably debuffing, doing decent damage, doing persistent damage, doing aoe damage, being ranged and be able to swap the debuffs and persistent type depending on what the target has. And they would never run out either (persistent alchemy for bombs)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't know why they didn't make class traits for weapons, the way they did for feats. Give a weapon the Rogue trait, say that rogues are proficient with all weapons with the Rogue trait, and then you're set for life. P1E's unchained monk even did this, really expected it in P2E too.It would create a long list of traits to add to every weapon and every new class (and Paizo does like making new classes) would require adding a trait to a pile of weapons. Broad categories in the class (simple, martial) are lower word-counts.Ah but that isn't the case.
First of all, every class already has a trait, as shown here. If you click the monk trait as listed under the class section, you'll find that and its weapon entry are one and the same. So zero additional traits are needed.
You also do not need to add the traits to every weapon, as classes would still retain their current simple, martial and advanced proficiencies. All you need to do is add that trait to the weapons you want a class to use in addition to these broad proficiencies. So rapier, sap, shortbow and shortsword would get the existing Rogue trait, and so could any future weapons published for that class to use.
I don't think that's a bad idea, but I think it has a large downside. That being that every time a new class comes out would require updating multiple weapons/items across multiple books. For example, when the swashbuckler was released they would have had to update the rapier, etc. This might be fine for people that solely use PDFs (although that would mean extra work for Paizo), but I prefer physical books so the less errata the better. In my opinion, given that limitation, they're better off sticking with the current system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All you need to do is add that trait to the weapons you want a class to use in addition to these broad proficiencies.
Personally, I just don't like the design philosophy of this to begin with. Saying rogues should be able to use short swords but not a main gauche feels frustratingly and pointlessly restrictive. There are already restrictions on the types of weapons suited to fighting as a rogue, that should be enough.
Better to just stick to the broad categories and let people make their own choices. Especially when, ostensibly, weapons are supposed to be more or less balanced across a category anyways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I watched a stream with a developer where it was mentioned that classes have a mathematical formula that is calculated for every class to keep them somewhat balanced.
I imagine Legendary is a huge + number to that formula.
Oh you can't say that kind of thing here. People respond to it like this:
Paizo must have implemented a similar class build and balance methodology. I imagine their point system must have put significant points into Spell Levels.The concept of this thread is already a ludicrous waste of time ("I assigned arbitrary points values and then it turns out they aren't balanced. Why Paizo?") but this bit really takes the cake. Design doesn't work this way. The whole is great than the parts, there are a dozen moving pieces to how a character is built, nevermind an entire class and trying to math out how to make balanced classes takes away from time Paizo employees are better off spending actually making the game.
Game Design isn't a maths problem.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Today I learned: there are people who are against the very concept of modeling because models are not reality, apparently?
Like sure, when laying out the power budget, proficiencies in reflex, will, and fortitude should count the same (i.e. master will counts the same as master reflex). But there are plenty of concrete examples of games, modules, APs, or campaigns where the three saves aren't equally weighted. But your model where "well, legendary reflex is only 90% as good as legendary fortitude, and 80% as good as legendary will" is probably not a very good one.
I'm really waiting for some Champion paths that let you be someone who is not interested in gods, like "Champions of the Green Faith" or "Champions of the Rules of Mortality" or "Rivethun Champions" or "Sangpotshi Champions" should be possible.
Making the armor specialist also "Someone who is really invested in a cause" works, you just need to expand the set of valid causes.
Just wanted to say I 100% agree and hope for this. Would finally play a champion. Would also be cool if clerics got similar options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Today I learned: there are people who are against the very concept of modeling because models are not reality, apparently?
Like sure, when laying out the power budget, proficiencies in reflex, will, and fortitude should count the same (i.e. master will counts the same as master reflex). But there are plenty of concrete examples of games, modules, APs, or campaigns where the three saves aren't equally weighted. But your model where "well, legendary reflex is only 90% as good as legendary fortitude, and 80% as good as legendary will" is probably not a very good one.
Oh I'm not advocating for that particular person's model, but I found how offended some people got about the concept kind of hilarious.
Warrior muse bard.
Maybe make it even out weapon and spellcasting proficiency to make it master/master. While this would hurt, it is not quite the same problem seen on things like warpriest, since a melee bard has buffs that honestly take up enough of its time when it is also supposed to use weapons too. The buff heavy spell list also helps to sooth that pain and let you enjoy better face smashing.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm trying to think of any way an alchemist with the standard martial curve of 5/13 master in simple weapons and bombs could possibly break anything.
They already are stuck with a 16 or 14 in their accuracy stat at the start, so even in the most min-maxed setup they're still almost always less accurate than any other non-caster.
They don't get critical specialization in anything at current, nor do they get the damage boost of greater weapon specialization.
Generally they're working off a d6 damage weapon with a bit of riders--but no property runes, which means as the game goes their potential to do significant damage continues to decline.
Anyone who isn't a Bomber field alchemist is likely to hurt their friends on a bomb throw, as alchemists are rarely masters of initiative.
A mutagenist with martial proficiency in their attack rolls lacks any support feats for unarmed attacks without pulling in archetypes.
Bestial and quicksilver mutagens can push the math forward but with painful downsides--no reason that this should exist to put them closer in accuracy to martials. Let it give them a small advantage, because they create significant issues to use.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that a proficiency boost for alchemists will bring the class in line with the others in the game, but at least they'll no longer be the class that cannot actively use their own abilities to a reasonable degree of effectiveness in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll add to what Sporkedup said by saying that Investigators can get full level elixirs and they have full martial progression, add Int to (some) attacks, and have a damage steroid. You can have an Investigator with Quicksilver or Bestial Mutagens getting the extra +1 item bonus above expected to hit already, and I doubt they're breaking the game.
I can't imagine why Master Weapon scaling for Alchemists would break the game, I expect it would make them an actually good class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do feel this a lot with regards to the alchemist.
Playing in Gauntlight as an Alchemist bomber atm, and let me tell you: the class feels crippled.
I hit less often than our other ranged combatant (shortbow/dagger switch hitter rogue) and less efficiently.
I hit, and lets say I crit with an alchemist's fire. I hit for 2d8, plus 1 splash.
Rogue crits after hiding, a feat made more likely by their full dex focus AND attacking a flat-footed enemy regularly, they do 4d6+1d10 on a crit, with zero strength score.
Averaging out to 8 damage for me, and 17 for the rogue, if we take the middle ground of the dice.
Now, sure, I can debuff (debilitating from a rogue does the same), can target weakness (literally anyone can throw a bomb or have a rune on a weapon, and a rogue could easily carry a few spell arrows), and can craft potions and the like (also, literally anyone with Crafting can, and rogues can craft MORE and BETTER because of their frequent skill feats).
There is literally nothing a bomber brings to the table compared to other classes. The medicine skill makes potions almost unnecessary except as a very niche option.
The only real benefit I provide to the group is quick access to antiplagues and antidotes. Every single thing I could do is done better by the rogue, who also is trained in medicine.
What niche exactly is the alchemist supposed to fit?