Now that I think about it, it's kind of a recurring issue with pf2e class development in general. By lumping everything together as "class feats", they've created an issue where things like a message cantrip have to compete against potentially 6d4 damage in AoE at level 1.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is, beyond the minutiae of how any given application of action economy or feat selection shakes out, you're not rewarded for specializing.
The thematic angle of being "the fire guy" just isn't there. You can be "the fire guy" just fine as a universalist, there's nothing (good) hidden away behind being a specialist. In pf1e, you made the choice at 7th level, and choosing to double up on your own element unlocked a bonus wild talent at a very competitive level for wild talent selection, and again at 13th where tripling up gave you a hard-to-come-by +1 to accuracy. In pf2e, that choice is entirely front-loaded and "balanced" accordingly. You don't gain any extra (good) water feats for being a dedicated water specialist, let alone a bonus feat that comes online at a level where the universalists don't get one at all. It entirely boils down to the trade between your level 1 feat options and the expanded access to other elements, and I do not believe the level 1 feats are so good you really want THAT many of them. They're just too situational for their opportunity cost. (and yes, retraining is a core rule, and in the core rulebook, it's mentioned as being up to GM discretion. ie, explicitly something they can choose to allow or not)
Guntermench wrote: You're still avoiding the question. You gave basically 2 level 1 feats that you like. Being universal doesn't help you with this. With a universal gate, you get to cherry pick the good feats, even in a flexible manner, as well as gain 3-5 more elements than a dedicated gate. It absolutely helps with that. You get value from the tradeoff instead of being made to take options you probably didn't want.Even a dual gate character is better off at specializing than a dedicated gate is due to that expanded access at minimal cost.
Guntermench wrote:
That's a fair take. Technically it only says you can't gather the same element you already have, (which is pointless to begin with) but it would make sense if the intent was to say you need something gathered already to even use it.
roquepo wrote: That would make Dedicated too strong in comparison to Dual and universal. Like, way too strong. imo, it might be exactly what dedicated gate needs to stay relevant. dual and universal gate characters will be doing cycle elements to gather and blast with the same action, and then follow up with a two action overflow of their choice.A dedicated gate character gets no bonus for gathering power, it's just pure action tax. Letting them be the ones that get to use a three action overflow in one turn would be a nice niche.
You can't just be looking at the effects of a given thing without also looking at its cost, both in actions and in opportunity. If you want to use one of those auras, they have to be worth a feat as well as at least 3 actions.
And then, that aura locks you out of other auras; Dust Storm is significantly better than any of the level 1 options, and the moment you take it, the others are dead feats. Hope your GM uses the retraining rules. To go further, Kineticist is a "martial" class and hitting things for damage is its primary job. If you're spending all three of your first turn actions to deal 0 damage it had better be for a very good effect, not a situational and minor resistance to an energy type the class doesn't even have the knowledge checks to be sure the enemy uses. And don't even start with Stoke Element, it's a bad joke even in optimal conditions. All the overflow impulses you'd want to use it with already take 3-4 actions; making them take 4-5 is not a win. Doubly so since only dual/universal gates have access to cycle element, allowing them to overflow and regather/blast without as much action tax.
Guntermench wrote: So the only Universal feat you'd take on purpose is Aerial Boomerang then? It would be my pick for the level 1 freebie, yes. Though with the universal gate being flexible, it's possible later on in levels I might choose something else, as might a wizard who knows they'll need more haste and less fireball. The dual/dedicated gates don't get that option.
Thaago wrote: The elements have quite good 1st level feats actually. Plus the feats can be spent on familiar, weapon, and flexible blasts. The feats gained from dedicated/dual gate must come with the relevant elemental tag; you can't take the unrestricted options. And I strongly disagree with these "level 1 elemental feats are good" takes I'm seeing in here.
Dedicated gate gets a handful of free feats that are forced to go into options you would never have chosen on purpose.
Witch Guide wrote:
I feel the rating here is overly harsh due to a mistaken interpretation. The archetype gives you the sorcerer's spontaneous casting and spell slot progression, but it does not make you a charisma-based caster.
All the Oozemorph Shifter needed to be an actual functioning character was the guy who wrote it to not add the overkill line of "However, she has no magic item slots and she cannot benefit from armor; cast spells; hold objects; speak; or use any magic item that requires activation, is held, or is worn on the body."
The psychic gets some nice divination spells I hardly ever see used.
Unchained Monk is, in my opinion, the only build that uses tekko-kagi and doesn't come out too far behind.
This is generally fine. For a personal favourite example, the Paladin's Hospitaler and Tempered Champion archetypes will stack. Hospitaler modifies Channel Positive Energy to not consume uses of Lay on Hands, but does not actually modify Lay on Hands itself to do so.
As for the Hooded Champion/Beastmaster example, doesn't work.
Not sure how helpful this is, but Channeler of the Unknown clerics can snag any weapon you want as a holy symbol at no gold cost, along with proficiency if you needed it.
Seconding the original post.
That's just not right. Not even a little.
For example, elves and gnomes getting a cantrip as an ancestry feat? Work with that. They don't just gain a free cantrip, they gain a free Multiclass Dedication feat for anything that would grant them arcane/primal cantrips, ON TOP OF some other small bonus, like training in arcana/nature.
Gosh I really hope Drow don't get turned into a heritage feat.
N N 959 wrote: It'd be one thing if Snares were this wonderful new mechanic like Inspiration was for Investigators. But who the hell uses it in P1? I know I sure don't. Even when I archetype my magic out, because I'm not a fan of the 4/9 casting thing, I avoided the ones that tried to replace it with terrible trap gimmicks. Is the campaign about hunting wild animals? ...gosh, you actually said yes? Alright, sure, lets roll with that. Do you want to spend that whole campaign just setting traps to hunt the wild animals for you?Even in the perfect scenario the things are still useless, because they actively make the game less fun to play.
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote: Ancestries seems more appropriate for changelings, dhampir, genie-blooded, duergar, ... Maybe if they don't do them such a grievous wrong like they did to Half-elf and Half-orc. Probably the biggest thing I expected from "Half-X is a feat now" was the ability to take them on races other than human. Like, Aasimar and Tieflings in PF 1e have rules in place to be from a race other than human, but that explicitly only changed their size category... and only if the DM allowed it.As it stands now, I'm just straight up never going to play a half-race, why spend a feat on gaining access to racial feats when I could instead just be the actual real race? Not having the real race as an option (playable true genies when?) for the half-races not appearing in the playtest would suck.
Pathfinder Society play doesn't use the same rules as your average home-game.
In a home game this is a complete non-issue. Obviously the Paladin can use Lay on Hands, I mean c'mon, right?
For an example of what I mean, typically a Rogue cannot use an Elven Curve Blade. Not only do they not have martial weapon proficiency, it's an Uncommon weapon.
KingOfAnything wrote: This is total nonsense and not how the rules work. You don't need to defend a mistake brought about by unfortunate interactions of wording likely written by three entirely different people. This is a playtest, there is a problem, and hopefully it will be fixed in time for the official release.
MaxAstro wrote: Common class features that give you uncommon options work the same way. This is obviously the intent, but not how the rule is currently written. Society play is designed to eliminate as much table variance as possible, and that means deciding things in advance that the DM would normally decide for you.In this case, because the class does not at any point actually grant access to those Uncommon options, you cannot, by the rules of Society play, select them. It doesn't matter that in some cases you only select a Common feat that grants an Uncommon reward, you haven't been given access to the Uncommon option, and that means you can't take more than one of them. And because you can't take more than one of them, there are some classes in the game that, as per the currently written rules of the game and Society play, are not legal for play at all.
Again, not arguing this is how it SHOULD work, because that would be ridiculous. Playtest rules just need a fix before the real launch, this is what playtests are for.
Colette Brunel wrote:
It does not, in fact. There's different headers for each section of the page detailing what the clarifications below them apply to. On a related note, such a FAQ for Pathfinder 1e is kinda telling in its own way; they've already been down this road before and didn't have a rule in place to handle it.Again, I'm not arguing this is the intent because clearly that's ridiculous. I'm arguing the rules need fixed so we won't *need* a FAQ-fix in the future.
No, they're pretty on the dot here.
Part of the point of a playtest is to find these sorts of issues and fix them, not to say "yeah but it's obvious it's not supposed to *actually* work that way" like there's nothing wrong.
They probably just wanted to avoid using the word "sex" in the book.
I'd say the bigger problem is the feat isn't described as learned type of disguise like "If I wrap my chest just right it really flattens down, and then I add a bulky shirt on top..." and rather retcons in an aspect of your character: "What do you mean? I've always had slightly pointed ears, yeah. Got some... distant elven blood in me. Honest."
For example, the Ranger in the playtest only gains Trackless Step at 5th level.
Nature's Edge at 9th level? Again, it's thematic, but not really a "9th level" benefit. Bump it down to 5th, it's not like a Rogue can just dip Ranger and Sneak Attack everything that sets foot in vaguely defined shrubbery.
Heritage feats should be something that changes what you are at a base level.
Edit: Another example would be Elves and "I can hear a bit good I guess."
Envall wrote:
I mean, considering it's optional now, I figure they're just glad to have the option. On a planet they intentionally preserve in a 'wild' state having some muscles could help, so it's not like they're that much worse off for it.
Personally I say it isn't even a retcon.
Not that I like the change, honestly, but it makes sense to me. |