| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really appreciate the way 2e balances things overall and between similar options. There will always be some options that are weaker and some that are stronger and that isn't a problem. But there are quite a few feats that are essentially a duplicate of another, but worse or at a higher level or both. And that is just plain unfair.
Some examples:
(1) Felling Strike (fighter 8) vs Felling Shot (rogue 12)
Felling Shot only works on ranged/thrown weapons instead of literally all weapons and unarmed attacks. Felling Shot also requires the target to be flat-footed, then for the Strike to hit and then a save on top. Felling Strike just requires a hit. Both do the exact same things in the end. Felling Shot is just straight up a worse version of Felling Strike, but 4 levels higher.
(2) Archer's Aim (archer archetype 8) vs Incredible Aim (fighter 8)
This example is pretty debatable, but still worth looking at. Archer's Aim, in addition to everything that Incredible Aim does, also reduces the flat-check for hidden creatures from 11 to 5. The reason this is a debatable example is the fact that Archer's Aim only works with bows. I'd still say this is an example of an archetype being a better version of a class feat of the same level, which is not how this system is supposed to work.
(3) Visual Fidelity (Inventor 6) vs Deadeye (Gunslinger 12)
Probably the most unfair example of them all, of those I have found at least. Deadeye, for an action, allows you to see invisible creatures and objects for a round, but they are still concealed. Visual Fidelity also makes invisible things merely concealed. But it is on permanently, with no activation cost. It also grants low-light- and darkvision. And as if that wasn't enough, it also helps you against blind effects. And the level difference is just... yeah.
In this case there is something to be said for different class specialisations (such as self-augmentation for the inventor) and how seeing invisible thing with the naked eye (instead of mechanical help) is obviously high level stuff. But the differences are so massive that such explanations are no longer sufficient.
---
It would be really cool if stuff like this would receive another balance pass ^^
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't some of this just niche protection? Like the investigator is supposed to be better at "noticing things" than anybody? Or how someone who specializes in being an archer (via the archetype) is better in their specialized area than a talented generalist?
Like fighters should probably have better straight up combat feats than rogues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about Storm Born (druid 1) vs Murksight (witch 8).
The witch version is not only a much higher level feat but only works against nonmagical effects (and only ones that count as precipitation). They're otherwise identical.
...edit: Guess Dubious Scholar was thinking the same thing as me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you know, the Witch is so OP. The Druid needs something to help it keep up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't some of this just niche protection? Like the investigator is supposed to be better at "noticing things" than anybody? Or how someone who specializes in being an archer (via the archetype) is better in their specialized area than a talented generalist?
Like fighters should probably have better straight up combat feats than rogues.
Niche protection excuses some things like the slightly behind animal companion advancement on the ranger vs the druid. Basically the archetype paradigm - you can get the same things, but on a slightly higher level, usually 2.
What it doesn't excuse is paying a massively higher price for a an objectively worse thing. Neither does it excuse archetype feats beating a class at their own game. Duelist and Archer are just the one-handed fighter and the ranged fighter plus a couple of extras and therefore they follow the usual "same stuff at a higher level" paradigm.
Edit: It is also an inventor feat, not an investigator one. And while I appreciate the self-augmentation thing they have going on, they also have a terrible perception progression, ending up an expert at 13. Meanwhile the gunslinger starts at expert, becomes a master at 7 and much later on even legendary, so perception is clearly more their thing. So claiming niche protection, especially for such a rediculous difference, just doesn't seem right to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that the feats inside classes are not properly balanced, I'm not much surprised that feats between classes are not properly balanced.
Overall, I think it's not much of a big deal. It may even be made on purpose. The Inventor has some crazy feats, largely stronger than what other classes have, it's part of the class, of it's power budget (it pays on other areas).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Stormborn versus Murksight example is egregious. The others aren't high on my "must get fixed asap" list.
I think Felling Strike vs Shot is a result of the designers thinking about having to use Felling Strike with a melee weapon, or with a backup ranged weapon and forgetting that a ranged focused fighter will make much better use of it. I'd like to see Felling Shot lose the save.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that the feats inside classes are not properly balanced, I'm not much surprised that feats between classes are not properly balanced.
Overall, I think it's not much of a big deal. It may even be made on purpose. The Inventor has some crazy feats, largely stronger than what other classes have, it's part of the class, of it's power budget (it pays on other areas).
It's still pretty extreme here, even taking that into account. Like, a gunslinger who's taken the Inventor archetype can get the much-better inventor feat for the same feat slot as the gunslinger feat would cost them. That's... excessive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Stormborn versus Murksight example is egregious. The others aren't high on my "must get fixed asap" list.
Yeah, when you can get a better feat option by multiclassing [that uses 1/2 level], it's pretty bad. The fact that you could pick up Stormborn [multiclass] 4 levels before you could pick Murksight IS bad as is Deadeye and Visual Fidelity [multiclass] being both available at 12th.
Archer's Aim vs Incredible Aim is less worrisome IMO. Having Archer's Aim better but limited to bows makes them more or less balanced with each other: Incredible Aim is much better if you're switch hitting [for instance you might throw your melee weapon] or want to use another ranged weapon type [like some new fancy guns] while Archer's Aim is better at bow attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Visual Fidelity vs Deadeye does feel a bit strange too, imo. Deadeye requires an action and lasts until the start of your next turn. Visual fidelity not only provides the same effect, but does so passively and grants darkvision + low light vision and has half the level requirement.
It not only does significantly more but comes online way earlier... and they're both in the same book too, which makes the disparity feel even odder.
The Stormborn versus Murksight example is egregious.
We could bump Murksight down to a level 2 feat and allow it to apply to magical weather too. That will let it compete with Basic Lesson.
LOL, or not.