What are you saying right now? Blave's statement reads perfectly clear to me and makes perfect sense.Tagging weapons for rogues seems needlessly complicated, would require an overhaul of all books and is prone to future mistakes. Forgetting to add that trait would definitely happen in some book at some point.Tagging weapons for Rogues would be no different to tagging weapons for Monks (which is already done); And even if a mistake is made, its very easy to fix with an errata, just like it would be done with Monks.
I don't think anyone argued it couldn't be done, simply that it would be very cumbersome to reprint every single book that include weapons with this new errata, when a more ellegant solution would be to bring the divergent cases in line with the precedent set by the other classes; the Monk trait is a flawed point of comparison since its been present from the beginning, thus it has been implemented and accounted for in supplementary material. Also, there's an argument to avoid the overuse of tags when unnecessary (for ease of reference/bookkeeping, not everyone plays on VTTs or use online tools).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do know that its super easy to just errata any weapon that missed it right? Because it sounds like you are saying "its impossible to errata a tiny mistake"
Sure it's possible. But weapons are released constantly. Not only in Rule Books but also Lost Omens books and even adventure paths. I don't think I have ever seen a single official errata for any adventure path.
And we'd never know if the trait was even supposed to be there in the first place. It might have been a conscious omission on some weapons that may look "rogue-y". It would lead to the same "shouldn't a rogue be able to use that?" topics we get right not for stuff like the sword cane.
The Monk trait comes with its own rules. It's usually on uncommon weapons and serves a means to access them. And it has also some balancing concerns since a monk (or any character with the monk archetype) can use those weapons for flurry of blows.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey bud, the point is over here. Think you missed it.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would giving rogues proficiency in martial weapons not devalue feats like Fighter Dedication?
Fighter dedication doesn't provide scaling. It's really bad for rogues.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would giving rogues proficiency in martial weapons not devalue feats like Fighter Dedication?Fighter dedication doesn't provide scaling. It's really bad for rogues.
Not to mention that the existence of certain archetype feats has no business dictating what proficiency a class should get.
You could theoretically limit the martial proficiency to only ranged, agile and finesse weapons for the sake of the theme, but I think that is unnecessarily complicated. The limitations of sneak attack already do that just as well. Which is why the investigator doesn't do that, so Paizo might have the same idea.
The investigator's proficiencies are the other very good argument for why the rogue's proficiencies are an obsolete relic. The themes and mechanics are so very close that the differences make no sense. Same with the wizard and other squishy full casters to an extent.
Not to mention that the existence of certain archetype feats has no business dictating what proficiency a class should get.Would giving rogues proficiency in martial weapons not devalue feats like Fighter Dedication?Fighter dedication doesn't provide scaling. It's really bad for rogues.
Those are some very good points.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that if they decide giving the martial proficiency to all combatants ( classes which hit master weapon proficiency by lvl 13 ), I think they could revise the sneak attack ( as well as other precision or situational stuff ).
Allowing a rogue/investigator/swashbuckler to use anything they want is ok imo, but given a higher damage die, the sneak attack extra damage should be lowered.
For example,
- a dagger rogue would be able to deal 1d4+ 1d6 precision damage ( either finesse and agile )
- a rapier rogue would be able to deal 1d6+ 1d6 precision damage ( finesse )Let's also consider some cheat weapon, that now would be available with no tax feat ( given the martial proficiency to all combatants)
- a dogslicer rogue would be able to deal 1d6+1d6 ( either agile and finesse )
...
- 1d8 weapons may get 1d4 rather than 1d6 ( apart for the ruffian racket ), while 1d10 and 1d12 may simply respectively get +2 and +1 precision damage.
To make it short, the bigger the weapon, the less effective the sneak attack.
... What? Proficiency doesn't change how sneak attack works. You still need a ranged, agile or finesse weapon.
The biggest damage die you get with a martial finesse or agile weapon is d8, all 3 of which are already two-handed for a reason. Lowering the sneak attack die would make them literally worthless for nothing. There is one d10 martial ranged weapon, the repeating heavy crossbow, but that thing still has reload 1 in addition to still needing to catch the enemy flat-footed, which at range usually requires actions.
Yeah... this neither needs to happen nor will it.
The only change in balance that this would bring is that rogues could take Unconventional Weaponry to get sawtooth sabres and thus take the Red Mantis assassin archetype. Which rather niche and something they should be able to in the first place, so.. eh?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said it already.
The point was giving the whole access to martial weapons rather than "10 more weapons!" ( because of finesse / agile ) , or something similar, because how how it is "currently" ( because the rogue weapon proficiency ) designed the sneak attack feature.
Sneak attack is "currently" built around the "current" rogue weapon pool.
But same can be said of investigator, swashbuckler and so on ( swashbuckler has martial proficiency but guess what, he can only use a very small number of weapons among all of them ).
Sneak attack, like all comparable features, is balanced for the use with all agile, ranged and finesse weapons, not just the ones the rogue can use natively. If one ancestry feat ( e.g. unconventional weaponry or any elven weapon familiarity) could destroy that balance, it wouldn't be very well designed, now would it? Thankfully that claim is nonsense.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak attack, like all comparable features, is balanced for the use with all agile, ranged and finesse weapons, not just the ones the rogue can use natively. If one ancestry feat ( e.g. unconventional weaponry or any elven weapon familiarity) could destroy that balance, it wouldn't be very well designed, now would it? Thankfully that claim is nonsense.I said it already.
The point was giving the whole access to martial weapons rather than "10 more weapons!" ( because of finesse / agile ) , or something similar, because how how it is "currently" ( because the rogue weapon proficiency ) designed the sneak attack feature.
Sneak attack is "currently" built around the "current" rogue weapon pool.
But same can be said of investigator, swashbuckler and so on ( swashbuckler has martial proficiency but guess what, he can only use a very small number of weapons among all of them ).
That could be said about martial proficiency and tax feats to unlock weapons too ( as well as anything else it's not a rule), or do you just assume that giving martial proficiency is right because reasons?
Leaving apart that sneak attack is not balanced around agile/finesse weapons since CRB , because the ruffian can easily use a longspear, getting either reach and 1d8 weapon damage.
Also now, given the elven weapon familiarity, as you already pointed out, we already had a two hand 1d8 forced finesse weapon.And talking about the ruffian racket, which now has an exclusive "all simply weapons can be used to perform sneak attack", would then they be able to switch simple to martial, being able to use any 1d8 weapons? Or they'd be stuck with simple ones and because so get no bonuses like a scoundrel or a mastermind could instead have?
PS: not saying that I defend my proposal.
it was just some random guess, given the fact the topic was somehow related to a specific weapon pool ( somehow like the swashbuckler and investigator, that have a whole pool of weapons,...
Giving them martial proficiency is just adjusting them to the reality of 2e. There is a reason why we have never seen this since the CRB, it adds nothing to the experience and runs directly counter to Paizo's effort to streamline and broaden possible character choices, as others have pointed out. The investigator just proves that point. If that is not enough, it also locks them out of pretty much every newly released weapon for no reason, which makes things even worse. It is just an unnecessary hassle.
And that sneak attack is also balanced for simple weapons - which don't break the previously established limits either, it's still a two-handed d8, just like the elven curved sword - doesn't change or prove anything.
Nor would changing the base proficiencies have any effect on the ruffian racket or its use, which is why we didn't discuss that. It still a nice pick that provides better armour proficiency (allowing you to easily spec into heavy armour), the ability to go strength and a couple of half-decent weapons to use with sneak attack. Nothing has changed, especially since you can still use the other "new" weapons as well.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damn rogues stole the point of the thread….Wizards, fumble around with your not-slings and cudgel these beweapon’d churls into paste!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damn rogues stole the point of the thread….Wizards, fumble around with your not-slings and cudgel these beweapon’d churls into paste!
Typical rogue, stealing everything
(My apologies, I know I'm the one thtlat brought them up)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damn rogues stole the point of the thread….Wizards, fumble around with your not-slings and cudgel these beweapon’d churls into paste!Typical rogue, stealing everything
Hey, that's a stereotype!
Just like all Bards using rapiers and instruments!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've had 8 new classes released since the core. None of them have any bespoke weapon lists (feel free to quibble on the Gunslinger).
Its time to end the affectation of "class weapons" as a balance factor.
Playtest Investigator did... until data found the limitation to negatively impact customization without providing any balance benefit.
Gunslinger is limited, but it fulfills the fantasy it promises, while wizards being unable to punch people when metal is put on his fingers does not deliver the class fantasy of a wizard, nor does this limit balance the wizard
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Gunslinger is, in my opinion, actually what this whole concept should have looked like from the start.
Getting specalised / advanced progression with your class' preferred weapon groups incentivises use of those groups without restricting potential and or niche options. Not saying everyone should start at expert in their "class weapons" but perhaps early access to push their use.
Its a reward for playing to your strengths, not a punishment for stepping out of your lane.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd disagree with that because that +2 to your class weapons could also be taken as a -2 on all other weapons. The only reason I'm not bothered by the gunslinger is that the class is all about ranged weapons, and has access to basically every ranged weapon at max proficiency. Because it also grants "all firearms and crossbows", it's futureproofed for when they add in new weapons, unlike the very specific lists like wizard or rogue
Almost no weapon is worth using over one you're most proficient in at the cost of 10% less accuracy, except in niche corner cases
Damn rogues stole the point of the thread….Wizards, fumble around with your not-slings and cudgel these beweapon’d churls into paste!Typical rogue, stealing everythingHey, that's a stereotype!
Just like all Bards using rapiers and instruments!
Wizards and rogues are natural enemies!
Like foppish stereotypes and bards!
Or a horny reputation and bards!
Or emotion-proof enemies and bards!
Or bards and other bards!
Damn bards! They ruined music!
|
|
Perhaps the Gunslinger itself was a bad example, as it gets that +2 overall.
My initial thought was that you'd still reach whatever classes highest prof was (master for rogues, etc) but your class weapons would get there a bit faster, with the rest catching up in time.
Either way, it doesn't matter, as its not the system we have. Just a thought.