A plurality of martials' class feats are utter trap options and push characters towards archetypes instead


Classes


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is really disheartening to see that a plurality of martials' class feats are utter trap options and push characters towards archetypes instead. Most of the fighter class feats do not synergize with the base level 1 class feats, and the 2nd-level paladin class feats are quite situational, for instance. It seems much better for most martials to take an archetype (such as a martial archetype). Barbarians, paladins, and rogues seem like they gain plenty from multiclassing into fighter to gain Power Attack or Double Slice, especially rogues double-tapping Sneak Attack with Double Slice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's premature to state anything remotely like this (and so-called 'trap' options are dumb and should be stricken from discussion, imo) until there's actually been people who've played as all of the above classes and can make a determination by actual play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Funnily enough, from my read-through of the fighter class feats, I was really impressed with their broad range of abilities that impose conditions as riders to doing what you want to do anyway (smashing faces). Their class feats have great synergy with one another as well. Intimidating Strike into Shatter defenses looks absurd, way better at first glance than anything other martial classes have to offer.

This is still day 1 of having the rules, so I'd hold off on making too many conclusions yet :>


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Disagree with GameDesignerDM.

Chalkboard game design is a fundamental part of game design. What Colette is pointing is that some feats are extremely situational, and that is easy to see without the need for table time.

Off course table time is important because some issues might appear only when at the table, but as for now there are issues that don't even need table time to be saw.


I am aware, and yet, the purpose of a beta test is to get feedback from actual play. I highly doubt there wasn't a single designer who may have raised such a concern, but actual play feedback is always better.

And people who don't care about "optimal" choices and just want to play a full martial with no archetype may end up picking those options because they fit with the character, so I wouldn't call them... what they're being called.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agree that Colette is making some leaps in tone. I'd be more speculative right now.

But speaking of Fighters and archetypes, I wonder if Fighter Dedication might be borderline must-have for a lot of classes. For an investment of just 2 class feats, it seems a caster can become fairly competent at weapon-based fighting.

This might become a lot like Longarms proficiency + specialization in Starfinder, which were almost essential for casters to pull their weight in combat.

Fighter Dedication does seem to outstrip most of the caster Feats that improve their weapon. Abilities like the Cleric's Deadly Simplicity, Channel Smite, Align Armament. Or the Sorcerer/Wizard's Magical Striker.

The offset to this is that they'll have to invest some resources in their weapon to keep up with the Cantrip scaling. I don't have a sense of how big a tax on resources that is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*Looks over some of the fighter feats*
I am...less than thrilled with a vast majority of these. I would have preferred fewer fighting styles with more choices at each level. As it is, it feels very D&D 4th edition (one good, one trap, and two utility).

For example the first level feats fall into these categories:
- Grapple-like (1 handed only)
- DR reduction (2 weapon fighting)
- Mutli-attack (Agile only)
- Ranged
- Power Attack (i.e. "free bonus damage")
- Shield Use
- Charge

The second level feats then fall into these categories:
- Shield Use
- Ranged
- Shove (2 handed only)
- Parry (1 handed only)
- Grapple-like (1 handed only)
- Induce fear

Only one of the feats available at 2nd level can be used regardless of what your equipment is, compared to two at 1st. Only one requires a pre-requisite feat (Grapple), though (this stays fairly constant: almost no later feats require an earlier one and its usually in the vein of "that pre-req but better" anyway).

Lets look at 4th level feats and their categories:
- Ranged
- Power Attack
- Shove
- Be Bad At Your Job
- Power Attack
- Parry (2 weapon fighting)

Again, only one feat has a feat pre-req (Shove)

Quick Reversal sounds good on paper, but requires that you be flanked and you still only get to hit (at most) one enemy. I mean, sure, a free attack on a miss is not bad, but the situation in which you've found yourself is Not Good, hence its categorization of "Be Bad At Your Job." Oh, and because it's has the Press keyword, you can only get the failure effect if you had a -4 multi-attack penalty or worse. Yikes!

So already we can classify fighters into these styles:
- single-weapon fighters (with shield)
- single-weapon fighters (without shield, making grapple-like actions)
- rangers (that aren't Rangers)
- two-handed fighters
- two-weapon fighters
And at best, each one of these classifications gets to pick two feats each time they get to pick a feat: one that matches their specialization and one generalist feat (which is predominantly of the Power Attack classification). I'm making no judgements about the viability of one style over another, just looking at what options I would be able to choose from if I was following one style or another.

Sixth level feats:
- Be Bad At Your Job
- Brave
- Be Bad At Your Job
- Fear Inducing
- Shield
- Shield
- Ranged

Exotic Weapon Training is for people who want to use a weird weapon and want to waste a 6th level feat for what amounts to a +1 or +2 to hit. Boring and there's little reason to use exotics from what I've seen so far.

Bravery is pretty generalist.

Revealing Stab is just...well, for one, its complicated and wordy, and second you have to leave your weapon stabbing the creature to gain the main benefit of the feat. Sure, it immobilizes it and reveals its location to your allies, but literally nothing stops the creature from using its action to remove the weapon and toss it aside. Oh and it has to be a piercing weapon. The only thing this feat is good for is removing/reducing the flat check to hit imperceptible things (which is a big deal, don't get me wrong, its the "everything else" that classifies this feat as Be Bad At Your Job).

Oh and we get two different feats that benefit shield-users.

8ths:
- Parry
- Anti-Air
- Ranged
- Power Attack
- Shield
- Ranged
- Charge/Anti-Air

Two ranged feats.

Sudden Leap combos with another feat of this level, making it highly unusual. Also, Anti-Air feats are a trap. Felling Strike is also confusing. You hit a flying creature with a melee Strike causing it to fall "up to 120 feet." Presumably you had to be adjacent to it to do this? Also, it takes no fall damage as a result—for reasons—disqualifying it from being classed as a Power Attack. Sudden leap lets you do this while also jumping. At least next level the fighter can actually make use of his Combat Flexibility (if a ranger, shield fighter, or anti-air turret).

----------------------

I'm going to stop there. I haven't yet figured out how Stance, Press, Open and so on interact (completely) and haven't included that analysis in my categorizations above, but I suspect that those keywords will further reduce the advantage of some of these feats (e.g. the Agile Grace 10th level feat makes the Failure effect on Press attacks no longer apply to your second attack in a round, as the first multiattack penalty is reduced to -3 and Press requires a minimum of -4 to trigger failure effects).

I'm just going to say it: combine Fighter and Ranger.

The ranger class has melee and ranged styles, so does the fighter. They're stepping on each other's toes so much that it hurts.

Add more Stances (the monk is overloaded with them! Monks get a choice of four stances—all of which have benefits and minimal drawbacks, though only the Crane stance uses the words "but the only Strikes you can make are ___ attacks" while the other three say "You can make ___ attacks"—and they only get to pick one).

Also Raise a Shield does not appear to be a stance and probably should be (not that it would conflict with freaking anything from the other fighter feats! Except Disruptive (which is a mediocre feat anyway), though it would eliminate the 12th level feat Shield Paragon).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

I'm just going to say it: combine Fighter and Ranger.

The ranger class has melee and ranged styles, so does the fighter. They're stepping on each other's toes so much that it hurts.

Agreed. Other than being better at saves (for no reason) and skills, this version of the ranger functionally has no reason to exist.

The few handful of distinct abilities it has can be handed out to other classes (or are already available).

The ranger preview sounded interesting, but the implementation is... meh. Yes, monster hunter makes the multiattack penalty very low, but it is so thematically disconnected with hunting I can't figure out why it's here. No one hunts by wildly chopping at an animal. It seems more a barbarian thing.


Then again, I am having second thoughts about Power Attack. At first, I was sure that it added even the extra damage from weapon potency runes, but now that I look at the wording again, I am not so sure.

If Power Attack fails to multiply the extra damage dice, then:
Barbarians want neither Double Slice nor Power Attack.
Fighters want a two-handed weapon and Furious Focus and Sudden Charge (or possibly both with the human's Natural Ambition).
Paladins want neither Double Slice nor Power Attack.
Rangers want neither Double Slice nor Power Attack.
Rogues want to multiclass into fighter for Double Slice.
Does this seem about right?


Colette Brunel wrote:
Then again, I am having second thoughts about Power Attack. At first, I was sure that it added even the extra damage from weapon potency runes, but now that I look at the wording again, I am not so sure.

Nope. It just adds more dice, the same way the potency runes do.

(It's still one of the better feats, though)


In light of Power Attack working not as I thought it did, I would like to partially retract the claims opening post of this thread. Many martial class feats are poor, but most martials do not want to multiclass due to opportunity cost, aside from rogues wanting to multiclass into fighter for Double Slice.


Perhaps it's time for review (or continuing a first read) rather than reaction threads.


Voss wrote:
Perhaps it's time for review (or continuing a first read) rather than reaction threads.

I do not know. I read the rules for weapon potency first, then read Power Attack, then was told by a player of mine that weapon potency seemed like a good synergy with Power Attack, then double-checked the rules, and then saw that the player's interpretation was plausible.

But now that I looked at it again, the player's reading did not seem as sound.

So I apologize for that.


GameDesignerDM wrote:


And people who don't care about "optimal" choices and just want to play a full martial with no archetype may end up picking those options because they fit with the character, so I wouldn't call them... what they're being called.

What? Trap options? Because that's exactly what they are: options designed to punish filthy casuals for having interests outside of theorycrafting. Monte Cook wrote about this in his Ivory Tower design essay.

See that's the main problem with Pathfinder: it's a deckbuilding game disguised as an RPG. The other problem is that the martial classes are still (STILL) designed around mitigating failure. You'll notice that many of the interesting fighter feats impose a multi-attack penalty; attacks of opportunity have a -2 penalty; an action is required just to gain an AC bonus to your shield - the list goes on. Meanwhile, I notice that Charm Person and Sleep still come online at level 1 for Wizards; those spells can end an encounter in one round and impose no penalty whatsoever. But I know what you're thinking: but martial characters get to take penalties as much as they want, while wizards have a limited number of spell slots that grows with every subsequent level.

Now imagine you go to a party and the host offers you some homemade chex mix. "Thanks" you say, "but I'm allergic to peanuts". The host then shakes up the bowl and offers again. THAT is the essence of PF2. Is it any wonder they lost so many players to 5E, which focuses on letting you do things that are cool, rather than punishing certain classes for it.


5e is a trap option.


Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
Meanwhile, I notice that Charm Person and Sleep still come online at level 1 for Wizards; those spells can end an encounter in one round and impose no penalty whatsoever.

Charm can end an encounter at first level if you're fighting a single humanoid foe... and they fail their save even with the circumstance bonus (and +4 goes further than it used to). Sleep only will end an encounter if everyone quietly walks away from the sleeping creatures, or you cast it as a 3rd level spell instead. Even given that, I'm not sure that being attacked won't wake them up.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / A plurality of martials' class feats are utter trap options and push characters towards archetypes instead All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes