Errata Suggestion - Wizard and Rogue Weapon Proficiency

[Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich]

Fair enough.

[Unicore]

Squiggit wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Why shouldn’t fighters be able to just cast spells without investing feats in it?

And this is just a clear false equivalence.

How so? There are literally feats for granting weapon proficiency.

The fighter MC feat grants a wizard simple and martial weapon proficiencies for one feat. The game isn't taking anything away, and I am not suggesting removing the wizards current weapon proficiencies. I am saying giving the wizard simple weapons as just a errata boost would feel like it is saying the wizard isn't good enough, but instead of giving it anything useful, let's give it more weapon proficiencies.

[Arachnofiend]

Gortle wrote:

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 actually do agree that Bards should have been downgraded to simple weapons when they were turned into a full caster. It's a lot harder to convince people to give something up than it is to get them to fight to gain something, though.

[Perpdepog]

Unicore wrote:

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?

I'm not sure who these "people who feel those should be the only two choices" are that you're referring to. You were the one who introduced the idea of wizards losing all weapon proficiencies into the discourse; this binary is one that you brought to the conversation.

As to the second point, are you telling me that you truly believe that getting to bonk someone with a stick but not with a slightly differently-shaped stick and granting a class spellcasting are equivalent?

[Unicore]

The premise of this thread seems to be: classes that get a couple of weapons in a proficiency group really should just get all weapon proficiency in that group, it is only punishing them not to.

When in reality those are classes that shouldn’t have weapon proficiencies in that higher group, but get a couple as a bonus for predominantly legacy reasons that often tie to very specific and mechanical game space (wizards will really want to be holding a staff, we might as well let them swing it/ let’s give Bilbo sting).

I don’t terribly mind a small handful of limited bonus weapon proficiencies because it doesn’t really elevate the class for archetype options that require higher level proficiency and it keeps classes that are not supposed to be fighters but with slightly less accuracy from intruding on that space. But I’d rather lose that than see the game creep towards “ just give everyone every weapon proficiency because weapons are really just flavor, aren’t they?”

[Lollerabe]

Yeah but the problem is that the argument is lacking nuance. Rogues are never encroaching on the fighters 'weapons master' trope. Due to how limited sneak attack is.

And when were rogues known for using simple weapons outside of a few lagacy exceptions ?

As many others have said by now - rogues already have access to mechanically strong weapons - shortbow and rapier.

More often than not it's a side grade not an upgrade we're talking about here. Or a flavor thing.

One of issues is also how inconsistent the in game logic is: as a ruffian I can sneak attack with a mace. If I attach a few links of chain between the handle and head, it's a flail aaaaaand it's gone *insert south park meme*.

5e had a similar problem - you had to use a finesse weapon to sneak attack. But you could opt not to use dex when using a finesse weapon. So i could be a raging barb getting SA with my strength based rapier. But a Warhammer ? That would be crazy. Although the weapons were more or less identical.

And yes, giving rogues acces to martial weapons as a category does allow them easier access to certain things. Such as specific archetypes etc. But again, nothing that seems to shift the balance

[Rysky]

Wizard Stiletto Pen build too OP, plz nerf Paizo

[shepsquared]

Unicore wrote:

The premise of this thread seems to be: classes that get a couple of weapons in a proficiency group really should just get all weapon proficiency in that group, it is only punishing them not to.

When in reality those are classes that shouldn’t have weapon proficiencies in that higher group, but get a couple as a bonus for predominantly legacy reasons that often tie to very specific and mechanical game space (wizards will really want to be holding a staff, we might as well let them swing it/ let’s give Bilbo sting).

I don’t terribly mind a small handful of limited bonus weapon proficiencies because it doesn’t really elevate the class for archetype options that require higher level proficiency and it keeps classes that are not supposed to be fighters but with slightly less accuracy from intruding on that space. But I’d rather lose that than see the game creep towards “ just give everyone every weapon proficiency because weapons are really just flavor, aren’t they?”

Why should wizards not have simple weapon proficiency when every other spellcaster does?

What benefit do they get over sorcerers, witches, bards and psychics for the lowered proficiency? They have the same spell, save and armour progression, number of spell slots is obviously balanced by other class features, it isn't determined by the primary ability...

The penalty is that someone wanting to play an unusual wizard that waves around a frying pan or joins an order like the Hellknight Signifers has to jump through a bunch of extra hoops but there's no commensurate payoff, nor is there really a power boost from investing in weapon proficiency.

[Ched Greyfell]

graystone wrote:

Yeah, I'm all for it. Heck, I'd even take a 1st or 2nd level feat to do that if they don't want to alter the original proficiencies.

They have a feat like this. It's called Fighter Dedication.

[Smite Makes Right]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

So, wizards and rogues don't get simple/martial weapon proficiency. Just a selection of weapons. Everyone seems to agree this is simply a 1e legacy move.

I agree that Wizards should have simple weapon proficiency.

If Rogues get martial weapon proficiency, bards should as well.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

I'm trying to picture the wizard so chronically learned that they do not even know how to brandish a club. I'm not feeling it.

[graystone]

Ched Greyfell wrote:

graystone wrote:

Yeah, I'm all for it. Heck, I'd even take a 1st or 2nd level feat to do that if they don't want to alter the original proficiencies.

They have a feat like this. It's called Fighter Dedication.

No, They JUST get trained with that and not a scaling proficiency like their starting ones. They also would need a 14 str for the feat, where an in class feat most likely wouldn't have a stat requirement. As such, it's not equivalent and isn't what's suggested.

[Onkonk]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Some of the old classics like bespoke Simple minus for wizards or bespoke simple + a few for rogues and bards (or druids balancing around only nonmetal options which are weaker in terms of shields and restrict your high AC armor options), are a little odd. It might have been better to just have wizards and bards go simple, rogues go martial, and druids use metal, from a streamlining gameplay perspective. But sometimes people value the tradition. Designers tend to be the ones who are willing to reexamine tradition and propose radical new ideas, so I'd definitely propose it again!

Link

I hope Paizo are willing to reexamine tradition on this :)

[dmerceless]

Even the designers said this has nothing to do with power budget or balance, and was just for tradition's sake. As shown above. The lengths some go and the mental gymnastics they do to play devil's advocate and justify whatever design is currently in the game is, honestly, impressive. I wish I had that amount of dedication on my professional career.

[25speedforseaweedleshy]

player doesn't want things to change was the biggest problem any new system face

there are still ridiculous amount of excuses some player come up with to justify 1e being better in someway than 2e 4 year after 2e come out

there are even some player still trying to say thaco is good

[BloodandDust]

Is this just wishing for a class-less game system?

There are a lot of recent threads that want to change around (or eliminate) class-design distinctions - essentially all of them asking for mix and match features of one type or another.

Maybe Paizo could look into an optional system (like free-archetype on steroids) that has just one level-zero base class ('Peasant') with everything else above that as a feature (class, general, ancestry, etc). Not sure how, or if, one could achieve game balance that way, but it seems like that's the ask from at least one small group.

In case it is not already obvious, my own opinion is that PF2e works very well as-is. There is a great combination of flexibility, overall balance, simplicity for new players, complexity for experienced players, and a broad ability to build interesting and playable concepts.

If I *were* going to update Rogue, it would be to make the class simple-weapon only, and maybe change Duellist archetype to give scaling one-handed-finesse weapon proficiency instead of quick draw (a la Mauler).

Rapiers are classically swashbuckler weapons, not thieves and assassins tools, anyway. Pretty sure they only gave rapiers to the Rogue class because, before swashbuckler (which is a roguish fighter), the way to build a musketeer or pirate concept was using the Rogue chassis. Now that we have SB, a rapier Rogue feels unnecessary.

[pixierose]

So i want to share a couple of example issues, the first one in particular is quite odd.

The Bladed Scarf, a weapon designed in lore to be a weapon one could wear without it obviously being a weapon. Perfect for someone who may not want to look suspiscious, such as a rogue..

Can only be used by rogues currently via going the Mauler Archetype. An archetype that requires a strength score of 14 and arguabavly moves the character further away from the classic rogue character theme( it works well for ruffians theme) if you were worried about that.

If rogues had martial proficency a Rogue could just use it, and focus their feats on more rogue feats or whatever they want.

Rogues also currently dont have proficency with stuff like alchemist flasks and acid, which it really feels like they should, they fit for all sorts of rogueish characters.

Wizards and simple weapons for me is more about streamlining the game and allowing others to have fun. I currently dont have any big character ideas for weapon having wizards, but maybe one day I will, and people clearly have ideas now.

[Kekkres]

my opinion is that if investigators moving from an even MORE restricted weapon list to full martial access in the release was the right move than it should also be the case for rogue

[Trixleby]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

graystone wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

- it gives access to d8 weapons.

To UNCOMMON 1d8 weapons.

Yes? Your point?

graystone wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

- it removes the ancestry feat cost from things like the curve blade, the branched spear and the dogslicer... unless your GM and/or PFS demands that you spend a feat as the price of getting access to the physical object, and that's kind of feelsbad, you know?

It gives access to advanced weapons with the feat, like a kobold with a Flying Talon.

This is true... and it's a further buff. I'm just speaking from the perspective of someone who, with a goblin rogue, might well be inclined to spend those feats on the dogslicer.

graystone wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Moreover, it's worth considering what it would mean for the preferred rogue weapons. In many cases, it would mean spears. I think ti's reasonable to not put rogue players in the position of deciding between being suboptimal on the one side or weilding a spear on the other. Spears aren't really a "classic rogue image" thing.

I mean, who cares about the "classic rogue image"? I mean, if that's the case, they'd be restricted to daggers... :P

Well... I do. The whole thing about rogues is supposed to be sneaking around, dirty tricks, underhanded techniques, and hitting them while they're down. Spears... don't really fit into that image particularly well. Classes are supposed to be both crunch and flavor, right? It'd be like all of those paladins being raised in gnomish orphanages all over again.

Past that, do you think that rogues need the buff? I think it's pretty clear that for them, this *is* a meaningful buff.

As someone who also has a level 2 PFS Goblin Rogue... I did spend my level 1 ancestry feat on Dogslicer :D

[pixierose]

I think "people want a classless game" is a pretty big leap from, "these classes are outliers from the game design, strictly due to legacy reasons. The legacy reasons is a weaker argument because their thematic cousins do not also have these outlier characteristics. And in fact the legacy reasons, alongside the mechanics of the game means thematic weapon choices are either gated from the class or are only obtainable via options that sometimes clash with the class fantasy."

Now I cant speak for other posts or threads you've seen. But at least in this thread it seems like a pretty big leap

[Captain Morgan]

I don't think wizards need to lose weapon proficiency, but I actually kind of like the idea of simple weapons being eliminated as a category. Have them use the same basic proficiency as unarmed strikes and improvised weapons. But I enjoy Dungeon World, where every class has a damage dice they deal regardless of their weapon, and weapons add traits and bonuses on top of said damage dice.

At this point it would kind of seem like change for the sake of change, but hypothetically it is interesting.

[graystone]

Captain Morgan wrote:

I don't think wizards need to lose weapon proficiency, but I actually kind of like the idea of simple weapons being eliminated as a category.

In essence that's what's being suggested: if the wizard joined every other class with Simple weapon proficiency, then it becomes just like unarmed and can be assumed with whatever class you look at.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Have them use the same basic proficiency as unarmed strikes and improvised weapons.

LOL That's a funny thing though, as wizards are the only class that can't figure out how to make an improvised weapon attack as they are simple weapons... Pretty sad for a supposedly smart class. :P

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Unicore wrote:

The premise of this thread seems to be: classes that get a couple of weapons in a proficiency group really should just get all weapon proficiency in that group, it is only punishing them not to.

When in reality those are classes that shouldn’t have weapon proficiencies in that higher group, but get a couple as a bonus for predominantly legacy reasons that often tie to very specific and mechanical game space (wizards will really want to be holding a staff, we might as well let them swing it/ let’s give Bilbo sting).

I don’t terribly mind a small handful of limited bonus weapon proficiencies because it doesn’t really elevate the class for archetype options that require higher level proficiency and it keeps classes that are not supposed to be fighters but with slightly less accuracy from intruding on that space. But I’d rather lose that than see the game creep towards “ just give everyone every weapon proficiency because weapons are really just flavor, aren’t they?”

The issue isn't that weapons are "just flavor," because if they were, then you would not need the added variable in weapons that we currently have. Even discounting that, plenty of weapons that are similar are given distinctions to them to differentiate what these weapons are capable of.

In reality, the issue is that classes with limited proficiencies are already limited in weapon choice based on their class features, and limiting them further because of a lack of extra options via bloat that other classes get (but these ones don't) is just overly punishing when they are already at a disadvantage as it is due to class features limiting them, as well as the unfair application of "proficiency scaling" feats, most notably seen in the relevant (Ancestry) Weapon Familiarity feats, where it treats Martials and Simples and Advanced as Martials. Why should a few classes get punished for these benefits that are opt-in and have a cost associated with them? It's the "Exotic" proficiency feat of PF1 all over again, but worse this time, because now it's targeting only certain classes.

[Grankless]

it's awesome that the core argument against rogue martial proficiency is "they may do things they already can do"

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Not gonna lie, I do find the idea of rogues being cut down to only simple weapons strangely compelling. There are times when I am a little disappointed picking out my weapon that my best choice is always already made for me: either I wield a sword or a rapier. This is great for Rogues who embody the fencing duelist vibe and I've made those Rogues, too. I would have probably been more disappointed to lack those options before Swashbuckler was a thing... but I'm still a little put out that even the most knife-nut of a character still probably fights with a sword when it comes to melee.

Mind you, a perfectly valid solution is just some way for a dagger specialist to make up the difference a la the way a Cleric/Champion of a deity who grants simple weapon proficiency. That might even be the best way, but what if instead of spending character options to make daggers viable, we re-imagined the rogue as a character who gets the upper hand with clever use of humble weaponry, and have a character option for those who do go the backstabbing duelist route so they can have martial proficiency?

(Obvious note: Of course I would be assuming that rogue DPS doesn't change in this shift, this isn't asking for Rogues to be nerfed, this is just asking for Rogues to have a choice to wield simple weapons without kneecapping themselves by intentionally forgoing the best agile/finesse weapons in the game.)

Still in favour of Rogues just getting all martial agile/finesse, but what if, you know?

[Karmagator]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Not gonna lie, I do find the idea of rogues being cut down to only simple weapons strangely compelling. There are times when I am a little disappointed picking out my weapon that my best choice is always already made for me: either I wield a sword or a rapier. This is great for Rogues who embody the fencing duelist vibe and I've made those Rogues, too. I would have probably been more disappointed to lack those options before Swashbuckler was a thing... but I'm still a little put out that even the most knife-nut of a character still probably fights with a sword when it comes to melee.

Mind you, a perfectly valid solution is just some way for a dagger specialist to make up the difference a la the way a Cleric/Champion of a deity who grants simple weapon proficiency. That might even be the best way, but what if instead of spending character options to make daggers viable, we re-imagined the rogue as a character who gets the upper hand with clever use of humble weaponry, and have a character option for those who do go the backstabbing duelist route so they can have martial proficiency?

(Obvious note: Of course I would be assuming that rogue DPS doesn't change in this shift, this isn't asking for Rogues to be nerfed, this is just asking for Rogues to have a choice to wield simple weapons without kneecapping themselves by intentionally forgoing the best agile/finesse weapons in the game.)

Still in favour of Rogues just getting all martial agile/finesse, but what if, you know?

If the weapon categories were actually consistent with regards to the nature of the weapons in them and the complexity involved in learning them, then that might make sense for thematic reasons at first glance; However, using a "simple" dagger or katar properly can be quite complex and they are intended to be weapons. Using a "martial" warhammer on the other hand is very similar to a "simple" mace, meaning there is not a lot of finesse involved. I also say at first glance, because the rogue is an artificial mashup of dozens of archetypes (in the non-PF sense of the word), only some of whom don't fight with "proper" weapons. The prevalence of the rapier in fiction alone firmly puts that idea into the ground.

That said, the rogue actually having class feats that make things like daggers worth using would be appreciated. Using the martial versions and perhaps reflavouring them a bit works, but you know... it would be nice.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Karmagator wrote:

Using the martial versions and perhaps reflavouring them a bit works, but you know... it would be nice.

Digging through all the dagger-like weapons in the knives weapon category has me wanting martial Rogues even more. I only even really want the agile/finesse weapons. None of these are better than a short sword, mechanically, but they're very cool.

[Unicore]

The thing is, the extra weapon proficiencies are bonuses, not limitations. The rogue is already an exceptional damage dealer. With party support they pretty easily become the best damage dealer in the game. The problem with the investigator is that it wasn’t anywhere near the rogue on reliable damage dealing. There was room to give more proficiencies there because the class was behind.

The rogue that really benefits from getting martial weapons are rogues that are just mining for agile weapons, and will be attacking with STR instead of dex. Rogues want good agile weapons. Hatchets that are d6, agile, sweep and thrown are incredible for a strong rogue with a decent dex. The double accuracy boost of agile and sweep on sneak attack is absolutely an upgrade over the short sword and you can throw it in a pinch. Your next + dread striker and you have a death machine. Kill a target on your first attack? Intimidate another foe and you have a flat footed enemy that you can attack with essentially a -3 MAP. This combo is already possible, but it takes investment to make happen. The rogue really doesn’t need it for free.

[Lollerabe]

Unicore wrote:

The thing is, the extra weapon proficiencies are bonuses, not limitations. The rogue is already an exceptional damage dealer. With party support they pretty easily become the best damage dealer in the game. The problem with the investigator is that it wasn’t anywhere near the rogue on reliable damage dealing. There was room to give more proficiencies there because the class was behind.

The rogue that really benefits from getting martial weapons are rogues that are just mining for agile weapons, and will be attacking with STR instead of dex. Rogues want good agile weapons. Hatchets that are d6, agile, sweep and thrown are incredible for a strong rogue with a decent dex. The double accuracy boost of agile and sweep on sneak attack is absolutely an upgrade over the short sword and you can throw it in a pinch. Your next + dread striker and you have a death machine. Kill a target on your first attack? Intimidate another foe and you have a flat footed enemy that you can attack with essentially a -3 MAP. This combo is already possible, but it takes investment to make happen. The rogue really doesn’t need it for free.

That's just a bunch of hyperbole. Hatchets aren't 'incredible strong' come on.

Most of your 'death machine' build is available to any rogue. Get an agile weapon and your next + dread striker. There you go.

Hatchets aren't stronger than options already available to the rogues as is.

The leaps some go to in order to defend questionable design choices are interesting

[Karmagator]

Unicore wrote:

The thing is, the extra weapon proficiencies are bonuses, not limitations. The rogue is already an exceptional damage dealer. With party support they pretty easily become the best damage dealer in the game. The problem with the investigator is that it wasn’t anywhere near the rogue on reliable damage dealing. There was room to give more proficiencies there because the class was behind.

The rogue that really benefits from getting martial weapons are rogues that are just mining for agile weapons, and will be attacking with STR instead of dex. Rogues want good agile weapons. Hatchets that are d6, agile, sweep and thrown are incredible for a strong rogue with a decent dex. The double accuracy boost of agile and sweep on sneak attack is absolutely an upgrade over the short sword and you can throw it in a pinch. Your next + dread striker and you have a death machine. Kill a target on your first attack? Intimidate another foe and you have a flat footed enemy that you can attack with essentially a -3 MAP. This combo is already possible, but it takes investment to make happen. The rogue really doesn’t need it for free.

The investigator has a lot more problems than just the rogue and that's not limited to their poor damage either. Putting fewer limitations on the rogue wouldn't change anything in that regard. But that's getting too far away from the main topic. I'm gonna make a separate thread for that.

Let's just set aside the devs' explanation (a source for that would be nice btw ^^) and look at what we have. Because I don't see a problem with what you describe. If this would be an overall buff to the rogue then fair point. But this just allows you to pick cool sidegrades - which most people find much more important - and makes a rather fringe build path viable. That is not something that deserves an investment. Investments are for things that make your character stronger, everything else is poor design - looking at you, weapon monk.

Taking a closer look at that STR rogue build path using agile weapons, I don't see how this is stronger than existing options.

(1) Thief rogue exists and does just as much damage. More once they take Precise Debilitations.

(2) Yes, Sweep+Agile sounds very good, but it is way more situational and less impressive than that. Firstly, it is only a benefit if you have a second enemy in reach and they are also flat-footed, which is very rarely the case in my experience. That also makes it useless in challenging single-target fights, such as many bosses, where you actually desperately need it. Secondly, spreading damage (as you have to hit a different target) is only a good idea if you have no choice or are using aoe spells/abilities. In all other cases, you are just helping the enemy.

(3) The Intimidation part gets tricky, because for that to work, you have to both kill an opponent and that has to happen basically as your first action. Again, very, very situational. Dread Striker + Dirge of Doom from a bard (or another source of frightened from your team) is a much more reliable combo and can be done by any rogue.

(4) The thrown part isn't exactly stellar either, as any DEX rogue would have a much better attack modifier and can do the previously mentioned Dread Striker combo as well.

(5) In addition to all of that, you are MAD as hell, which causes it's own problems.

So yeah, I see what you are saying, but I just don't agree that it is a problem.

[dmerceless]

We won. Per Erik Mona on the Roll for Combat Pathfinder Remaster Youtube stream, Rogues are getting martial weapons and Wizards simple. Just wanted to say that.

[Deriven Firelion]

Damn. That will make for more interesting builds. Nice.

[pixierose]

we popping the biggest bottle. so happy about the rogues.

[Perpdepog]

Gunmage is go, noice.

[graystone]

Now I can make a dwarf wizard that can use a Long Hammer and Clan Pistol! Or a dwarven rogue that uses a Dwarven Scattergun! Or a catfolk rogue with a Whip Claw! Oh, the possibilities!

[Old_Man_Robot]

Ah! Victory!

Now you won't have to burn a feat just to do dumb things with Hand of the Apprentice.

[3-Body Problem]

Now we just need to get them to fix monk weapons.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

I personally don't like Rogues to get martial as I think they are already little too good of a class, but oh well, I am not Paizo so I will have to roll with it. Congrat to those who wanted it.

[Rysky]

Opening up basic proficiencies is not a game breaker on any class. You had to deal with feat taxes for flavor purposes.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Rysky wrote:

Opening up basic proficiencies is not a game breaker on any class. You had to deal with feat taxes for flavor purposes.

I would say for "balance" purposes. Now you will see every Rogue running around with Bladed Scarf for reach + finesse + flail crit spec + trip on it.

[AestheticDialectic]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Opening up basic proficiencies is not a game breaker on any class. You had to deal with feat taxes for flavor purposes.

I would say for "balance" purposes. Now you will see every Rogue running around with Bladed Scarf for reach + finesse + flail crit spec + trip on it.

You have to admit though, that this is a very rogue-ish weapon

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Opening up basic proficiencies is not a game breaker on any class. You had to deal with feat taxes for flavor purposes.

I would say for "balance" purposes. Now you will see every Rogue running around with Bladed Scarf for reach + finesse + flail crit spec + trip on it.

You have to admit though, that this is a very rogue-ish weapon

Totally not. It's way more Swashbuckler weapon or DEX Fighter, or even monk for me. I just think Rogue will jump above the balance curve, especially Thief now with Bladed Scarf, debilitations and Sneak Attack on top of reach, trip and flail spec. Before Rogues had to chose Ruffian to be able to get reach 2 handed spear, but that came at cost of not getting Thief, not getting any other traits on reach weapon, which was imo balanced considering Sneak Attack damage + their feats like Dread Striker, Gang Up, Mobility, Opportunate Backstab etc.

Now there will be no reason to not take Thief for maximum damage with Bladed Scarf. Add Mauler dedication on top for Knockdown (which now you can make on reach with Bladed Scarf and it's two handed so it ignores need of free hand and Trip to use weapon reach) and Improved Knockdown for Thief.

In my opinion this is too much on already A-tier class that can dish out so much damage.

[Jacob Jett]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Opening up basic proficiencies is not a game breaker on any class. You had to deal with feat taxes for flavor purposes.

I would say for "balance" purposes. Now you will see every Rogue running around with Bladed Scarf for reach + finesse + flail crit spec + trip on it.

You have to admit though, that this is a very rogue-ish weapon

Totally not. It's way more Swashbuckler weapon or DEX Fighter, or even monk for me. I just think Rogue will jump above the balance curve, especially Thief now with Bladed Scarf, debilitations and Sneak Attack on top of reach, trip and flail spec. Before Rogues had to chose Ruffian to be able to get reach 2 handed spear, but that came at cost of not getting Thief, not getting any other traits on reach weapon, which was imo balanced considering Sneak Attack damage + their feats like Dread Striker, Gang Up, Mobility, Opportunate Backstab etc.

Now there will be no reason to not take Thief for maximum damage with Bladed Scarf. Add Mauler dedication on top for Knockdown (which now you can make on reach with Bladed Scarf and it's two handed so it ignores need of free hand) and Improved Knockdown for Thief.

In my opinion this is too much on already A-tier class that can dish out so much damage.

I can see your complaint. IMO, this will only affect optimizers, i.e., I don't think it will be that wide spread. I agree that Rogue is strong, but that has more to do with its insane amount of skill buffs which make all Rogues resemble kitchen sinks. So I would not mind if they moved from 7 + Int Mod skills to 5 + Int Mod skills and/or if the amount of skill progression via proficiency bumps/skill feats was reduced by about 33%.

As far as weapons, IMO, simply also giving Rogue something like Expert Proficiency with all simple and martial weapons that have the agile trait would provide ample incentive to choose something besides 2-handed spear, bladed scarf, etc. In my view this would not step on Fighter's toes since they have expert with all simple and martial weapons out of the gate and progress to master at a much faster rate than other classes would, should they be given expert proficiency with select weapons.

[AestheticDialectic]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Totally not. It's way more Swashbuckler weapon or DEX Fighter, or even monk for me. I just think Rogue will jump above the balance curve, especially Thief now with Bladed Scarf, debilitations and Sneak Attack on top of reach, trip and flail spec. Before Rogues had to chose Ruffian to be able to get reach 2 handed spear, but that came at cost of not getting Thief, not getting any other traits on reach weapon, which was imo balanced considering Sneak Attack damage + their feats like Dread Striker, Gang Up, Mobility, Opportunate Backstab etc.

Now there will be no reason to not take Thief for maximum damage with Bladed Scarf. Add Mauler dedication on top for Knockdown (which now you can make on reach with Bladed Scarf and it's two handed so it ignores need of free hand and Trip to use weapon reach) and Improved Knockdown for Thief.

In my opinion this is too much on already A-tier class that can dish out so much damage.

I mean, an adjective I would use to describe the Swashbuckler would be something along the lines of a "dashing rogue" or what have you. I think this weapon is very thematic for rogues

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Jacob Jett wrote:

I can see your complaint. IMO, this will only affect optimizers, i.e., I don't think it will be that wide spread. I agree that Rogue is strong, but that has more to do with its insane amount of skill buffs which make all Rogues resemble kitchen sinks. So I would not mind if they moved from 7 + Int Mod skills to 5 + Int Mod skills and/or if the amount of skill progression via proficiency bumps/skill feats was reduced by about 33%.

As far as weapons, IMO, simply also giving Rogue something like Expert Proficiency with all simple and martial weapons that have the agile trait would provide ample incentive to choose something besides 2-handed spear, bladed scarf, etc. In my view this would not step on Fighter's toes since they have expert with all simple and martial weapons out of the gate and progress to master at a much faster rate than other classes would, should they be given expert proficiency with select weapons.

I disagree it will affect only optimizers. Once something is proven that is above every other option/combination, the news will spread on forum/reddit etc. and casual players will also start using that. Optimizers find stuff like that and build stuff like that. Later it's just common knowledge that X is best. Do you remember Flickmace? It wasn't just optimizers who were using it, the memes of human fighters being adopted by Gnomes were wide spread becasue many GMs could relate. It was the best Fighter/Champion weapon in game so at some point it becomes common knowledge in community. Sure, you can use different stuff but you know that you are deliberately making worse choice.

I can guarantee here and you can quote me later that after giving Rogues Martial proficiency you will see everywhere Bladed Scarf Thiefs as "this is what you want for best Rogue".

The only solution is if Rogues martial proficiency will be one-step behind simple weapon proficiency, otherwise it's Flickmace again but for Rogues this time.

[Claxon]

dmerceless wrote:

We won. Per Erik Mona on the Roll for Combat Pathfinder Remaster Youtube stream, Rogues are getting martial weapons and Wizards simple. Just wanted to say that.

I was just thinking about how this (the Remaster books) would be the perfect opportunity to correct this oversight, and look at that, it's already done!

[Dubious Scholar]

Bladed Scarf was already an option for rogues, you just use Unconventional Weaponry to make it count as a simple weapon for proficiency purposes. Likewise the Elven Branched Spear (another reach finesse 2h weapon)

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Bladed Scarf was already an option for rogues, you just use Unconventional Weaponry to make it count as a simple weapon for proficiency purposes. Likewise the Elven Branched Spear (another reach finesse 2h weapon)

Yup, and feat costs balances that same as nerfed flickmace needs feat. Its called cost of opportunity. With new rules there will be no cost of using Bladed Scarf by Thiefs, especially if they will make Rogues scale martial and simple at same rate, which I don't like.

[Dubious Scholar]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Bladed Scarf was already an option for rogues, you just use Unconventional Weaponry to make it count as a simple weapon for proficiency purposes. Likewise the Elven Branched Spear (another reach finesse 2h weapon)

Yup, and feat costs balances that same as nerfed flickmace needs feat. Its called cost of opportunity. With new rules there will be no cost of using Bladed Scarf by Thiefs, especially if they will make Rogues scale martial and simple at same rate, which I don't like.

And the nerfed Flickmace is still a one-handed d6 reach weapon. Having a 2h version with finesse is perfectly in line with weapon balance.

[Rysky]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Opening up basic proficiencies is not a game breaker on any class. You had to deal with feat taxes for flavor purposes.

I would say for "balance" purposes. Now you will see every Rogue running around with Bladed Scarf for reach + finesse + flail crit spec + trip on it.

Just like every Fighter ran around with a Flickmace… oh wait no they didn’t.