Do you agree that your proposed Allmaster is ahead in damage or not?No, because the damage variation is so small that it is questionable whether it exists most of the time.Sigh. Is increasing the average DPR by 2 while everything else remains the same a vertical change or a horizontal one?
I mean, you seem to be bending over backwards to avoid the obvious answer.
The point is that you are arguing that there is a (significant) vertical advantage in being an all-rounder over being specialized in a single group,No, what I've actually said multiple times is that this is a vertical rather than a horizontal change. Because you keep claiming it's horizontal and it just isn't. I've also said that big or small is a judgment call.
OK Easl, no problem, I won't continue this discussion any longer.
You won and there is an incredible significant difference of 2 average damage between the allrounder fighter with full proficiency against the specialist in a single group and so if for some reason the fighter is modified, either by removing the weapon group restriction or adding a feat to expand it, the fighter will soon destroy the game! LOL
Look, to try not to be a curmudgeon about this, I'll offer a positive suggestion. What do you think of this sort of solution:
1. Because we both agree this is a minority theme, make it a Class Archetype rather than revising the core class to suit this minority view. Class archetype is perfect for "a few people want to play this theme, but most don't." Adding a new class archetype is also a lot less disruptive to ongoing games, new fighters playing old APs designed with the old rules in mind, PFS, etc. than changing a core class feature.
2. Because we both agree that fighter is already a strong class, neither the core class nor the new archetype should be made stronger. IOW we're not going to give "L5 master proficiency for everything" to both and then a new bonus for the specialist and a different new bonus for the generalist on top.
3. Because a class archetype that is strictly superior is no real choice at all, the allmaster cannot be strictly superior to the general class. So again, "L5 master proficiency in everything and all crit specializations, no other difference" is out as the archetype's class feature. That's just a strictly superior upgrade to the core class.
An allmaster fighter...
Err, I think that got pretty clunky, don't you think?
I will also say if you house rule away the weapon group, I don't think it matters a whole lot if someone wants to do it. It will make their level 19 ability meaningless.But in most cases it already is! Builds focused on a single weapon basically ignore the level 19 feature. Because they are already legendary with the weapon in question and even class proficiency only matters if you have one of the 3 feats that use it. That's why Ryangwy commented a few posts ago that the level 19 feature is "just a fun ribbon" and Teridax considered that without it "the Fighter wouldn't have a real class feature at level 19".
In practice, if your fighter is focused on a single weapon or a group of weapons and you don't intend to change that, the Versatile Legend makes no practical difference. However, if your idea was to be a versatile character who intends to change weapons to suit the situations, it simply comes too late, the game already forced you to change the character concept long before when you reached level 5. Changing it again now simply seems like a joke.
I honestly disagree with the idea that the Versatile Legend was put in to fill a gap. But the designer who did this, probably with the intention of representing that the level 19 fighter is so skilled that he can fight legendarily using any type of simple or martial weapon, did not consider the practical use of this both mechanically and thematically.
It is a feature that in my opinion could simply have been replaced by Ultimate Flexibility if the fighter had kept the flexibility.
Because that's not the point. The problem isn't that the fighter is able to be good with any weapon when it choose the group it wants to specialize in, the problem is that it loses...I did address this point. When the fighter is equally good with any weapon and has feats to support its use, they can be effective using every weapon.
So this claim has been counter-argued. You don't like it for some reason.
Once again as you try to drown the reality in words: They are not forced to do anything.
They gain an advantage with a single weapon group. They are equal to everyone else with every weapon.
I always pick up a bow as do most fighters I've seen run even if not an archer because they are still an Expert and Master level archer when everyone else is. They can still take feats to use archery well.
You are vastly overstating how bad the fighter is with their non-specialized group.
It's no different than a barbarian or rogue using a bow that they cannot use with their special ability.
You don't like the answer, but you have been counter-argued.
You keep stating this isn't the point, but it is the point, exactly the point. You have had it pointed out to you and now you're ignoring the counter-argument with a pile of words to claim: that's not the point.
Why are you doing this? The point has been argued and validly.
They are as good as every other class with every weapon. They can take feats for other weapon styles easily. They are less limited because a class like the barbarian can't even use archery with their schtick and can't use agile or finesse weapons without decreased effectiveness. Yet you tried to argue they were less limited, when they were not.
At least if the fighter specializes in axes, they can use every axe well whether finesse, agile, thrown, two-handed or what not.
Other classes cannot do this and are much more limited.
You keep pushing this idea the fighter is limited and acting as though they are forced to specialize. They aren't. They can pick up random weapon and be as good as every other class in the game without limitation. They can even switch daily to some modified fighting style.
Near as I can tell YuriP is arguing he wants to be able to be Legendary with a sword and a bow before level 19 or some similar combination. I can't even see an advantage of anything other than a ranged and a melee option. The occasional time you might pull out a blunt weapon to deal with an ooze or skeletons at low level doesn't seem important enough to cycle through weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I'm tired of this discussion. We're repeating ourselves a lot. Those who understood my point understood. Those who didn't understand and are curious can ask for specific details and I'll try to explain.
My point here is still that I think the OP is right that if the fighter were more flexible with weapons in the mid-game, it would open up a more interesting range of possibilities for different character builds without any real harm to the game.
I understand if you don't agree. There are some points that many people find questionable. But continuing this discussion won't get us anywhere.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does seem specifically unfortunate how a fighter built around two-weapon fighting is disinclined from using mismatched weapons: say a battleaxe and a clan dagger, or a warhammer and a scorpion whip, etc. because while those ideas are potentially thematic and interesting, it's not a good idea to two weapon fight with weapons from different weapon groups in the mid-game.
This is something you could fix with feats (like a stance specific for two dissimilar weapons) though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does seem specifically unfortunate how a fighter built around two-weapon fighting is disinclined from using mismatched weapons: say a battleaxe and a clan dagger, or a warhammer and a scorpion whip, etc. because while those ideas are potentially thematic and interesting, it's not a good idea to two weapon fight with weapons from different weapon groups in the mid-game.
This is something you could fix with feats (like a stance specific for two dissimilar weapons) though.
That is something I do feel like should be resolved. A stance feat that allowed you to use the same proficiency for both attacks, or maybe gave a slight bonus to a weapon you don't have the higher tier proficiency with would be nice.
Given how Mauler and Archer remaster went...
Would you please elaborate? Were they changed?
Given how Mauler and Archer remaster went...Would you please elaborate? Were they changed?Treat martial as simple, advanced as martial, so they only benefit from your proficiency in all weapons, not specific weapon groups.
(In the process I found the feat that lets you Reactive Strike with ranged weapons, Mobile Shot Stance, meaning that earlier question of 'can the fighter do x' is settled with 'yes, definitely')
WTF. Matching proficiency was like the main draw of those archetypes. I wonder if whoever enacted that verbiage change fully grasped the ramifications of what they were doing.