Any one thinks classes should have more feats?


General Discussion


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Like a fighter might get one every level for example.

And probably most classes getting one every level.

Scarab Sages

I'm saying that in a lot of threat yeah.
My global idea is like that :

Copy past of one of my post:

- Pick between 3 and 5 Ancestries Feats at level 1 (whatever would be balanced) and make them auto scale with level.

=> Make more sense that your natural abilities that you already (And always) had increase in place of suddenly appears from nowhere.

- Remove all Ancestries Feats gaigned by leveling. Chose Class Feats instead.

=> Allow to poursuit one "main path" while still grabbing a little of others things => More build diversity.
(Maybe broken with Multiclassing though)

- Change the feats chains that are just "You gain one more dice on the habilitie you already have + ultra minor side effect". Make them just one skill that auto scale with level.
(Side note : That may reduce the build diversity unless you have a ton of these kind of feats)

=> Skill you pick must be impactfull. Like giving you a new action or reaction and not just "+x to thing you already have"

That would need a lot of work though. And invent many new class feats to chose from (like a reaction to trip opponent for the monk under some circonstances or whatever else).

It is basically "give more feats" but doing it a bit differently.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I definitely feel like a feat every level would make the game a lot more fun.

A simple change to make that happen would be for you to get a general feat every odd level, general feats would be changed to be balanced with class feats, and have a general feat to take a class feat.

Or they could keep general feats the way they are, get a class feat every odd level, and get a minor more roleplaying oriented class feature every even level like woodland stride or battle field surveyor.
Spellcasters and rogues already get class features on even levels with spell casters getting more casts and rogues getting skill rank increases.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

Not necessarily. I would prefer they get better feats, preferably feats that scale with level like spells or class abilities.

I see a lot of Raging Swimmer-level feats and powers in the current version.


I don't think so, I think they should get more options to spend their choices on. As a character you get a feat at every level, its just after second and before 7th most of the time all the non-class ones are not appealing at all.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I think it's silly to HARD-GROUP Class Feats, Ancestry, Skill, & General Feats into separate categories. If a PC wants to choose a Class Feat EVERY level, why not let them? If the Rogue wants to give up a few Skill Feats in order to Multiclass, why not let them?

Take away some of the silly "Rogue/Fighter/Cleric Only" Requirements on a bunch of Feats, retain some of the more flavorful options and call them all General Feats.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:

Not necessarily. I would prefer they get better feats, preferably feats that scale with level like spells or class abilities.

I see a lot of Raging Swimmer-level feats and powers in the current version.

It is curious to me how many classes end up with feats that provide general utility which compete in the same level slot as feats which make you better at the thing you are supposed to be good at.

It just seems weird to force a fighter to choose between "bravery is twice as good" and "triple shot". I wonder if things like "Raging Swimmer" couldn't be made so that the Barbarian can take it as a general feat. Since juxtaposing "constantly under the effect of speak with plants" and "you can turn into a dragon" just makes me feel sad about taking the former.


I could see them implementing different optional rules for class feats: have the current version as the basis and two optional sets with more feats or a lower number of feats for higher or lower power level depending on what the group wants.

Higher has the prerequisite of having a bigger pool to chose from too. Like give every barbarian totem multiple feats on every feat level that they can chose from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

there could be 2 different types of class feats. One for in combat things and one for out of combat things as well.


Zautos' wrote:
there could be 2 different types of class feats. One for in combat things and one for out of combat things as well.

While I tend to think out of combat utility should be general feats rather than class feats, it wouldn't break my heart to see class utility feats that can be picked up with their own slots so such abilities don't have to compete with combat applicable feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have certainly called for more feats.

Moreover, others have voiced a similar sentiment.

I am essentially of the mind that perhaps general feats can be greatly expanded in terms of their scope and effectiveness and that you should get general feats on top of your ancestry feats at 5/9/etc.

More feats at more levels increases the difficulty of building characters though so I could see D.M.W.'s "feat tree" idea working or a solution where every feat is essentially as build defining as a whole chain of feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If martial characters scaled like this, then they would essentially get a bunch of free feats as their proficiency scaled up with level. This could be considered parallel to casters proficiency with spells going up as they level as well.

From there, the class progression table could then be expanded so each and every class gets a class feat at even levels.

Then, class feats should be reorganized to remove the level gating and instead could create 2-3 pools of feats in a similar vein to how class talents were divided in PF1. The lists could be made shorter with relevant options that actually competed with each other for use and didn't force you to read through the entire class build to see which feats you unlock at later levels to understand how the class is meant to work.

They've already started cutting clutter feats, I'm optimistic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also agreeing with the "Put them as general feats" instead. Class feats every 2 levels is fine if they expand/merge the narrow pools they have atm. Classes still get some stuff in the odd levels anyways, including other feat types like Skill and Ancestry, ideally there would also be a more interesting pool of general feats in there somewhere.

The reason they can't let characters ignore skill/ancestry feats is one I agree with. In PF1 there was too big of an opportunity cost to not just take the combat-relevant feats every time, which meant that skill-based stuff would just get ignored. At least now characters can boost their combat and non-combat stuff more evenly without feeling bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

Also agreeing with the "Put them as general feats" instead. Class feats every 2 levels is fine if they expand/merge the narrow pools they have atm. Classes still get some stuff in the odd levels anyways, including other feat types like Skill and Ancestry, ideally there would also be a more interesting pool of general feats in there somewhere.

The reason they can't let characters ignore skill/ancestry feats is one I agree with. In PF1 there was too big of an opportunity cost to not just take the combat-relevant feats every time, which meant that skill-based stuff would just get ignored. At least now characters can boost their combat and non-combat stuff more evenly without feeling bad.

I agree with you about keeping in skill feats and ancestry feats. I like that there is a separate track for out of combat and utility stuff that does not compete with your core competency of combat prowess.

Going towards that idea, I wonder if perhaps some things that are currently class feats like the barbarian's raging athlete or the alchemist's efficient alchemy might be moved into being skill feats with a class prerequisite.


Pathfinder Card Game, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Personally I don't have a problem with feats being grouped the way they are now, but then I don't feel I need to take a max level feat just because its available. As a Bard you can start multiple paths by taking multiple level 1 feats. It's a little tight on the feats, but totally doable. Same for Druid or Monk.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperSheep wrote:
Personally I don't have a problem with feats being grouped the way they are now, but then I don't feel I need to take a max level feat just because its available. As a Bard you can start multiple paths by taking multiple level 1 feats. It's a little tight on the feats, but totally doable. Same for Druid or Monk.

That is all well and good for builds that don't need a constant stream of feats to make certain playstyles remain relevant. Animal companions and bomb alchemists both have a lot of their feats spoken for right out of the gate. Arguably, bomb alchemists have ALL their feats spoken for.


Pathfinder Card Game, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
SuperSheep wrote:
Personally I don't have a problem with feats being grouped the way they are now, but then I don't feel I need to take a max level feat just because its available. As a Bard you can start multiple paths by taking multiple level 1 feats. It's a little tight on the feats, but totally doable. Same for Druid or Monk.
That is all well and good for builds that don't need a constant stream of feats to make certain playstyles remain relevant. Animal companions and bomb alchemists both have a lot of their feats spoken for right out of the gate. Arguably, bomb alchemists have ALL their feats spoken for.

That's an individual problem rather than the issue being categorical. They could increase some baseline numbers or group some feats together to keep things relevant, but originally it was a desire to see feats grouped together more like Starfinder. Which is fine, I guess. But that's one solution to the problem, but it's not a solution to the problem you suggested which is that you don't really have options because you have to take an entire line just to stay relevant. How they're grouped won't affect that, only how many you get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperSheep wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
SuperSheep wrote:
Personally I don't have a problem with feats being grouped the way they are now, but then I don't feel I need to take a max level feat just because its available. As a Bard you can start multiple paths by taking multiple level 1 feats. It's a little tight on the feats, but totally doable. Same for Druid or Monk.
That is all well and good for builds that don't need a constant stream of feats to make certain playstyles remain relevant. Animal companions and bomb alchemists both have a lot of their feats spoken for right out of the gate. Arguably, bomb alchemists have ALL their feats spoken for.
That's an individual problem rather than the issue being categorical. They could increase some baseline numbers or group some feats together to keep things relevant, but originally it was a desire to see feats grouped together more like Starfinder. Which is fine, I guess. But that's one solution to the problem, but it's not a solution to the problem you suggested which is that you don't really have options because you have to take an entire line just to stay relevant. How they're grouped won't affect that, only how many you get.

Yeah, I buy that. That said, I have other reasons to want more feat options that matter if only to allow for a broader range of playstyles and builds. I go a little more into that in my own thread that I linked earlier.

I would also say that it is categorically a problem for out of combat (non-core competency) options to compete heavily with combat (core competency) options. This will almost always lead to players who really want something like raging athletics to be underpowered since there is essentially always a desirable combat-focused feat to take (with rare exceptions for certain builds).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll join my voices to those calling for more impactful feats. Higher number isn't a big issue, but grouping up existing feats and making them more long-term would help.
The casting multiclass feats are a good example, the Druid Wild Shape feats are a bad one.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zautos' wrote:

Like a fighter might get one every level for example.

And probably most classes getting one every level.

YES!

Especially considering most of the classes are completely stripped down now, compared to their 1E counterparts.

I understand why they only want to give 1 feat at level 1, so that making a character is easy, and I completely agree with that.

Having said that, you should QUICKLY be able to customize your character build into what you want, which means having access to more feats to do it. You should at least get a class feat at 2nd level, but if you had one class feat per level until level 5, I'd be OK with that too!

One of the problems (to me) is that there aren't enough good level 1 class feats. And there aren't enough builds you can do with the classes. There should be 3 iconic builds you can do with each class, and if you want to mix and match, that's your choice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Every time I come across this question in the pathfinder playtest player survey I cringe.

Quote:

35. Which of the following statements best represents your impression of the amount of choices you had to make while creating your character for this adventure?

There were way too many choices
There were more than enough choices
There were about the right number of choices
There were not enough choices
There were way too few choices

because I always want to answer #1 because it takes me forever to wade through all the choices.

but then after I have evaluated what the choices are there seem to not be very many good ones, so I also want to vote for way too few choices.

I vote for more impactful choices. Move things that should just be available to the entire class or are very weak into class fluff features available to everyone in the class.


I must disagree. The large number of Feats in this game already seems unwieldy to me and I feel that the inclusion of additional ones would further compromise the system.

Also, my personal preference is for a relatively small number of Feats that help define the character as opposed to a larger number that provide only minor mechanical effects.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:

I must disagree. The large number of Feats in this game already seems unwieldy to me and I feel that the inclusion of additional ones would further compromise the system.

Also, my personal preference is for a relatively small number of Feats that help define the character as opposed to a larger number that provide only minor mechanical effects.

I can understand that. Still, there are already MANY fantasy games with FEWER choices and mechanics that PF1E and PF2E. I was hoping that PF2 would fill the niche of a TTRPG with deep and engaging character creation and combat rules.


Crayon wrote:

I must disagree. The large number of Feats in this game already seems unwieldy to me and I feel that the inclusion of additional ones would further compromise the system.

Also, my personal preference is for a relatively small number of Feats that help define the character as opposed to a larger number that provide only minor mechanical effects.

5e?


necromental wrote:
Crayon wrote:

I must disagree. The large number of Feats in this game already seems unwieldy to me and I feel that the inclusion of additional ones would further compromise the system.

Also, my personal preference is for a relatively small number of Feats that help define the character as opposed to a larger number that provide only minor mechanical effects.

5e?

While 5e is close to my idyll net complexity, there are enough specific problems I have with its mechanics that it actually requires more house-ruling for me to run effectively than than PF1 does.

Whether this will remain the case with PF2 remains to be seen, but so far it isn't looking very promising...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:

Every time I come across this question in the pathfinder playtest player survey I cringe.

Quote:

35. Which of the following statements best represents your impression of the amount of choices you had to make while creating your character for this adventure?

There were way too many choices
There were more than enough choices
There were about the right number of choices
There were not enough choices
There were way too few choices

because I always want to answer #1 because it takes me forever to wade through all the choices.

but then after I have evaluated what the choices are there seem to not be very many good ones, so I also want to vote for way too few choices.

I vote for more impactful choices. Move things that should just be available to the entire class or are very weak into class fluff features available to everyone in the class.

This is close to where I'm at. I wouldn't mind having to "wade through all the choices" if the options made it tough to pick because they were all awesome. It's a whole other matter to "wade through all the choices" because none of them look good but you HAVE to take one.

So to answer the OP: I want more feats that are worth taking, both interesting and useful. I want less feats that aren't worth taking and are uninteresting and aren't that useful. Right now it's kind of sad that often the answer to 'what is the best class feat you can take' is 'any of the multiclass ones'.


graystone wrote:

This is close to where I'm at. I wouldn't mind having to "wade through all the choices" if the options made it tough to pick because they were all awesome. It's a whole other matter to "wade through all the choices" because none of them look good but you HAVE to take one.

So to answer the OP: I want more feats that are worth taking, both interesting and useful. I want less feats that aren't worth taking and are uninteresting and aren't that useful. Right now it's kind of sad that often the answer to 'what is the best class feat you can take' is 'any of the multiclass ones'.

Do we though? I'm pretty sure it's legal to 'pass' on such things. Not unlike voluntarily lowering one's ability scores.

At the very least, I've been unable to find any rule that actually requires characters to take Feats if they don't want to..


Crayon wrote:
graystone wrote:

This is close to where I'm at. I wouldn't mind having to "wade through all the choices" if the options made it tough to pick because they were all awesome. It's a whole other matter to "wade through all the choices" because none of them look good but you HAVE to take one.

So to answer the OP: I want more feats that are worth taking, both interesting and useful. I want less feats that aren't worth taking and are uninteresting and aren't that useful. Right now it's kind of sad that often the answer to 'what is the best class feat you can take' is 'any of the multiclass ones'.

Do we though? I'm pretty sure it's legal to 'pass' on such things. Not unlike voluntarily lowering one's ability scores.

At the very least, I've been unable to find any rule that actually requires characters to take Feats if they don't want to..

The game tells you when you gain or are granted a feat. There is no 'can' or may' in any of that: so you get those feat at those levels. I see nothing that indicates or suggests 'no feat' is a valid option.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think more ancestry feats are needed at first level (at least two), but otherwise I don't think number of feats are an issue. Make feats more impactful and give more options.

Also, I like the separation of feats into groups. If it was just any feat, I think there would be a lot more pressure from optimization for say, a fighter to just take combat related things. This way every character is going to get SOME more skill related things.


I'd rather have fewer, better choices than tons of weak, conditional or even pointless ones. +1 bonuses to hit, +1 to save DCs for your spells... those should be baked into the class. Fewer and tighter means that there shouldn't be a new Prone Shooter. Or a repeatedly-erratted Dervish Dance.


I want tons of choices to have value. But make them incompatible with each other so taking more feats increases versatility not power. If you have feats that give a bonus that's a problem. But characters should be versatile enough to have power attack and intimidating strike. You can't use both of those feats at once, or use a bow and sword at the same time. Characters should be able to be good at more than one thing.

Right not I feel characters are too limited. I feel like more diverse in their options characters would make the game more fun to play.

For worrying about people having choice paralysis please just list default selections. That way if you don't want to choose you don't have to, you just take your class or build's default selection.


hell man, you want more feats? even more feats? how many sheets do you need to use to feel that you have enough feats?

5 feats at 1st lvl plus class abilities


This is probably part to do with this being a playtest as well as a new CRB, which simply won't have the options of a full nearly 10 year old system, but one of my main issues with feats isn't necessarily the number, but how they are distributed and how many options are available, not for a class but for a character in that class.

To the first point, I've already stated that I think a number of the fighting style feats should be in a "Generic class skills" list, probably also along side Metamagic, etc, which function a bit like archetypes, in that anyone can pick from that list if they fit the requirements, but without the dedication feat issue. These requirements might be expert in a weapon group (maybe a specific weapon group for certain feats), or the ability to cast spells, for metamagic, or stuff like that. Things that take up space by being reprinted in different classes' lists. Broadening their access would then free up that space to allow classes, like the fighter, who I'd say has maybe about half his feats in that grouping, to get more interesting choices.

And this leads to the second point: Classes, martials especially, largely don't really have as many choices as their class feat list would seem to indicate. For example, the ranger, every level there are about half of the feats that basically require you to (or do nothing for you if you don't) invest in one of the general four ranger feat paths (Animal, Snare, Dual Wield, Ranged [especially crossbow]). Now, you can invest in a couple feat paths, but it generally seems to work out that rather than 4 or so feats per level, you're choosing between 1 or 2, maybe 3 if you're lucky, and while you can select older feats, they will often wind up underwhelming, because they're the feats that you passed on in previous levels. If the ranger's Dual Wield and Ranged/Crossbow feats didn't have to take up space in the ranger's feat listings, then maybe out of 4 or so feats per level, you get 3 or 4 that are options, beyond simply the general class feat list, and because you get more options, maybe on levels where you're not that impressed, there are feats from the previous level that you passed up, not because they were bad, but because they were simply your second choice out of 4 options.

Now, I also would like to see feats which are more impactful and aren't just flat bonuses, even if they're not phrased that way (like how the fighter's dual handed assault feat doesn't actually read "[AA]: Make an attack with a one handed weapon, while you have one hand free, with a +1 to damage per damage die", but that's basically what it does outside of the bastard sword, and even then that's still just an obfuscated flat damage boost), but I think the path to more impactful feats has to come from feats actually being a choice between more than just, maybe, 2 options.

Liberty's Edge

I prefer separate feat slots and think the current quantity over levels is fine - everybody will always want more feats (and GMs often give them away, diluting the Human advantage), but could see allowing any (Class, Skill, Heritage, General) for a General Feat Slot...might be a compromise.

If being Human makes certain tactics more viable, I think that'd be a good balance point for the game (I'd put the 'French' polearms aside as Human weapons).

On the quality of feats - hey, it's a playtest; though, I really liked the weapon trait feats that I think Ediwir proposed (more Martial weapon-based distinction! - take weapon traits out of simple weapon proficiency).


graystone wrote:
Crayon wrote:
graystone wrote:

This is close to where I'm at. I wouldn't mind having to "wade through all the choices" if the options made it tough to pick because they were all awesome. It's a whole other matter to "wade through all the choices" because none of them look good but you HAVE to take one.

So to answer the OP: I want more feats that are worth taking, both interesting and useful. I want less feats that aren't worth taking and are uninteresting and aren't that useful. Right now it's kind of sad that often the answer to 'what is the best class feat you can take' is 'any of the multiclass ones'.

Do we though? I'm pretty sure it's legal to 'pass' on such things. Not unlike voluntarily lowering one's ability scores.

At the very least, I've been unable to find any rule that actually requires characters to take Feats if they don't want to..

The game tells you when you gain or are granted a feat. There is no 'can' or may' in any of that: so you get those feat at those levels. I see nothing that indicates or suggests 'no feat' is a valid option.

While you can always give yourself free penalties (the book does say that), you can also choose to gain a lower level feat in place of your current level feats.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Any one thinks classes should have more feats? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.