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.
| 2 people 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.
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.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')
Almost definitely. Mauler and Archer seem to have been intended at least in part as a way for other characters to get access to fighter feats at a rate faster than what is available via fighter dedication, but the old dedication was a dead feat for most martials. The new version is useful for a much wider variety of builds.
The new Mauler/Archer verbiage also allows access to properly-scaling Advanced proficiency for their respective niches, which otherwise you'd have to be level 12 and knee-deep in the Fighter archetype for.
| 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.
I don't see the problem with having the same chance to hit with your offhand weapon as every other martial and gaining the advantage with your main hand.
Every player wants to be maxed at everything and they don't have to be to be effective.
I completely understood YuriPs point. For some reason he didn't understand the counterpoint: It's not some kind of disadvantage or weakness that a fighter has to swing with the same proficiency as everyone else.
That's where I'm disagreeing. You don't have to have the Legendary proficiency to be good with a weapon. Yet it seems in YuriP keeps arguing that having the same proficiency as every other class in the game somehow makes you worse, when it doesn't.
It's still far less limited than other classes which are often very locked into a single weapon because if they want access to advanced weapons or the very best weapon, those don't vary very much and require an ancestry feat to obtain.
It doesn't harm the fighter if they so want to use a sword they get max proficiency on and a hammer they have the same proficiency with. They still hit great with the sword and as well as everyone else with the hammer along with everything else they get.
As far as the balance question, that was answered too. It likely wouldn't matter. So house rule it. If you're playing in PFS games, then use the other weapon and hit like everyone else. You won't notice that much either.
I agree with the angle Deriven is taking.
But someone did mention earlier there is space for a feat to allow dual wielding builds more diversity for using different weapon groups with highest proficiency.
I think thats a good idea too.
Wether thats through a feat or something to gain from a magic item or rune it would be a nice addition.
I think if we're looking for minimal disruption, one could easily create a 6th-level feat where you just choose a weapon group, and gain proficiency in weapons of that weapon group as if they were weapons of the group you chose with fighter weapon mastery at 5th level. Not only will that class feature automatically give you the crit spec effect of those weapons, it would also naturally enable dual-wielding weapons of two separate groups as well. Because it mirrors Advanced Weapon Training at that same level, which provides a vertical power boost and not just a horizontal boost (advanced weapons are generally stronger than martial weapons), it would also be likely to be balanced as a 6th-level feat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given how Mauler and Archer remaster went, it's far more likely to just bake in the stepped proficiency at level 1 and replacing Versatile Legend at 19 than removing it.
I think its far, far, far, far more likely that Paizo is quite happy with the fighter as is and will change absolutely nothing, totally ignoring this thread.
Easiest thing to do is give your dual wielding fighter a magic item that allows them to use the same level of proficiency and crit spec they have for one of their weapons for the other kind of the way doubling rings give share rune benefits.
I agree with the angle Deriven is taking.
But someone did mention earlier there is space for a feat to allow dual wielding builds more diversity for using different weapon groups with highest proficiency.
I think thats a good idea too.
Wether thats through a feat or something to gain from a magic item or rune it would be a nice addition.
A feat for dual wielders would be fine too, though Double Slice already has a very good hit chance with an offhand weapon.
As far as dual wielding goes, I'd like a feat to allow them to Reactive Strike with both weapons as one reaction. As it is right now, dual wielding is not on par with wielding a single weapon or a two-handed weapon. It's too action costly and limited right now.
I understand we'll never return to the days when two-weapon fighting was king in 2nd edition D&D, but I'd sure like it to be at least on par. At the moment is not on par with other fighting styles except for a high level flurry ranger, we're talking level 17 or so.
Like it's a bit weird that a flurry ranger will just happily pair a light pick with a sword but a fighter who is ostensibly "the master of all weapons" would never want to do that because of the proficiency issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like it's a bit weird that a flurry ranger will just happily pair a light pick with a sword but a fighter who is ostensibly "the master of all weapons" would never want to do that because of the proficiency issue.
Or the fighter could take Ranger archetype, hunt prey like a ranger dealing with all the issues with hunt prey, and hit better than the ranger for most of its levels until level 17.
It's only weird if you get so caught up in the +2 more rather than the fact the fighter can do it better than the ranger with their main hand and equal with their off-hand.
This keeps getting ignored for some reason. The fighter can happily flurry with two different weapons as well or better than the ranger across most levels.
They'll hit the best with their main weapon group weapon and as good as the ranger with their off-hand weapon. Then at level 19 they will end up better with both.
you could use a falcata and a light pick.
Go sword group get the advanced weapon training at 6 and agile grace at 10.
Not everything has to be perfect, it will still be fun to play and strong.
Also sword and pick do well together. Sword crits giving off guard make pick crits more likely. can't always count on team work.
Fun little related fact: Assuming two non-agile weapons, one from within Fighter's chosen group and one from without, if you Double Slice, there are two options - you can either Strike with your chosen weapon then non-chosen weapon, or vice versa.
Compared to standard martial proficiency, that would be either making your attacks at +2, then -2 (non-agile, remember), or +0, then +0.
The first outcome is is the same accuracy as Striking twice with an agile weapon (though not necessarily damage, since non-agile weapons will likely do more), but the second is something interesting, as there are very few other ways in the game to make two Strikes in two actions, both at full MAP.
If you use an agile weapon as your chosen weapon, then weirdly your second attack is MORE accurate than your first, with an effective +0, then +2, which is something entirely unique to Fighter.
This last post confuses me, what am I missing about it?
Nothing about the main thread.
He was just pointing out that when the feat
Double Slice is used with both non-agile weapons, the attack accuracy is equivalent to that of a regular martial attacking twice without MAP (-2 penalty against the +2 of the fighter's highest proficiency).
It was just an interesting fact that he/she pointed out that if you do this with non-agile weapons of different groups you can do a strikes with different values due the proficiency difference depending of your weapon attack order. Nothing that really worth to do it's just a curiosity.
As a side note, I personally find the way such a feat would interact with Combat Flexibility to be somewhat amusing, as well as rather helpful for sort of covering the proficiency gap while a player retrains their favored weapon group from Fighter Weapon Mastery if they decide to change groups for whichever reason.
Totally agree! It reminds me of a line from what imho is the third-best Western of the 90s (after Dead Man and El Mariachi): "I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it."