Semi-Complete List of Things that Used to be Available to Everyone that are Now Class Locked


General Discussion

101 to 133 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It partly comes down to the question: How much should choices matter?

bugleyman wrote:


We're what...nine days in? In that time, the often farcical level of histrionics around the new edition has driven me from from sympathy to ambivalence to frustration and annoyance. And thus snark is born.

In PF1 the Snark was just a CR 1/4 creature. Clearly for the new edition it needs to be buffed!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
You know, it would be nice to have a thread critical of the new rules where the same five people would not come in and derail it massively by snarking at everybody who has a problem with the new edition. Just saying.

And from my perspective, it would be nice to have a thread discussing the new rules in any capacity whatsoever where the save five people would not come in and derail it massively by ranting that 2E is unplayable, deliberately obtuse, garbage (yes, someone said this), etc., and how Paizo is guaranteed to go out of business.

We're what...nine days in? In that time, the often farcical level of histrionics around the new edition has driven me from from sympathy to ambivalence to frustration and annoyance. And thus snark is born.

For the record, I'm not saying the snark is productive or mature. But blaming the message board dumpster fire solely on one side -- either side -- is the equivalent of squirting gasoline.

I don't know, I guess that is confirmation bias at work here for me as well, but I don't see the same five people doing what you just described. Sure, some people here (and that includes me) are not very happy with what we got. But I just don't see anybody doing a sustained effort at going over the top all the time in the way you just described.

If you think that worrying that Paizo is making a huge mistake is a sign that we don't like the company, you are getting it exactly wrong. The people who are critical of the new edition, who want Paizo to change course and who spend their precious daily time here on this board to issue some warnings genuinely like the company just as much as you do, but we have a different perspective.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

for reference, my being critical is because I like pathfinder and want to see this new edition be the very best it can be, not because I enjoy nitpicking it. I want paizo to succeed and for this system to be fun.

but, there are a lot of flaws i feel seriously hamper the game (either mechanically, by "feel", or both), and this is the one period in time that pointing them out may actually get something done about them (and is why i'm so uncharacteristically active on the forums of late)--especially since this is going to be the first foot forward for this edition, which i'd like to see be it's *best* foot, not a flawed or broken one that requires more purchases to fix (and then that book requires another book/purchase to fix, and so on--which i feel is extremely harmful for customer, and more importantly, player goodwill).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
If you think that worrying that Paizo is making a huge mistake is a sign that we don't like the company, you are getting it exactly wrong. The people who are critical of the new edition, who want Paizo to change course and who spend their precious daily time here on this board to issue some warnings genuinely like the company just as much as you do, but we have a different perspective.

It isn't that I don't believe people want Paizo to succeed...it's that I do not believe that angry posts describing the playtest as "garbage" serve that goal. And while I appreciate hyperbole in venting one's frustration feels good, it is distracting and counter-productive. Really, that's all I've been trying to say all along; I don't want people who don't like the play test to not have a voice...I want them to use their inside voice.

As for this thread in particular, I think it has bee mostly productive, and I've tried -- though perhaps not always succeeded -- to contribute to it as such. However, I do find the "I'm just posting this list with no further comment" bit to be disingenuous. I guess I see it as the difference between expressing one's opinion about which abilities should/shouldn't be class-gated vs. passive-aggressively implying that class-gating anything that wasn't class-gated in 1E is inherently bad (in a class-based RPG!) while professing to do nothing of the kind.


AndIMustMask wrote:

for reference, my being critical is because I like pathfinder and want to see this new edition be the very best it can be, not because I enjoy nitpicking it. I want paizo to succeed and for this system to be fun.

but, there are a lot of flaws i feel seriously hamper the game (either mechanically, by "feel", or both), and this is the one period in time that pointing them out may actually get something done about them (and is why i'm so uncharacteristically active on the forums of late)--especially since this is going to be the first foot forward for this edition, which i'd like to see be it's *best* foot, not a flawed or broken one that requires more purchases to fix (and then that book requires another book/purchase to fix, and so on--which i feel is extremely harmful for customer, and more importantly, player goodwill).

^


5 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
If you think that worrying that Paizo is making a huge mistake is a sign that we don't like the company, you are getting it exactly wrong. The people who are critical of the new edition, who want Paizo to change course and who spend their precious daily time here on this board to issue some warnings genuinely like the company just as much as you do, but we have a different perspective.

It isn't that I don't believe people want Paizo to succeed...it's that I do not believe that angry posts describing the playtest as "garbage" serve that goal. And while I appreciate hyperbole in venting one's frustration feels good, it is distracting and counter-productive. Really, that's all I've been trying to say all along; I don't want people who don't like the play test to not have a voice...I want them to use their inside voice.

As for this thread in particular, I think it has bee mostly productive, and I've tried -- though perhaps not always succeeded -- to contribute to it as such. However, I do find the "I'm just posting this list with no further comment" bit to be disingenuous. I guess I see it as the difference between expressing one's opinion about which abilities should/shouldn't be class-gated vs. passive-aggressively implying that class-gating anything that wasn't class-gated in 1E is inherently bad (in a class-based RPG!) while professing to do nothing of the kind.

It's a list that needed to be posted.

Class gating things that are effectively mandatory to be able to use a fighting style (PBS, Double Slice, Selective Energy) is a huge problem.

Either make it baseline everyone can do the thing- i.e. anyone can exclude when using 3 action Heal, do away with the nonsense Volley drawback, put in an actual baseline option to dual wield that's not just using an extra weapon to no mechanical effect, and make the class gated options something that makes you better at it, or else make the feats general so anyone can take them (like they could through the past 20 years and 3 editions).

Or at the bare minimum, make them available to the classes that are based around having them- especially Bow and Dual Wield ranger and Dual wield rogue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On with the Paladin using a bow, I dont like the fact that the Fighter and Paladin are pigeonholed into using Heavy Armor. Their lvl 7 Class Ability ups Heavy Armor and the Fortitude extra only works when wearing Heavy Armor. So a Dexterous Bow Using Fighter needs to wear Heavy Armor to get the most out of their Basic Class Abilities. Thats crazy and I hope they rewrite that ability to "Pick one of either Light, Medium, or Heavy Armor and shields increases to expert, and your proficiency rank for Fortitude saves increases to master. While wearing your selection, when you succeed at a Fortitude save, treat your result as a critical success instead"


Callin13 wrote:
On with the Paladin using a bow, I dont like the fact that the Fighter and Paladin are pigeonholed into using Heavy Armor.

Yeah, 4th Ed does the same thing (paladin only one to have heavy), it would be nice to support the lightly-armoured Dex-Fighter as an option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to observe that class gating to use a fighting strategy is not a problem provided that strategy is still functional above a given threshold without that class. It's fine if one or two classes is clearly better at doing a certain thing, provided people in other classes can still do it reasonably well.

Like you could build darn near any class into an archer in PF1, but it might eat darn near all your feats doing it, and most of the time you weren't nearly as good in terms of DPR as the Molthune Arsenal Chaplain or the Haunt Collector Occultist with trappings of the warrior, but you still did good damage and were useful.

So rather than just highlighting "this thing is good for a given strategy and is limited to one or two classes" we should investigate:

-Is this a reasonable strategy to pursue in the first place ("A rogue who dual wields" and "a sorcerer who wears heavy armor and punches people" should not be given equal weight)

-Is this strategy functional without feat support in class, just proficiency. (It seems like most of what holds archer paladins back is people not wanting "dead" class features like heavy armor proficiency and retributive strike- all of the offense enablers built into the class work fine with bows.)

Like seriously, building some Clerics or Paladins of Erastil and seeing how good we can make them is more productive than lamenting how PBS isn't available to all.


Of course there are many ways to introduce this through archetypes/feats, fighters and paladins that can gain up to Legendary Proficiency in Unarmoured.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

Except in 2e, anyone can 2-weapon fight without a feat. In fact, it's a fairly decent idea to have a stronger weapon in one hand and an agile weapon in the other which has reduced penalties when making multiple attacks in a turn.

Fighters and Rangers just 2-weapon fight better than other classes do because of their class feats. What I don't really see as a problem. If a fighter has nothing unique that they can do, then why do they deserve to exist as a class?

Anyone with more than one attack could have done the same in PF1.

We all understand that when we say "Two Weapon fighting" or "Dual wielding" we mean "Gaining an advantage (usually an extra attack) for doing so."

No, simply using an offhand weapon to do the same number of attacks you could have done with one is NOT the same.

I’d be frustrated too if someone gave me as pointless a reply as I surmise you found the one Ventnor gave you.

It seems you haven’t read the rules for agile weapons. You’ll be happy to learn that using one in your off-hand gives a not insubstantial bonus to dual wielders, even without double slice.

Let’s compare two level one fighters, eighteen strength, one using a maul (two handed hammer), the other using a long and shortsword in tandem. They’ll both use three actions to Strike.

The two handed fighter looks like:

Maul +6 (1d12+4), Maul +1 (1d12+4), Maul -4 (1d12+4)

The two weapon fighter looks like:

Longsword +6 (1d8+4), Shortsword +2 (1d6+4), Shortsword -2 (1d6+4)

The second fighter is much more accurate with their iterative attacks. The get something out of dual wielding without taking double slice at all.

No, that fighter is getting a +1 to damage with his first attack over the guy using a single short sword, at the cost of having to maintain multiple weapons.

Oh no, not my Doubling Rings, a level 3 item that solves that problem permanently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

Except in 2e, anyone can 2-weapon fight without a feat. In fact, it's a fairly decent idea to have a stronger weapon in one hand and an agile weapon in the other which has reduced penalties when making multiple attacks in a turn.

Fighters and Rangers just 2-weapon fight better than other classes do because of their class feats. What I don't really see as a problem. If a fighter has nothing unique that they can do, then why do they deserve to exist as a class?

Anyone with more than one attack could have done the same in PF1.

We all understand that when we say "Two Weapon fighting" or "Dual wielding" we mean "Gaining an advantage (usually an extra attack) for doing so."

No, simply using an offhand weapon to do the same number of attacks you could have done with one is NOT the same.

I’d be frustrated too if someone gave me as pointless a reply as I surmise you found the one Ventnor gave you.

It seems you haven’t read the rules for agile weapons. You’ll be happy to learn that using one in your off-hand gives a not insubstantial bonus to dual wielders, even without double slice.

Let’s compare two level one fighters, eighteen strength, one using a maul (two handed hammer), the other using a long and shortsword in tandem. They’ll both use three actions to Strike.

The two handed fighter looks like:

Maul +6 (1d12+4), Maul +1 (1d12+4), Maul -4 (1d12+4)

The two weapon fighter looks like:

Longsword +6 (1d8+4), Shortsword +2 (1d6+4), Shortsword -2 (1d6+4)

The second fighter is much more accurate with their iterative attacks. The get something out of dual wielding without taking double slice at all.

No, that fighter is getting a +1 to damage with his first attack over the guy using a single short sword, at the cost of having to maintain multiple weapons.
Oh no, not my Doubling Rings, a level 3 item that solves that problem permanently.

I'm not really into relying on magic items I might theoretically own in order to patch things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, Doubling Rings solves needing to have two magic weapons at the price of a point of resonance daily, but does nothing for the fact that for other than fighters the only advantage to fighting with two weapons is a very, very small damage buff with your first attack each round.

(The difference between attacking with a single Rapier or Short Sword 3 times, and attacking with a Long sword once and the Rapier or Short Sword twice). . .


Nathanael Love wrote:

Also, Doubling Rings solves needing to have two magic weapons at the price of a point of resonance daily, but does nothing for the fact that for other than fighters the only advantage to fighting with two weapons is a very, very small damage buff with your first attack each round.

(The difference between attacking with a single Rapier or Short Sword 3 times, and attacking with a Long sword once and the Rapier or Short Sword twice). . .

*shrug*

I haven’t played a high level dual wielder, but I imagine the strategy gets stronger as time goes on and magic multiplies the base damage of the weapons.

But that’s conjecture. I’ve no idea what comes out most effective, dual wielding or dual handing. My hope is that they’re roughly balanced, along with one handing and shield-using. If they aren’t, I’ll submit feedback to that effect.

All I was pointing out is that there’s a distinct mechanical reason to use two weapons, double slice or no.


Yossarian wrote:

It partly comes down to the question: How much should choices matter?

Hmm. I was thinking that a lot of the disagreements people have with PF2 is that they viewed PF1 as a skill based system. You got 20 skill ranks over the lifetime of a character and the skills had names like "Fighter, Cleric, Wizard".

bugleyman wrote:


We're what...nine days in? In that time, the often farcical level of histrionics around the new edition has driven me from from sympathy to ambivalence to frustration and annoyance. And thus snark is born.
Yossarian wrote:


In PF1 the Snark was just a CR 1/4 creature. Clearly for the new edition it needs to be buffed!

Agreed. I understand why they made it an archetype instead of a creature but the three feat tax Ambivalence, Frustration and Annoyance is a little too much to ask.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for this list! It is super disappointing to see this!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
All I was pointing out is that there’s a distinct mechanical reason to use two weapons, double slice or no.

What would really help the "rapier and dagger" strategy is if there were a dagger with the parry, agile, and finesse traits. I was about to get excited about doing this with a dwarf rogue, but the clan dagger is not finesse.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
All I was pointing out is that there’s a distinct mechanical reason to use two weapons, double slice or no.
What would really help the "rapier and dagger" strategy is if there were a dagger with the parry, agile, and finesse traits. I was about to get excited about doing this with a dwarf rogue, but the clan dagger is not finesse.

There's the main-gauche. It's martial though, so not a great option for a rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
All I was pointing out is that there’s a distinct mechanical reason to use two weapons, double slice or no.
What would really help the "rapier and dagger" strategy is if there were a dagger with the parry, agile, and finesse traits. I was about to get excited about doing this with a dwarf rogue, but the clan dagger is not finesse.

How superbly lame, I mean, really. The whole Agile/Finesse differential is arbitrary and irritating.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
Envall wrote:
Exclusivity is diversity. By locking elements behind class feats, we finally have a framework that makes all classes meaningful, not just the very few that were allowed to have unique class features others could not get their hands on.
All the classes in PF1 (with possible exclusion of fighter and rogue) had unique elements and felt distinct. An yet none of them had restricted a combat style.

Only Gunslinger and Swashbuckler, but these classes have rightfully been grilled in these forums already for that mistake. There was pretty much only 1 right way to play Swashbuckler. Gunslinger cna branch out a lot more nowadays, but it's still pretty linear and same-y.

Otherwise I agree. Anyone could try any style, but you needed your class to support it in some way to achieve maximum potential. Fighter could do this with his weapon spec/trainig, Rogue by using it to sneak, Cleric by buffing, Ranger with free feats and early access, etc. Everyone had a different way to leverage their martial feats in unique ways (Except 1/2 BAB guys). Archer Paladin wasn't the same as Archer Ranger or Archer Slayer. Don't think class identity was lost by having the archery feats available to all.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Let's be real though, did anybody ever want to take Stunning Fist on a non-Monk? Like, how many non-clerics could actually make effective use of elemental channel in PF1?

A lot of these were options I never wanted on classes in the intersection of "classes that do not currently have access to it" and "classes that currently exist" (since, like, a new class might have access to any of these.)

On one hand there are reasonable observations like "the rules don't really support an archer paladin, or a lightly armored fighter, or a strength rogue" and on the other hand there's "my sorcerer can no longer take furious focus or stunning fist."

I used Elemental Channel to great effect on a Life Oracle in Legacy of Fire adventure path. It is situational, but I think Elemental Channel is better being a general feat for any character that can channel energy to be able to take rather than being an option only clerics can take.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
How superbly lame, I mean, really. The whole Agile/Finesse differential is arbitrary and irritating.

I kind of like it because the rapier is absolutely a finesse weapon, since its effective use is predicated on being able to hit precise spots. It is not, however in no way an agile one since it's a like a 40-50" inch blade (albeit a narrow one)... It's not especially quick to retarget after a lunge.

So the Rapier alone makes it plausible for there to be a distinction between "dexterity is important" and "one can attack rapidly in succession." Plus this lets us have non-finesse weapons that are good for making rapid attacks with, like that orcish punch dagger.

Like agile can exist purely in a "how long is the blade/arc of effective attack" sense.


It looks like the ability to Ready a spell has been limited to an 8th-level Sorcerer/Wizard feat (to get to use it 1/day).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
How superbly lame, I mean, really. The whole Agile/Finesse differential is arbitrary and irritating.

I kind of like it because the rapier is absolutely a finesse weapon, since its effective use is predicated on being able to hit precise spots. It is not, however in no way an agile one since it's a like a 40-50" inch blade (albeit a narrow one)... It's not especially quick to retarget after a lunge.

So the Rapier alone makes it plausible for there to be a distinction between "dexterity is important" and "one can attack rapidly in succession." Plus this lets us have non-finesse weapons that are good for making rapid attacks with, like that orcish punch dagger.

Like agile can exist purely in a "how long is the blade/arc of effective attack" sense.

I think the idea of super quick rapiers comes from confusion of them with the later smallswords or even fencing foils in popular culture. Those old swashbuckler movies actually used fencing foils which are not the same. A rapier is really long with 40+ inch blades being common, and not light, they weigh about the same as a one handed medieval sword (about 2-3 pounds), and because of their length can be rather tiring to use. Smallswords are as the name suggests really small and light, about 30 inch blade and less than a pound. Here's a nice comparison (although note the Longsword referenced here is what's called a Bastard Sword in PF. The PF longsword is more along the size of the Side Swords there, just without the complex guard.

So yeah, rapier totally works with finesse, but not agile. And I agree about the design space being nice to have finesse and agile as separate things where you can easily have one but not the other.

Scarab Sages

I'm very okay with some things being class gated, given that we have so many more options with the multi class and archetype feats and the fact that they will be having those for most if not all classes. Yes a few things anyone could take before will be blocked, but there will also be other things you can get now. Its not PF1.1, its PF2.0, so I would expect that not everything will stay the same. Evolution sometimes takes leaps and not small steps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
How superbly lame, I mean, really. The whole Agile/Finesse differential is arbitrary and irritating.

I kind of like it because the rapier is absolutely a finesse weapon, since its effective use is predicated on being able to hit precise spots. It is not, however in no way an agile one since it's a like a 40-50" inch blade (albeit a narrow one)... It's not especially quick to retarget after a lunge.

So the Rapier alone makes it plausible for there to be a distinction between "dexterity is important" and "one can attack rapidly in succession." Plus this lets us have non-finesse weapons that are good for making rapid attacks with, like that orcish punch dagger.

Like agile can exist purely in a "how long is the blade/arc of effective attack" sense.

you uh--you don't watch much high level fencing do you.

that someone could imply a rapier/epee/foil/saber/etc isn't good at or specifically designed for rapid striking (even on the lunge) is just staggering.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A rapier is at least a foot longer than any blade used in modern fencing, in some cases two feet longer. I suspect you are thinking of a smallsword and not a rapier.

Also, we are literally skewering people here, not just poking them.


Yes, I do not think of a rapier as a foil, a rapier is more like what Baldur wields in the Thor movies, I also offer a slashing version (broadsword, sabre, Jian, etc), so I guess that helps, just the terms seem rather similar, I assume a finesse weapon will be agile, quick, as they can use Dex to attack, I probably just need to get used to it.


I find interesting the contrast that things that were NOT available to everyone in 1E, such as high-level spellcasting, are now relatively accessible. Mutliclassing is a big part of PF2, I reckon. Bigger than it was in PF1.

I think better than screaming 'X is only available by multi-class', or 'X isn't available even with multi-class' as a categorical Bad Thing, we should discuss what things should be restricted and by how much.

Personally, I'm happy with the availabilty of Spellcasting mechanics.

I am very unhappy with the availability of Master and Ledegendary skills, and feel the Signiture Skill system to be a terrible idea.

As for, say, Double Slice? I don't care that the specific feat is class locked, as long as the concept of 'Uses 2 weapons effetively' is early-accessible to every class (even things like Wizards and Druids, why not?) which would imply it's either a Dedication Feat, a General Feat, or the base mechanics for dual wielding are improved.

So, yeah, can we work on framing the actual issue ('dual wield at basic effectiveness is too restricted') rather than specific microcosms of the issues ('double slice is too restricted')


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the current design, the OP really has a lot of blind spots, for example did you even read all the weapon traits? Your characters can attempt anything you can imagine in the narrative, that has not gone away, its just more codified, but with way less word count than PF1. The new system has really streamlined the encounters in a good way, the 3 actions help creativity. I actually enjoy limitations with the option of building into things I want, instead of just being handed it all at level 1. The AoO is available if you want to build into it. I guess the bottom line is, as strange as this sounds, throughout this playtest, I have grown to enjoy having gated capabilities, and it feels better than the old feat tax system.


Jackofmages wrote:
I like the current design, the OP really has a lot of blind spots, for example did you even read all the weapon traits? Your characters can attempt anything you can imagine in the narrative, that has not gone away, its just more codified, but with way less word count than PF1. The new system has really streamlined the encounters in a good way, the 3 actions help creativity. I actually enjoy limitations with the option of building into things I want, instead of just being handed it all at level 1. The AoO is available if you want to build into it. I guess the bottom line is, as strange as this sounds, throughout this playtest, I have grown to enjoy having gated capabilities, and it feels better than the old feat tax system.

Liking one feat tax over the other feat tax doesn't change the fact that they are both still feat taxes.

101 to 133 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Semi-Complete List of Things that Used to be Available to Everyone that are Now Class Locked All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion