| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eyup.
While the weirdly scattered proficiency lists those classes use ends up being poor futureproofing and was i think, a mistake, I don't think it would have been a huge problem if not for the larger mistake of making proficiency feats not scale past Trained, and locking changes of equipment into "Ancestry or Archetype". Changing course on either would be good. Especially since the current situation can set a trap for less experienced players where they become trained with a weapon they feel fits their character, and don't see the problem they've set themselves up for until they're 5 levels in (for a rogue).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Can't say rogue martial weapon proficiency is a balance point I'm overly concerned about. All CharOp discussions are ultimately degenerate and will always be degen. Just let rogues have spears, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just let rogues have spears, etc.
The weird thing about the spear fear is that's one rogues can already do. Ruffians can freely use longspears and any rogue can pick up a branch spear for either an ancestry feat or a general+ancestry feat.
Meanwhile weapons mentioned upthread like flyssa and sword canes and kris daggers are functionally impossible to use under the status quo.
|
I think this is a fine suggestion if implemented not as Errata but instead as a very simple level 1 Feat. This kind of change is inarguably a rather immense bump to their power, They're two Classes that, balance-wise, are fine as-is, and a "free" change in this manner would just be a straight-up buff and in the case of Rogue, it would in nearly every case end up universally increasing their damage output by 1 or 2 Weapon Damage Die sizes across the board while the existing options will simply languish unused.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a fine suggestion if implemented not as Errata but instead as a very simple level 1 Feat. This kind of change is inarguably a rather immense bump to their power, They're two Classes that, balance-wise, are fine as-is, and a "free" change in this manner would just be a straight-up buff and in the case of Rogue, it would in nearly every case end up universally increasing their damage output by 1 or 2 Weapon Damage Die sizes across the board while the existing options will simply languish unused.
Two die sizes, eh? I haven't seen a d10 finesse weapon yet myself, but I haven't checked out the Treasure Vault release yet. Maybe you might point one out?
Ruffians technically couldn't benefit from this anyway, but if a corresponding buff came to their racket they might be able to pull off a sneak attack great sword, which sounds hilarious but I would agree might be beyond the call for this minor proofing buff.
Honestly, splitting the difference and giving Rogues only all agile/finesse martial weapon proficiencies would open up their options without really changing their balance.
|
|
Are you folks forgetting about Martial Ranged Weapons?
This change all on its own would relegate the existing Rogue Ranged Weapon options to the trash. Sure, not everyone plays a Ranged Rogue but those who do will swiftly find themselves upgrading at LEAST 1 Weapon Damage Die per attack the moment they can get to the front of the line of suspiciously dressed strangers are the strangely busy local ye olde Weapon Shoppe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was wondering that too... what is so much better than a shortbow that it'd cause a problem? Longbow? That's a tradeoff not an upgrade, and to be honest a longbow sniper rogue sounds awesome.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doing this will open up the rogue I wanted to play that uses a sword cane; a d6 weapon that is finesse, agile, and most importantly concealable. Being able to hide one’s weapon seems right up a rogue’s alley, but to use one per RAW requires multiple feats and caps at expert. That is a pointless gate to me.
I don’t think it matters much, and is fine to house rule however you want, and agree that class based weapon traits probably would have been a good idea. I agree that the plan from core rule book to APG changed and that the witch getting simple and the investigator getting martial make previous design decisions strange.
However, I think 3 weapon groups is too few categories for class definition around weapons. I get that many classes work around this by mentioning specific traits, and that kinda works ok, but I personally prefer that rogues not fit so squarely in the “martial character” hole that the can just pick up any weapon a fighter or a ranger can use and use it just fine. I like smaller groups of weapons that are specific to specific classes, with archetypes as the way different classes breach that. Even though I agree that the implantation in PF2 of this idea feels under developed and possibly abandoned at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you folks forgetting about Martial Ranged Weapons?
This change all on its own would relegate the existing Rogue Ranged Weapon options to the trash. Sure, not everyone plays a Ranged Rogue but those who do will swiftly find themselves upgrading at LEAST 1 Weapon Damage Die per attack the moment they can get to the front of the line of suspiciously dressed strangers are the strangely busy local ye olde Weapon Shoppe.
I'm also a bit confused with what you're talking about. Shortbow / Composite Shortbow is pretty much regarded as the best ranged weapon in the game everywhere. The Gakgung is a sidegrade that might be mildly better for some Rogue builds, but it's like, 0,01% better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think it matters much, and is fine to house rule however you want, and agree that class based weapon traits probably would have been a good idea. I agree that the plan from core rule book to APG changed and that the witch getting simple and the investigator getting martial make previous design decisions strange.
However, I think 3 weapon groups is too few categories for class definition around weapons. I get that many classes work around this by mentioning specific traits, and that kinda works ok, but I personally prefer that rogues not fit so squarely in the “martial character” hole that the can just pick up any weapon a fighter or a ranger can use and use it just fine. I like smaller groups of weapons that are specific to specific classes, with archetypes as the way different classes breach that. Even though I agree that the implantation in PF2 of this idea feels under developed and possibly abandoned at this point.
The problem with this approach is... who decides what weapon is or isn't appropriate for a specific class? You? Some designer catering to their own preferences? Any answer to this question will inevitably be wrong for a large number of people. I don't think this really works. Giving people all simple or all martial and letting them decide what fits their character concept is much better for all parties involved, except people who get bothered when someone else plays a vision of a class that they don't share.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there existed an archetype that granted scaling proficiency with one handed martial weapons, this wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem as it is.
Yeah, it's REALLY annoying that you can snag Mauler Dedication for a single 2nd level feat and get the scaling ability to use those spears some fear or Archer dedication for bows/crossbows but you can't do the same with single handed weapons which would arguably be more on 'theme' that some want to preserve.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK I'm going to be a stick in the mud.
I agree with all the detail surrounding Rogue weapons whould be gone. If you can use your weapon for sneak attack then it should qualify for weapon tricks I hate that there is some fine print there.
But after that I disagree.
Why are you complaining about Wizards and Rogues and not about Bards? I don't think that is balanced. Drop the extra weapons off Bard. It actually makes a Warrior Bard a reasonable choice.
Personally I think it is a minor flavour element that is easily dealt with in game. I am happy that the status quo which adds a bit more complexity to weapons choices for these classes.
I doubt any single developer at Paizo feels like the weapons and weapon proficiency system of PF2 is perfect, or even the best it will ever be, and that some of these debates are ongoing internally.
The decision to only care about damage dice, damage type and weapon traits and not accuracy, fatigue/weight, and durability was a choice right out of the gate that going to do weird things to what weapons made sense for trained soldiers to bring into battle vs a character that is not supposed to feel like a soldier. It is not a system designed for realism, it is a system for telling the stories that the company wanted to tell, which apparently mean rogues that typically use daggers, short swords and short bows unless they make build choices that expand that.
Honestly, I’d rather see wizards, rogues and bards taken back a proficiency level rather than boosted to the next one by default.
I’d like to see more combat style archetypes too, especially in a big book of martial warfare that included kingdom building and army rules.
If any class was going to spend 0 class budget on martial combat ability, it should be the wizard. All classes have to be proficient in unarmed attack and unarmed defense for basic math elements of the game.
BUT WIZARDS NEED THEIR STAVES!!!! because narrative reasons...so wizards should just get simple weapon proficiency? That really seems like misplaced class build budget.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am astounded that you would seriously consider removing all weapon proficiency from a class just for the heck of it. This may be your least well thought out opinion yet.
I am saying if the choice is between no weapon proficiency and simple, I’d rather have at least 1 class that can focus entirely on casting and not spend any default budget on simple weapon proficiency, and have to boost all of those at level 11 to expert, just so it can hold the staff that it is 99% of the time using as a magical focus and not a weapon.
Or they can just leave it so wizards get a small handful of weapons that are vestigial and recognizably worse than getting simple weapon proficiency, but still be able to functionally use the staff they are holding anyway once or twice in their lifetime as an actual weapon.
I just don’t think the super bookworm class needs to invest 2 separate profiency boosts on learning how to use spears and hand cannons.
I fully support giving rogues martial proficiency and restricting wizards to simple weapon proficiency.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If any class was going to spend 0 class budget on martial combat ability, it should be the wizard. All classes have to be proficient in unarmed attack and unarmed defense for basic math elements of the game.
BUT WIZARDS NEED THEIR STAVES!!!! because narrative reasons...so wizards should just get simple weapon proficiency? That really seems like misplaced class build budget.
What exactly did they gain from no class budget for martial combat ability? I am not seeing anything.
I'm not sure if simple weapons are an actual cost when it comes to class budget since we only have one example where it's not used and there doesn't seem to be a measurable tradeoff that couldn't be accounted for by other means. It's likely not a budget balance point.
If that is true, then simple weapons isn’t actually a proficiency category at all. Either it or unarmed weapon proficiency would not need to exist and it was entirely wasted design space. I agree that it might have functionally turned out that way after the APG, but it obviously was not an intentional design choice from the beginning. Honestly, I would prefer more classes with less than simple weapon proficiency because simple weapons really only are about 2 damage points per die behind martial weapon proficiency when optimizing for pure damage. It’s not a big enough difference really to explain being trained to fight with weapons for war and not.
What exactly did they gain from no class budget for martial combat ability? I am not seeing anything.If any class was going to spend 0 class budget on martial combat ability, it should be the wizard. All classes have to be proficient in unarmed attack and unarmed defense for basic math elements of the game.
BUT WIZARDS NEED THEIR STAVES!!!! because narrative reasons...so wizards should just get simple weapon proficiency? That really seems like misplaced class build budget.
I am saying any boost to the wizard class should go towards its spell budget, not its weapon budget. I want at least 1 class where you can rest assured everything has gone into giving you as many spells to cast as possible. Clearly, that is the wizard, and that was made clear in the games design by having it not get simple weapon proficiency.
I'm not sure if simple weapons are an actual cost when it comes to class budget since we only have one example where it's not used and there doesn't seem to be a measurable tradeoff that couldn't be accounted for by other means. It's likely not a budget balance point.If that is true, then simple weapons isn’t actually a proficiency category at all. Either it or unarmed weapon proficiency would not need to exist and it was entirely wasted design space. I agree that it might have functionally turned out that way after the APG, but it obviously was not an intentional design choice from the beginning. Honestly, I would prefer more classes with less than simple weapon proficiency because simple weapons really only are about 2 damage points per die behind martial weapon proficiency when optimizing for pure damage. It’s not a big enough difference really to explain being trained to fight with weapons for war and not.
Well, even monks, the class that's base focus is punching people, has simple proficiency and I don't see that they gave anything up for it: even they get the ability to swing a farm implement [sickle], sling a rock and bash someone with a mace. A can't see a reason, at base, that they spend more time on those weapons than a wizard does.
Because giving wizards a boost by giving them better weapon proficiencies is the wrong direction to be moving the class. And if giving them simple weapon proficiency is in no way boosting the class at all, then why does anyone care about it?
I am saying any boost to the wizard class should go towards its spell budget, not its weapon budget. I want at least 1 class where you can rest assured everything has gone into giving you as many spells to cast as possible. Clearly, that is the wizard, and that was made clear in the games design by having it not get simple weapon proficiency.What exactly did they gain from no class budget for martial combat ability? I am not seeing anything.If any class was going to spend 0 class budget on martial combat ability, it should be the wizard. All classes have to be proficient in unarmed attack and unarmed defense for basic math elements of the game.
BUT WIZARDS NEED THEIR STAVES!!!! because narrative reasons...so wizards should just get simple weapon proficiency? That really seems like misplaced class build budget.
That would work for me as well. Some kind of casting advantage to warrant being so weak in so many other areas.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because giving wizards a boost by giving them better weapon proficiencies is the wrong direction to be moving the class. And if giving them simple weapon proficiency is in no way boosting the class at all, then why does anyone care about it?
Well, maybe they actually want to wield the clan dagger they get as a dwarf? Or the halfling with a frying pan? Or a Stiletto Pen for a scroll making wizard. Or a wheelchair bound wizard using the wheel weapons? one with a Farmsteader background wants a sickle? Or maybe they just like the idea of having a Hand Cannon in case their spells aren't effective and think it's cool they can fire anything they can shove into the barrel at monsters?
As to "why does anyone care", I'd refer you to the Saying "Yes, But" section, Gamemastery Guide pg. 29, "It’s usually better to say “yes” than “no,” within reason." If there is no boost, why say no is a much more important question than "why does anyone care" as the important part is that someone does.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that is true, then simple weapons isn’t actually a proficiency category at all. Either it or unarmed weapon proficiency would not need to exist and it was entirely wasted design space.
That's a really strange logical leap. Just because something is the baseline doesn't mean it has no reason to exist?
I agree that it might have functionally turned out that way after the APG, but it obviously was not an intentional design choice from the beginning.
This seems like a bit of a stretch too. Yes, wizards (and only wizards) don't have simple proficiency, but there's nothing to indicate this was ever meant to matter in any conceivable way. It's also telling that the original design for the witch (which is the closest proximity to the CRB we have outside it) had an identical chassis to the wizard except for full simple weapon proficiency.
All this talk about power budgets seems to suppose that there's some significant or meaningful aspect of a class' power tied to being able to wield weapons at the most basic level, but there's zero evidence anywhere in the game to support that notion.
And if giving them simple weapon proficiency is in no way boosting the class at all, then why does anyone care about it?
Is it really that hard to conceive that someone might want to just tack something onto their character for fun?
Because giving wizards a boost by giving them better weapon proficiencies is the wrong direction to be moving the class. And if giving them simple weapon proficiency is in no way boosting the class at all, then why does anyone care about it?People care because wizards with weapons are still a concept people may want to play and not having simple weapons gates those concepts unnecessarily. Especially with some of the easier gates like weapon familiarity feats. They simply don't work with wizards and only wizards. It feels bad.
Edit: the scaling part doesn't work anyways.
Basically this. It's not about "boosting" the class; it's about getting to sit down to a table and play Gunpowder Gandalf if I feel like, and not having to jump through weird amounts of hoops to make that happen.
Also not having to deal with the cognitive disconnect of playing a character who is apparently intelligent enough to unravel the mysteries of the universe, but gets totally stumped if you slip metal gloves over their hands and ask them to punch something.
For me, it's more basic than this: why make a streamlined system [simple, martial, advanced] and then turn around and not use it without a really good reason. I'd ask the same question if for some reason the witch had a unique spell list after they made such a fuss about getting rid of them for a new streamlined system. It just seems like added complexity for no benefit.
Which is why I’d rather the wizard start with no weapon proficiencies than simple if people feel like those should be the only two choices. There are a dozen ways to build a caster who can gain weapon proficiencies in the game. Why shouldn’t fighters be able to just cast spells without investing feats in it?
A GM is well within their rights to say “yes, and” when it is their game and they want every character to have a firearm. Other GMs only have to say “No” when the rules are overly permissive to begin with.
As far as where it fits in the power budget, the wizard stars off with one more spell slot per day than the sorcerer with bonded item. That is a flexible slot that can be sided to cast any spell you have memorized and cast that day. Wizard is my favorite class because it goes all in on spell slot spells. I would much, much, much rather see weapons be the additional opt in, than the default option of the class. I don’t object to class archetypes like the rune lord archetype that give a martial weapon profiency to the wizard as a part of the power budget. Maybe the wizard could get a spell thesis that grants simple weapon proficency and a limited use ability to make a free action weapon strike against a target who has just been damaged by a spell slot spell they have cast.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why I’d rather the wizard start with no weapon proficiencies than simple if people feel like those should be the only two choices.
Even at no benefit to yourself? Just to screw people who might want to hold a weapon? That just seems so... idk, how does that help anything?
Why shouldn’t fighters be able to just cast spells without investing feats in it?
And this is just a clear false equivalence.