| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pirates? Does it make any sense for pirates, ships and nautical adventures to take up space in the playtest, when the play test is intentionally ignoring firearms? Why dedicate any pages of the playtest to things like naval warfare and pirates that will probably need to be play tested again against mechanics we know we are not getting in the core rulebook anyway? (I am not saying those things shouldn't be playtested, but that it doesn't make sense to playtest them without firearm rules since naval warfare in Golarion clearly makes use of cannons and guns).
I mean, how much over lap is going to be necessary between the pirate and the swashbuckler? We have no idea, but now we are fairly certain that the pirate is going to exist first, and yet I think a lot more people would rather be play testing potential mechanics for something like a swashbuckler than a pirate.
This feels like it should be a relatively small thing, but how many archetypes even made the play test book? certainly not more than 10. Does one of these 10 need to be something that isn't really supported to play as is? Maybe the playtest adventure is going to be all about boats, but again, that screams "Yikes!!!" to me if it is happening without firearms.
I have some very serious concerns about the balance issues of overlapping proficiencies and special abilities of classes and feats and I feel like a lot of these are going to manifest in archetypes specifically, and it is concerning to me that the developers are giving us archetypes unlikely to see much play. I mean is there a reason that a Fighter or a Rogue would take the introductory pirate feat? It seems like
those are two classes very prone to pirate like ways, but that both will see a fair amount of overlap of existing class abilities and why would there not already be Athletics and Acrobatics skill feats that would open up most of these special pirate abilities for classes?
I fear that we are going to end up with a million and one ways to do every simple task (like being good at not falling off a boat, or holding your breath) and that is the fastest recipe to a confusing level of bloat and inferior options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree on all accounts, really. The Pirate archetype feels like a pretty major waste of text space in the playtest; it honestly feels like something to shove into the middle of a player companion.
Unfortunately it's too late now with the book already to the printers.
I agree on all accounts, really. The Pirate archetype feels like a pretty major waste of text space in the playtest; it honestly feels like something to shove into the middle of a player companion.
Unfortunately it's too late now with the book already to the printers.
So it's confirmed we're getting Pirate archetype for the playtest?
Sea stuff can be pretty situational, but there's already some cool pirate archetypes in PF1 like the Corsair (fighter) that don't use gunpowder. So these could still be decent.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
ARRR we sure Pirates is a good playtest idea?
Aye am.
I agree on all accounts, really. The Pirate archetype feels like a pretty major waste of text space in the playtest; it honestly feels like something to shove into the middle of a player companion.
Unfortunately it's too late now with the book already to the printers.
So it's confirmed we're getting Pirate archetype for the playtest?
Sea stuff can be pretty situational, but there's already some cool pirate archetypes in PF1 like the Corsair (fighter) that don't use gunpowder. So these could still be decent.
I am not arguing against the inclusion of naval stuff in later books, and I certainly hope you don't have to use a gun to be a boat-centric character, but this is jumping out at me as another ill thought-out addition to the play test because "pirates are fun" without considering that the rest of the playtest lacks the things that make pirates fun.
Aside: I guess now my playtest goblin wizard "MeJack Missall" who only casts different versions of the spell magic missile is going to have to become a pirate at second level.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we make 5 characters over the course of Doomsday Dawn, and the seven adventures are thematically a bit of a retrospective on Pathfinder, I expect one adventure in The Shackles with a bit of piracy is fairly likely.
Pirate would be a great Archetype for that specific adventure.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the Pirate archetype is weak even in pirate-themed adventures. I'd much rather have my real class feats than the benefits that chain gives.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if the pirate archetype is weak even in pirate adventures, that's still an improvement on the dozen or so pirate archetypes in PF1 - because we're devoting less space to it.
|
|
I'm pretty sure the Pirate archetype is weak even in pirate-themed adventures. I'd much rather have my real class feats than the benefits that chain gives.
I'm pretty sure Pirate Dedication is verging on overpowered in pirate themed adventures.
Other later Feats may be less so (I'm less than thrilled with Boarding Action myself), but if the core of the Archetype is solid I think you're fine.
Well, I think they are including a lot more in the playtest than just that required to run Doomsday Dawn - like a pretty substantial bestiary - including some proof of concept ideas/niche bits isn't entirely nonsensical. I'm sure there are plenty who would like to give it a test run.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to keep in mind is that "profession-specific" archetypes being generally weaker except at the specific thing the profession does, is fine. If Golarion pirates were good at everything, including things unrelated to sailing and piracy, it would be hard to keep them on boats.
A reason that "Pirate Archetype" is generally frowned upon by players is that players know that even in a nautical campaign, a lot of time is going to be spent in places that are not afloat- you take the boat to the dungeon, then you get off the boat. But this is fine for someone in the diagesis who has reason to believe that most of the time they spend imperiled will be asea. Adventurers who go up into the mountains to explore the haunted castle are better served as ex-pirates.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to keep in mind is that "profession-specific" archetypes being generally weaker except at the specific thing the profession does, is fine. If Golarion pirates were good at everything, including things unrelated to sailing and piracy, it would be hard to keep them on boats.
A reason that "Pirate Archetype" is generally frowned upon by players is that players know that even in a nautical campaign, a lot of time is going to be spent in places that are not afloat- you take the boat to the dungeon, then you get off the boat. But this is fine for someone in the diagesis who has reason to believe that most of the time they spend imperiled will be asea. Adventurers who go up into the mountains to explore the haunted castle are better served as ex-pirates.
You can also always retrain into (or out of) pirate for certain stretches of the adventure if you like.
You can also always retrain into (or out of) pirate for certain stretches of the adventure if you like.One thing to keep in mind is that "profession-specific" archetypes being generally weaker except at the specific thing the profession does, is fine. If Golarion pirates were good at everything, including things unrelated to sailing and piracy, it would be hard to keep them on boats.
A reason that "Pirate Archetype" is generally frowned upon by players is that players know that even in a nautical campaign, a lot of time is going to be spent in places that are not afloat- you take the boat to the dungeon, then you get off the boat. But this is fine for someone in the diagesis who has reason to believe that most of the time they spend imperiled will be asea. Adventurers who go up into the mountains to explore the haunted castle are better served as ex-pirates.
That is a huge advantage over PF1 Archetypes.
Director of Game Design
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a fair criticism, but not everything in the playtest rulebook is there for the Doomsday Dawn adventure, some parts are just there for folks to play around with and get a sense of what we might do with these in the future.
I admit that pirate is pretty niche is its utility, but the concept is pretty universal. If the mechanics work for folks, then that tells us a lot about what we might be able to do when we are finally ready to sink a lot of space into them as a rules element.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that you need gunpowder rules for pirates, but I will say it's a little odd, especially if the playtest is going to be a beta-version of the 2e CRB. I don't think I've ever played a primarily nautical game, and even if Skulls and Shackles 2: Electric Boogaloo is a thing in 2e, I doubt it'd be early in the system's lifetime. If there is limited page space for archetypes, I'd rather see that space devoted to some of the more interesting 1e concepts that might not be worth their own class any more (Swashbuckler, Investigator, Cavalier, ect), which I'd expect to be more relevant than Pirate in all but a scant few cases.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can also always retrain into (or out of) pirate for certain stretches of the adventure if you like.One thing to keep in mind is that "profession-specific" archetypes being generally weaker except at the specific thing the profession does, is fine. If Golarion pirates were good at everything, including things unrelated to sailing and piracy, it would be hard to keep them on boats.
A reason that "Pirate Archetype" is generally frowned upon by players is that players know that even in a nautical campaign, a lot of time is going to be spent in places that are not afloat- you take the boat to the dungeon, then you get off the boat. But this is fine for someone in the diagesis who has reason to believe that most of the time they spend imperiled will be asea. Adventurers who go up into the mountains to explore the haunted castle are better served as ex-pirates.
That feels very Meta/Video gaming.
"Oh no all my Pirate stuff is usless on land!" - Retrain!
"Oh no we're going back to sea after a book!" - Retrain back to Pirate
"I traded away my Anti Undead stuff" Retrain to get back
"Weird my Undead stuff is less than desirable." - Retrain to get back.
I view retraining as "I have messed up but don't want to fully rewrite a character" and something to be taken up with the DM. Swapping out your Strengths that are now weaknesses for new Strengths feels like it's breaking an aspect of the game.
That feels very Meta/Video gaming.
You bring up a very good point, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. Having a character that can morph to fit a situation pleases the strategist in me, but it does seem like it will make me feel more removed from my character, as not much about them will ever be fixed.
I don't even like retraining mechanics in my video games...
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can also always retrain into (or out of) pirate for certain stretches of the adventure if you like.One thing to keep in mind is that "profession-specific" archetypes being generally weaker except at the specific thing the profession does, is fine. If Golarion pirates were good at everything, including things unrelated to sailing and piracy, it would be hard to keep them on boats.
A reason that "Pirate Archetype" is generally frowned upon by players is that players know that even in a nautical campaign, a lot of time is going to be spent in places that are not afloat- you take the boat to the dungeon, then you get off the boat. But this is fine for someone in the diagesis who has reason to believe that most of the time they spend imperiled will be asea. Adventurers who go up into the mountains to explore the haunted castle are better served as ex-pirates.
That feels very Meta/Video gaming.
"Oh no all my Pirate stuff is usless on land!" - Retrain!
"Oh no we're going back to sea after a book!" - Retrain back to Pirate"I traded away my Anti Undead stuff" Retrain to get back
"Weird my Undead stuff is less than desirable." - Retrain to get back.I view retraining as "I have messed up but don't want to fully rewrite a character" and something to be taken up with the DM. Swapping out your Strengths that are now weaknesses for new Strengths feels like it's breaking an aspect of the game.
You've never done a crash course in something then forgotten it when you've stopped using it?
You don't think if you know you're heading to a mountain top hideaway you wouldn't practice your mountain climbing skills and other skills might suffer from a lack of practice while you do so?
Sometimes I think we look at something in a metagamey way - and it feels more meatgamey because of it.
I don't mind retraining being in the rules, since I suspect my group will do what we've always done, even before 1e retraining rules, and allow free retraining until the next level up, for abilities that don't really work out how you expected they would (and GM's discretion after that, for abilities that don't come up much), but I don't want the design of the game to be based around retraining being a (frequent) thing.
|
|
Yeah I agree with Dragonhunterq.
What's weird about changing your regiment for a different task? That's the sane thing that any smart person would do, and in that sense not every bit of martial training is going to be something to keep for life.
It doesn't have to set the flow of any campaign, but I think making retraining more accessible is actually a healthy step away from the gamey notion of every choice being permanent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can also always retrain into (or out of) pirate for certain stretches of the adventure if you like.One thing to keep in mind is that "profession-specific" archetypes being generally weaker except at the specific thing the profession does, is fine. If Golarion pirates were good at everything, including things unrelated to sailing and piracy, it would be hard to keep them on boats.
A reason that "Pirate Archetype" is generally frowned upon by players is that players know that even in a nautical campaign, a lot of time is going to be spent in places that are not afloat- you take the boat to the dungeon, then you get off the boat. But this is fine for someone in the diagesis who has reason to believe that most of the time they spend imperiled will be asea. Adventurers who go up into the mountains to explore the haunted castle are better served as ex-pirates.
That feels very Meta/Video gaming.
"Oh no all my Pirate stuff is usless on land!" - Retrain!
"Oh no we're going back to sea after a book!" - Retrain back to Pirate"I traded away my Anti Undead stuff" Retrain to get back
"Weird my Undead stuff is less than desirable." - Retrain to get back.I view retraining as "I have messed up but don't want to fully rewrite a character" and something to be taken up with the DM. Swapping out your Strengths that are now weaknesses for new Strengths feels like it's breaking an aspect of the game.
You've never done a crash course in something then forgotten it when you've stopped using it?
You don't think if you know you're heading to a mountain top hideaway you wouldn't practice your mountain climbing skills and other skills might suffer from a lack of practice while you do so?
Sometimes I think we look at something in a metagamey way - and it feels more meatgamey because of it.
I think it's very odd to say "I forget Swim to learn how to Climb".
Or maybe a better example for real world, "I forget levels in Drive(Car) to pick up Swim(Scuba). And in 2 weeks, I revert that because I need to drive across Country."
Here's a few ideas. Pick up an item to help cover that weakness, ask your party members to help, still stuck maybe go see an NPC or find another way around it. Or maybe just see if your DM low balls it for you because he doesn't want you guys spending 30 minutes or more just trying to figure out how to get up a Mountain.
Yeah I agree with Dragonhunterq.
What's weird about changing your regiment for a different task? That's the sane thing that any smart person would do, and in that sense not every bit of martial training is going to be something to keep for life.
It doesn't have to set the flow of any campaign, but I think making retraining more accessible is actually a healthy step away from the gamey notion of every choice being permanent.
How do you balance that as a DM?That at any time after some break time, the character you know suddenly come back with a different set of skills designed JUST to counter what's coming(Because they scryed, why wouldn't they).
I'm fine with a character learning new skills. It feels weird to say "I forget part of a Skill that is a part of my character backstory just to make this 2 session bit easier".
Doesn't feel like a character, feels like a set of numbers. This is completely off topic now though so I'll stop here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can also always retrain into (or out of) pirate for certain stretches of the adventure if you like.One thing to keep in mind is that "profession-specific" archetypes being generally weaker except at the specific thing the profession does, is fine. If Golarion pirates were good at everything, including things unrelated to sailing and piracy, it would be hard to keep them on boats.
A reason that "Pirate Archetype" is generally frowned upon by players is that players know that even in a nautical campaign, a lot of time is going to be spent in places that are not afloat- you take the boat to the dungeon, then you get off the boat. But this is fine for someone in the diagesis who has reason to believe that most of the time they spend imperiled will be asea. Adventurers who go up into the mountains to explore the haunted castle are better served as ex-pirates.
That feels very Meta/Video gaming.
"Oh no all my Pirate stuff is usless on land!" - Retrain!
"Oh no we're going back to sea after a book!" - Retrain back to Pirate"I traded away my Anti Undead stuff" Retrain to get back
"Weird my Undead stuff is less than desirable." - Retrain to get back.I view retraining as "I have messed up but don't want to fully rewrite a character" and something to be taken up with the DM. Swapping out your Strengths that are now weaknesses for new Strengths feels like it's breaking an aspect of the game.
You've never done a crash course in something then forgotten it when you've stopped using it?
You don't think if you know you're heading to a mountain top hideaway you wouldn't practice your mountain climbing skills and other skills might suffer from a lack of practice while you do so?
Sometimes I think we look at something in a metagamey way - and it feels more meatgamey because of it.
I think it's very odd to say "I forget Swim to learn how to Climb".
Or maybe...
Alternative options are irrelevant to how metagamey it is or isn't.
I disagree with you. Especially with the new universal bonus to skills it's much more like "I'm a little rusty at swimming since I'be been spending all my time on the climbing wall".
Or "I spent so much time scuba diving for that 2 weeks away without driving that it took me a few days to get comfortable behind the wheel again".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I think it's very odd to say "I forget Swim toYou can also always retrain into (or out of) pirate for certain stretches of the adventure if you like.One thing to keep in mind is that "profession-specific" archetypes being generally weaker except at the specific thing the profession does, is fine. If Golarion pirates were good at everything, including things unrelated to sailing and piracy, it would be hard to keep them on boats.
A reason that "Pirate Archetype" is generally frowned upon by players is that players know that even in a nautical campaign, a lot of time is going to be spent in places that are not afloat- you take the boat to the dungeon, then you get off the boat. But this is fine for someone in the diagesis who has reason to believe that most of the time they spend imperiled will be asea. Adventurers who go up into the mountains to explore the haunted castle are better served as ex-pirates.
That feels very Meta/Video gaming.
"Oh no all my Pirate stuff is usless on land!" - Retrain!
"Oh no we're going back to sea after a book!" - Retrain back to Pirate"I traded away my Anti Undead stuff" Retrain to get back
"Weird my Undead stuff is less than desirable." - Retrain to get back.I view retraining as "I have messed up but don't want to fully rewrite a character" and something to be taken up with the DM. Swapping out your Strengths that are now weaknesses for new Strengths feels like it's breaking an aspect of the game.
You've never done a crash course in something then forgotten it when you've stopped using it?
You don't think if you know you're heading to a mountain top hideaway you wouldn't practice your mountain climbing skills and other skills might suffer from a lack of practice while you do so?
Sometimes I think we look at something in a metagamey way - and it feels more meatgamey because of it.
Point is, you have options in game, right now, that can fix the problem rather than saying "Oh I can't do this, give me 10 days training and forget Craft Something and then I can".
Saying "I want to change my character" should be if you messed up, not because you want a bonus NOW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So one thing I think is working for the Pirate Achetype is that it does add some things you might want for any character who does not get them from their class - 3 weapon proficiencies and a new signature skill.
So if you wanted your sorcerer to be an acrobat, you could spend a class feat on being able to eventually become a legendary acrobat, and get proficiency in some useful weapons. I'm just assuming that the sorcerer does not get acrobatics as a signature skill and spear proficiency, they might, but someone else won't.
Since archetypes are no longer "get the entire package" but "get as much of the package as you want" I can see some people taking the pirate dedication feat and no other pirate feats explaining that they spent some time press-ganged on a pirate skip or whatever and picked up some things.
Why would a PC know what adversity they will face?
(At least in time to do any significant retraining)
Do the retraining rules allow for such swiftness?
And what kind of money investment is it (so we can compare it to picking up magic to compensate)?
If there are skill items, like Gloves of Swimming & Climbing and Cloaks of Elvenkind, then maybe they'll actually be better investments (especially at higher levels.)
It seems that somebody dead set on constant retraining will drain their coffers and/or always be a step behind as the party moves on. As a GM, I would feel no remorse at any scenario shifts that made somebody's metagame investments fail and no obligation to aid WBL issues they self-inflict.
Of course, we're all just speculating here.
Hopefully the retraining rules are set up to be sparsely used for when a player erred grievously, not just wants a power bump.
Speaking of which, I really hope that characters can't retrain to swap to tons of higher level abilities. Had a friend in PF1 save up lots of money so when his Ninja hit 10th he could retrain most of his feats into Advanced Tricks. It greatly imbalanced the game.
I'm not convinced that getting trained in a weapon is all that useful when it doesn't scale up to better proficiencies. "Every +1 is important" works both ways, so when everyone else is Master or Legendary with their weaponry being Trained in scimitars is going to suck.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that getting trained in a weapon is all that useful when it doesn't scale up to better proficiencies. "Every +1 is important" works both ways, so when everyone else is Master or Legendary with their weaponry being Trained in scimitars is going to suck.
All evidence suggests that when your Class upgrades your Proficiency it does so for all weapons you are Trained in. Several Feats (Ancestry Weapon Training Feats, for example) don't actually make a lot of sense otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that getting trained in a weapon is all that useful when it doesn't scale up to better proficiencies. "Every +1 is important" works both ways, so when everyone else is Master or Legendary with their weaponry being Trained in scimitars is going to suck.
I could definitely see a hypothetical sorcerer-pirate to want to pick up a spear and spend a general feat (I think) on Attack of Opportunity, so when people walk up to them you can whack them with your spear, then step away with an action and spend 2 to cast. It's just a matter of opportunity cost.
I'm not convinced that getting trained in a weapon is all that useful when it doesn't scale up to better proficiencies. "Every +1 is important" works both ways, so when everyone else is Master or Legendary with their weaponry being Trained in scimitars is going to suck.All evidence suggests that when your Class upgrades your Proficiency it does so for all weapons you are Trained in. Several Feats (Ancestry Weapon Training Feats, for example) don't actually make a lot of sense otherwise.
That makes sense, I suppose. Though the specific Pirate feat still has the problem where you can't use the weapon you had in mind for your character concept until level 2 (unless you already get the proficiency from your class, in which case part of the feat is wasted).
The bard is already proficient in spears.
...Wait, come to think of it, so are sorcerers. G#% d#~n this feat sucks.
Jason and Mark, thank you for your very thoughtful responses to my somewhat snarky post. I am still a little concerned, confused about whether these archetype feats will be worth taking if your concept is already close the build the benefits will stack for you and if not, but you want future feats in the tree if the dedication feat doesn’t become a fairly heavy tax for you, but I am interested to see it in other archetypes.
I am also curious if you would be able to retrain archetype feats that significantly modify your base class abilities. Like if enlightened Iori paladin has the ability to trade proficiencies in, can they later ditch that archetype?
Thank you again for providing such timely and considerate feedback.
I'm super cool with pirates as an archetype. I think it works super well as a proof of concept archetype-- something for specific campaigns or characters that cuts across class lines. If you are gonna play a sea game, I'd be shocked if folks didn't all take it.
On gunpowder: I think we've only been told we aren't getting firearms, not that gunpowder won't exist yet. That aside, cannons seem significantly less important when you can fling fireballs at other ships and stuff.
I'm not convinced that getting trained in a weapon is all that useful when it doesn't scale up to better proficiencies. "Every +1 is important" works both ways, so when everyone else is Master or Legendary with their weaponry being Trained in scimitars is going to suck.
Thing is, there's lots of ways to utilize a weapon without proficiency scaling up. My impression is the barbarian has little if any scaling beyond trained, but doesn't need it because rage is so good. And being trained in a good weapon can mean a huge increase in damage die, among other things.
So for example, a cleric or sorcerer with good self-buffing options but bad weapon proficiency might really enjoy it.
The bard is already proficient in spears.
...Wait, come to think of it, so are sorcerers. G*% d*!n this feat sucks.
Do we know what proficiencies the non-previewed classes have? Where can I find this out (right now as opposed to August)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Barbarian doesn't scale beyond trained then the Barbarian is going to suck. We already know rage doesn't give any attack bonuses, Barbarians getting +0 to their attack rolls would make the PF1 Monk look accurate by comparison.
@PossibleCabbage: I'm assuming proficiencies are the same as they are in PF1, since they haven't changed for any of the classes previewed thus far (except the Monk, who's proficiencies have gone from bad to worse for some reason).
The bard is already proficient in spears.
...Wait, come to think of it, so are sorcerers. G+@ d$*n this feat sucks.
We don't know this yet. We know from some witnesses that wizards get a certain amount of weapon proficiency, but not if that is all simple weapons still. Given the monk lost base proficiencies...
Heck, we don't even know that spears are still simple weapons. The categories between simple/martial/exotic got a big overhaul. Bo Staff is going from exotic to martial, for example.
The Wizard doesn't get all simple weapons in PF1 either, only the Sorcerer does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really buy the idea that retraining is videogamey. I can think of plenty of times in my life where I've basically reallocated my skills.
I stopped practicing card tricks so I could focus on balloon animals. I don't fence anymore but do run. I don't do much web design anymore but got more training in spreadsheets.
The Wizard doesn't get all simple weapons in PF1 either, only the Sorcerer does.
Still. I wouldn't assume the sorcerer gets anything specific yet, given everything else that has changed.
One possible explanation is that vehicles are in the PF2 playtest (boats, wagons, airships, etc) and thus it would make sense to have some content that explicitly works with them.
|
|
That makes sense, I suppose. Though the specific Pirate feat still has the problem where you can't use the weapon you had in mind for your character concept until level 2 (unless you already get the proficiency from your class, in which case part of the feat is wasted).
This is a fair point.
The bard is already proficient in spears.
...Wait, come to think of it, so are sorcerers. G*+ d&%n this feat sucks.
The other Feats that give Martial weapons give only two (and give nothing else to people who don't have martial weapons already), so assuming Hatchet is martial (which seems likely, Hand Axes were martial in PF1). So it's on par for simple weapon wielders there.
And that's all those Feats do. This one does other things to boot.
Heck, we don't even know that spears are still simple weapons.
Sense I got from the weapons blog is that spears are supposed to be good weapons now. Like now you can play a dedicated spear fighter and not just be someone who should really have just picked up a polearm. So spears are more contextualized as like "you can be Zhao Yun if you want" than "we gave these peasants sharp sticks to defend themselves with."
|
|
Actually the evidence points against it, look at the fighter blog, they gradually up one group, and then the others level up. And thats the fighter, while I imagine they'll upgrade prof for other classes, I don't think it will be all the weapons they get prof in.
Sure, but that wasn't quite what I meant. I meant it will upgrade regardless of type (Simple, Martial, or Exotic). A Pirate who picked whatever group scimtars are in would upgrade their Scimitar proficiency regardless of how they got it.
I don't really buy the idea that retraining is videogamey. I can think of plenty of times in my life where I've basically reallocated my skills.
I stopped practicing card tricks so I could focus on balloon animals. I don't fence anymore but do run. I don't do much web design anymore but got more training in spreadsheets.
I forgot the 10 codes for dispatching, but I can pick it up in a hurry if I need to.
My dad switches in and out of what languages he knows annoying fast. Someone starts speaking French at him (or he decides he wants to watch TV in French today), and in a couple hours you'd never realize he hadn't spoken that language aloud in decades.
I don't really buy the idea that retraining is videogamey. I can think of plenty of times in my life where I've basically reallocated my skills.
I stopped practicing card tricks so I could focus on balloon animals. I don't fence anymore but do run. I don't do much web design anymore but got more training in spreadsheets.
I forgot the 10 codes for dispatching, but I can pick it up in a hurry if I need to.
My dad switches in and out of what languages he knows annoying fast. Someone starts speaking French at him (or he decides he wants to watch TV in French today), and in a couple hours you'd never realize he hadn't spoken that language aloud in decades.
You don't spend spend X days and cash to forget Swim to get Climb because you suddenly need to now and don't feel like risking a bad roll.
And then go "Wait let me forget ALL that and get my Swim back"
That doesn't feel videogamey?
Fine. Whatever. Paizo give us reset tokens to streamline it.
Sure, people in real life get rusty at something they don't practice for a while, but they rarely ever forget it entirely, let alone pick up instant mastery in a new thing at the same level of proficiency at the old thing. They certainly don't do this repeatedly, every few weeks, constantly becoming experts at dozens of new things.
That is very meta and breaks the feel of a consistent character. Retraining as a concept is fine, retraining as something quick and easy you can do to metagame every challenge is BS.
You have that much downtime that you can afford to spend a good amount of it to climb one area? Damn, your GM's taking it easy.