Halfway to Doomsday

Suggestions for Things That Are Called Feats But Shouldn't Be:

Ancestry Trait

A trait is something an organism inherits from its ancestors. It's not even a new concept for most adults since this is the high school biology definition of "trait". No new learning required for most, mild danger of high school flashbacks.

Skill Talent

When one is good at a skill we call them talented. That person is so skilled with the piano, they must be very talented. Again, not a new concept for most adults or most English speakers at all given we already use words in that way. Shallow learning curve.

Combat Tricks

The guy sucker-punched me! What a dirty trick! Yes, I admit I reached a bit for an example sentence. But hear me out. The combat feats as they are right now don't tend to be an "always on" thing, not anymore. They're more of a "if this, then that". They're if-then statements. If guy moves past then attack of opportunity. If two weapons then slice. If one weapon then parry. If punched then shield. If angry then intimidate. This one has a steeper learning curve (5% grade ahead, reduce speed to 55 mph) in that a wheelchair ramp is steeper than a flat sidewalk.

General Feats should stay Feats. Otherwise there will be a riot at the Paizo offices over the lack of "feats".

Even Class Feats might be able to stay the same.

But! But but but but!!!! The most important thing Paizo needs to remember is:

A word only works if the players know what you mean.

If you use "feat" for five different things DO NOT ACT SURPRISED when people assume they're the same thing! You used the same word! You caused this!

John Lynch 106 wrote:

graystone wrote:

kpulv wrote:

I'm kinda surprised at how many posts I see talking about how their entire group gave up on the playtest for one reason or another.

I'm surprised there aren't more.

People are actively being discouraged from posting such experiences by getting replies along the lines of "playtesting is hard", "playtesting isn't for everyone" and "playtesting isn't meant to be fun".

Could you provide examples?

I've seen the some of those kinds of posts but I'll be honest, I don't recall the specific threads they where in and don't have the time or energy to find them ATM.

Totally understandable.

Folks.. this thread is really not for arguing about the use of the word feat, but it has been made clear that some feel that the adjective delineation is not sufficient.

If folks want to continue the discussion, please start another thread (and try not to use big text to make your point, it not necessary).

My take on the goals?

1) Pretty much a failing grade. You want simple and easy to learn? Beginner Box. Beginner Box. Beginner Box. I mean, seriously, my kids can grasp that edition, and it transitions smoothly into 1E. This 2E version? Forget it.

2) Any edition can do this. Pathfinder - GURPS edition could do this. Really just a "sunshine and puppy dogs" statement rather than an actual design goal.

3) Not seeing much of this. Sure lots of new stuff. After throwing much of the baby out with the bathwater with 1E. Had this been closer aligned with 1E, incorporating innovations like those found in the Unchained book, then it might be a success. Failing grade here again.

4) Everyone can be different, but your all the same! Like every other snowflake even! "Within defined roles" however should be a warning sign - more straight-jacketed roles. Success? Perhaps? But does that make a better game? Not for me. I find the mathematics behind 2E to be hindering the game, not enhancing it. But YMMV.

5) Another "sunshine and <pet of choice>" statement. With my apologies from earlier - it was not my intent to exclude anyone. But seriously, I would hope any game designer would strive for this as a goal. **And I think Paizo has done a stellar job to date.** But it's another "goal but not really a goal" thing.

So, I'm pretty much seeing 1/3 on actual design goals. 2/2 on the fluff goals.

Halfway to Doomsday? I'd say so.

In PF1, there were lots of character ideas that people new to the game would have ideas like:

"I want to make a knife-throwing Inquisitor!"

"I want to make a crossbow-focused Rogue, who assassinates people using distinctive red-shafted bolts!"

"I want to make an Gnomish fighter who pretends to be a child with a toy sling, but who can rain deadly fire down once combat starts!"

And as DM, I'd have to sigh, pull them aside, and give them The Talk: I'd have to tell them that if they want this build to do well, they need to carefully plan out their feat choices for the next nine levels, and should be prepared to be largely ineffective until they get there.

It would be great if I didn't have to do this in PF2. Unfortunately, the current Playtest rules do not seem to be an improvement in this regard. But I'm hopeful that some further updates down the line will change this!

They could pull them off, though. By house-ruling out some of the feat taxes you could get these characters online a lot earlier, so I thought with the removal of all the taxes and chains this would be a lot easier in PF2.

My most recent player, who is new to PF, told me they wanted a "Inquisitor of Abadar, who is an Oread and uses the thematic light crossbow". I felt just as you did "ok, but we have to do this very carefully and pre-plan the build." But in the end, we managed to make it work. (I have modified "Firing into Melee" rules to remove "Precise Shot" from the game and allow ranged chars that aren't fighter/ranger to function early). Thankfully the few feat this character got could be used to improve their crossbow use into competency. As a veteran player, The game chassis offers many "vectors" to help this character, whether it's traits, racials, combat feats, inq. archetypes, domains that actually do something, spells that synergize, free teamwork feat, etc.

I guess this particular concept is not so tough in PF2, but I think it would feel like a pretty garbage character. If I want to get faster crossbow reload on a cleric it's gonna be a mess and will probably lose most cleric abilities in the way.

That said, generic combat styles should NEVER be used as the basis for an Archetype. It is perfectly OK for an Archetype to feature a single combat style (Cavalier and Mounted Combat, for example). But the Archetype should be about something else primarily. The Gray Maiden is a great example, there is definitely a strong element of the armor, but there is equal focus on other forms of hardiness.

This is where I think terminology and thematic focus has distorted the fundamentals of system. "Class Feats" are really just the most powerful & combat focused tier of Feats. "Prestige Archetypes" should not be definitive of what else you can do with with "Class Feats".

I don't think "Archetypes" is even ideal as sole frame-work for other things you can do with "Class Feats" (outside own class), there should be simple Universal "Class Feats" with no Dedication requirement (although their pre-reqs could de facto or de jure make them not 100% Universal). Framing them as "Universal "Class" Feats is clearer to see how "mere" combat style focus is perfectly fine. That doesn't mean "Archetypes" with Dedication can't exist, probably offering MORE over-all than a simple Feat (i.e. packages of proficiencies along with discrete abilities), but that doesn't need to, and shouldn't, be the ONLY paradigm.

Likewise, as people complained about lack-luster-ness of Pirate Archetype, thematic skill abilities should be typed as Skill Feats EVEN WHEN part of Archetype mechanic, and that goes for Class-excusive Feats as well... Which should also be able to be typed as Skill/General as appropriate. (This came up in Barbarian thread, where "tough choice" of combat vs utility abilities is mentioned, when many of latter could really be General or Skill Feats, so there isn't forced choice between the categories, and selection of General & Skill Feats actually becomes more interesting & tied to your character Class)

So I'd like it if we could have a way to get all the cool class stuff and customize our fighting style.

Exactly this. To put it another way, one of the PF2 changes I really like is that Skill feast are separated from Class feats. In PF1, I had to give up combat options to get skills. By separating the choices and making sure they don't overlap, I am not having to completely abandon skill improvement in order to feel effective in combat.

What about continuing that paradigm with character theme? Because you know I have to bring this back to the Ranger--I shouldn't have to give up Wild Empathy to make myself better at a using a bow. Sure, maybe in real life that makes sense, but by doing that, your undermining the experience of playing a Ranger. Yes, there will always be someone who wants to strip off anything they can, to get something else, but then you're just facilitating more min/maxing and laying more traps for people to stumble into.

A character can feel customized without having to let the player swap out every core aspect. I recognized that this hampers the mutability of a class and its ability to be easily built into every possible variant, but I think you'll get more player satisfaction if you give us a class that works by default, than if you just give us a bunch of pieces that we have to assemble. Because I honestly can't recreate the PF1 Ranger feel from what the playtest provides.

My point about Non Lethal was that there should be some way to take into account of someone else having done Non Lethal when the target drops from lethal damage.

This isn't the case in Starfinder or the Playtest. I think there should be a factor in PF2 that resolves this. (and perhaps Errata for Starfinder for the same)

I guess this particular concept is not so tough in PF2, but I think it would feel like a pretty garbage character. If I want to get faster crossbow reload on a cleric it's gonna be a mess and will probably lose most cleric abilities in the way.

This is because clerics are not mainly about being expert sharpshooters? It is doable but it tied to costs. Wanting to be as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character all the same sounds like a contradiction. At least if you create a cleric with a fighter multiclass archetype you do not lose any spell progression like you would by multiclassing in PF1 where you would also forgo cleric class abilities.

ChibiNyan wrote:

I guess this particular concept is not so tough in PF2, but I think it would feel like a pretty garbage character. If I want to get faster crossbow reload on a cleric it's gonna be a mess and will probably lose most cleric abilities in the way.

This is because clerics are not mainly about being expert sharpshooters? It is doable but it tied to costs. Wanting to be as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character all the same sounds like a contradiction. At least if you create a cleric with a fighter multiclass archetype you do not lose any spell progression like you would by multiclassing in PF1 where you would also forgo cleric class abilities.

I don't feel like "a cleric who can reload a crossbow faster" equals "as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character".

Belisar wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

I guess this particular concept is not so tough in PF2, but I think it would feel like a pretty garbage character. If I want to get faster crossbow reload on a cleric it's gonna be a mess and will probably lose most cleric abilities in the way.

This is because clerics are not mainly about being expert sharpshooters? It is doable but it tied to costs. Wanting to be as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character all the same sounds like a contradiction. At least if you create a cleric with a fighter multiclass archetype you do not lose any spell progression like you would by multiclassing in PF1 where you would also forgo cleric class abilities.

I don't feel like "a cleric who can reload a crossbow faster" equals "as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character".

Me neither. If a base cleric in PF2e can pick up a bow and be effective with it, as many people have suggested they can, then Paizo is obviously able to hit a balance between "useful" and "as good as a fighter". I can easily imagine there being a scale between the two.

Furthermore, they could design combat feats that grant you bonuses with a weapon style that aren't totally numeric. It'd be tricky, but a handful of trick shot feats would technically fulfill my requirement for someone to be distinguished as an archer more than their same class peers.

Belisar wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

I guess this particular concept is not so tough in PF2, but I think it would feel like a pretty garbage character. If I want to get faster crossbow reload on a cleric it's gonna be a mess and will probably lose most cleric abilities in the way.

This is because clerics are not mainly about being expert sharpshooters? It is doable but it tied to costs. Wanting to be as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character all the same sounds like a contradiction. At least if you create a cleric with a fighter multiclass archetype you do not lose any spell progression like you would by multiclassing in PF1 where you would also forgo cleric class abilities.

I don't feel like "a cleric who can reload a crossbow faster" equals "as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character".

But then I didn't find any feat in the Rulebook to reload quicker than usual for non cleric classes, not even amongst the fighter feats. So why should a cleric be more capable of reloading a crossbow quicker than a dedicated fighter?

Alchemaic wrote:

Belisar wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

I guess this particular concept is not so tough in PF2, but I think it would feel like a pretty garbage character. If I want to get faster crossbow reload on a cleric it's gonna be a mess and will probably lose most cleric abilities in the way.

This is because clerics are not mainly about being expert sharpshooters? It is doable but it tied to costs. Wanting to be as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character all the same sounds like a contradiction. At least if you create a cleric with a fighter multiclass archetype you do not lose any spell progression like you would by multiclassing in PF1 where you would also forgo cleric class abilities.

I don't feel like "a cleric who can reload a crossbow faster" equals "as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character".

Me neither. If a base cleric in PF2e can pick up a bow and be effective with it, as many people have suggested they can, then Paizo is obviously able to hit a balance between "useful" and "as good as a fighter". I can easily imagine there being a scale between the two.

Furthermore, they could design combat feats that grant you bonuses with a weapon style that aren't totally numeric. It'd be tricky, but a handful of trick shot feats would technically fulfill my requirement for someone to be distinguished as an archer more than their same class peers.

There could be prestige dedications later in a cleric slpatbook or class feats for the deity’s favored weapon later on. That would be reasonable.

Or instead of always needing class-specific solution, make Universal Feats that anybody meeting reasonable pre-reqs can take (i.e. not strictly universal, but not formally Class-specific, even if only a few specific builds outside a given Class can manage it... like P1E had "Channel" Feats upgrading that feature). Right now, they are wasting space re-printing AoO and Sudden Charge when it could just be "Universal" Feat with right pre-reqs (which can even establish different levels for different Classes).

Even though Crossbow is simple, you can have Crossbow Feats that require Martial proficiencies OR explicit proficiency in Crossbow (i.e. ala Deific Weapon, or Bard call-out). Or of course, gate by Prociency TIER. Characters who don't qualify might be able to spend extra Feat on basic proficiency or Multiclass Archetype or lower-tier weapon-specific feat to then qualify... So not enforcing absolute "equality" but at same time open to broader approach.

EDIT: None of that precludes Deity specific feats (chain or not) that do totally awesome things in this area. Maybe those would even make taking more generic "Universal" Feats superfluous or marginal. That would be great. But I don't see the value in adhering to overly restrictive fundamentalist view of how the high power tier of Feat ("Class Feats" currently) can be spent. I'm not a anti-Class system fanatic, I think it has value and Class can/should be important and influential to all Feat choices, but that doesn't dictate absolute and rigid narrowness.

I don't like the notion of universal feats. I like it that when a feat is repeated, that it be different somehow - reflecting the class that granted it. Look at the Paladin's Mount or the Druid's Companion. Subtely different from eachother. That, imho, is the best way to do any similar feats.

In PF1, there were lots of character ideas that people new to the game would have ideas like:

"I want to make a knife-throwing Inquisitor!"

"I want to make a crossbow-focused Rogue, who assassinates people using distinctive red-shafted bolts!"

"I want to make an Gnomish fighter who pretends to be a child with a toy sling, but who can rain deadly fire down once combat starts!"

And as DM, I'd have to sigh, pull them aside, and give them The Talk: I'd have to tell them that if they want this build to do well, they need to carefully plan out their feat choices for the next nine levels, and should be prepared to be largely ineffective until they get there.

It would be great if I didn't have to do this in PF2. Unfortunately, the current Playtest rules do not seem to be an improvement in this regard. But I'm hopeful that some further updates down the line will change this!

The current Playtest rules do do that.

I mean, seriously, it is all but impossible to gimp a character unless you completely drop the ball on stats needed to use the weapon.

Alchemaic wrote:

Belisar wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

I guess this particular concept is not so tough in PF2, but I think it would feel like a pretty garbage character. If I want to get faster crossbow reload on a cleric it's gonna be a mess and will probably lose most cleric abilities in the way.

This is because clerics are not mainly about being expert sharpshooters? It is doable but it tied to costs. Wanting to be as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character all the same sounds like a contradiction. At least if you create a cleric with a fighter multiclass archetype you do not lose any spell progression like you would by multiclassing in PF1 where you would also forgo cleric class abilities.

I don't feel like "a cleric who can reload a crossbow faster" equals "as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character".

But then I didn't find any feat in the Rulebook to reload quicker than usual for non cleric classes, not even amongst the fighter feats. So why should a cleric be more capable of reloading a crossbow quicker than a dedicated fighter?

The ranger and rogue get running reload, which lets them move and reload in one action. Nothing that makes you able to reload for less than an action, but hey. My personal view is that reducing reload times shouldn't be the route to improve crossbows, but find ways that capitalize on their role outside the 3 attacks per turn dynamic of bows and other weapons (The crossbowman fighter archetype from PF1e did this well by focusing on readied attacks, which is probably where I'd lean on going with this, but there are other options too), but I agree with you that a cleric, even an Abadaran cleric, shouldn't be more capable with a crossbow than a fighter, at least without archetypes. Which is probably where I'd like to see this particular class of things go: in whatever Inner Sea Gods book 2e decides to do, have an archetype for each deity (not specifying that the follower be a cleric, but simply a worshiper of that deity), granting weapon feats for characters based on the deity's favored weapon, in a way that plays up the deity's style in a way that's not just mirroring fighter feats or w/e (Spear dancer, Spear dancing style [because apparently paizo forgot which names they'd used] and bladed brush are good 1e examples, and yes, I played a lot of Shelynites).

Alchemaic wrote:

Belisar wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

I guess this particular concept is not so tough in PF2, but I think it would feel like a pretty garbage character. If I want to get faster crossbow reload on a cleric it's gonna be a mess and will probably lose most cleric abilities in the way.

This is because clerics are not mainly about being expert sharpshooters? It is doable but it tied to costs. Wanting to be as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character all the same sounds like a contradiction. At least if you create a cleric with a fighter multiclass archetype you do not lose any spell progression like you would by multiclassing in PF1 where you would also forgo cleric class abilities.

I don't feel like "a cleric who can reload a crossbow faster" equals "as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character".

But then I didn't find any feat in the Rulebook to reload quicker than usual for non cleric classes, not even amongst the fighter feats. So why should a cleric be more capable of reloading a crossbow quicker than a dedicated fighter?

Better question, why can't a Fighter reload a crossbow quicker?

generic combat styles should NEVER be used as the basis for an Archetype.

It makes sense. Archetypes are effectively feat chains that lock you out of other feat chains until you reach a certain point. So having fighting styles be an archetype certainly fits within the PF1e model. Depends on how much you enjoy feat chains (I personally only like them when the abilities directly improve and the earlier prerequisites are actually relevant. I definitely only like them when I can control how far I invest in them without being punished harshly, such as by not being allowed to multiclass).

This is because clerics are not mainly about being expert sharpshooters? It is doable but it tied to costs. Wanting to be as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character all the same sounds like a contradiction. At least if you create a cleric with a fighter multiclass archetype you do not lose any spell progression like you would by multiclassing in PF1 where you would also forgo cleric class abilities.

Problem is: you don't have to multiclass in PF1e to be a cleric that uses a crossbow well. It will take all of your combat feats (but clerics get 9-10 of those so that's okay) and you will sacrifice metamagic feats and improving your channel ability, but you don't need to mutliclass.

I don't feel like "a cleric who can reload a crossbow faster" equals "as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character".

The problem is Fighters have had the number of combat feats they get reduced to 10. Now some feats have been bundled into being possible without a feat, but everyone gets those feats as well and not just the fighter. So in order to stop the cleric from overshadowing the fighter, the cleric needs to sacrifice even more abilities to get a "better at crossbows then the untrained peasant" feat because that's one of the big toys a fighter gets besides AoOs. Had they kept the fighter at 20 combat feats the cost wouldn't need to be so high for all the other classes trying to pick a fighting style to be good at.

I don't like the notion of universal feats. I like it that when a feat is repeated, that it be different somehow - reflecting the class that granted it. Look at the Paladin's Mount or the Druid's Companion. Subtely different from eachother. That, imho, is the best way to do any similar feats.

That road has been trod before. I didn't like it back in the day, I won't like it now simply because "Pathfinder" is printed on the book it's published in.

Belisar wrote:

Alchemaic wrote:

Belisar wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

I guess this particular concept is not so tough in PF2, but I think it would feel like a pretty garbage character. If I want to get faster crossbow reload on a cleric it's gonna be a mess and will probably lose most cleric abilities in the way.

This is because clerics are not mainly about being expert sharpshooters? It is doable but it tied to costs. Wanting to be as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character all the same sounds like a contradiction. At least if you create a cleric with a fighter multiclass archetype you do not lose any spell progression like you would by multiclassing in PF1 where you would also forgo cleric class abilities.

I don't feel like "a cleric who can reload a crossbow faster" equals "as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character".

But then I didn't find any feat in the Rulebook to reload quicker than usual for non cleric classes, not even amongst the fighter feats. So why should a cleric be more capable of reloading a crossbow quicker than a dedicated fighter?

Better question, why can't a Fighter reload a crossbow quicker?

Well, that is a valid question I sadly cannot answer. Maybe if Paizo expands on feats in the final product, there will be a rapid reload.

StratoNexus wrote:

generic combat styles should NEVER be used as the basis for an Archetype.

It makes sense. Archetypes are effectively feat chains that lock you out of other feat chains until you reach a certain point. So having fighting styles be an archetype certainly fits within the PF1e model. Depends on how much you enjoy feat chains (I personally only like them when the abilities directly improve and the earlier prerequisites are actually relevant. I definitely only like them when I can control how far I invest in them without being punished harshly, such as by not being allowed to multi class).

We already have one Archetype that is pretty much dedicated to simply adding combat feats. That Archetype is about as bland as I ever want an Archetype to get and I am sure it only exists due to longstanding legacy plus the real need for a flexible, generic Combat Archetype (I approve of the Fighter, because I like it's flexibility of concept).

Problem is: you don't have to multiclass in PF1e to be a cleric that uses a crossbow well. It will take all of your combat feats (but clerics get 9-10 of those so that's okay) and you will sacrifice metamagic feats and improving your channel ability, but you don't need to mutliclass.

But in PF2e there really isn't multi-classing. You want to become better at using the Crossbow, you simply sacrifice metamagic feats and improving your channel ability in order to choose the Dedication that is better at combat. I grant you that means you are losing one feat before you get to the bow stuff, but that is not much different from PF1 feat taxes. That said, I am all kinds of a fan of improving our customization options via the current system. I am not opposed to a "Universal Feat" concept, although I also do not mind the current Class Feat method, if Archetyping becomes a bit more open.

I just do not like the idea of more bland Archetypes that simply exist for Mechanical reasons.
A Scout Archetype that contains abilities for stealth, speed, perception, and archery works for me. An Archery Archetype that contains abilities for Archery does not (that is what Fighter Dedication is for).

I do like your point about the Fighter Combat feat count and how that affects the rest of the game balance.

Porridge wrote:

In PF1, there were lots of character ideas that people new to the game would have ideas like:

"I want to make a knife-throwing Inquisitor!"

"I want to make a crossbow-focused Rogue, who assassinates people using distinctive red-shafted bolts!"

"I want to make an Gnomish fighter who pretends to be a child with a toy sling, but who can rain deadly fire down once combat starts!"

And as DM, I'd have to sigh, pull them aside, and give them The Talk: I'd have to tell them that if they want this build to do well, they need to carefully plan out their feat choices for the next nine levels, and should be prepared to be largely ineffective until they get there.

It would be great if I didn't have to do this in PF2. Unfortunately, the current Playtest rules do not seem to be an improvement in this regard. But I'm hopeful that some further updates down the line will change this!

The current Playtest rules do do that.

I mean, seriously, it is all but impossible to gimp a character unless you completely drop the ball on stats needed to use the weapon.

So, I’m not sure what you have in mind. But if you look at the expected damage calculations done here, you’ll see that (for example) a generic ranged combatant who uses a crossbow or a sling will do significantly less damage than they would using a composite shortbow. (In the “8-to-hit” version of the calculation, the composite shortbow user will do almost double the expected damage of a crossbow or sling user.)

HWalsh wrote:

I mean, seriously, it is all but impossible to gimp a character unless you completely drop the ball on stats needed to use the weapon.

So, I’m not sure what you have in mind. But if you look at the expected damage calculations done here, you’ll see that (for example) a generic ranged combatant who uses a crossbow or a sling will do significantly less damage than they would using a composite shortbow. (In the “8-to-hit” version of the calculation, the composite shortbow user will do almost double the expected damage of a crossbow or sling user.)

Simple vs Martial weapon could be why. The Crossbow has several disadvantages compared to the Short Bow, perhaps too many (it does have better range though). The sling is in the same predicament. It is possible they need to be reviewed (I am not sure why the sling has a reload of 1 while the Shortbow is 0, myself).

A Ranger who uses the Crossbow does come out a feat behind to only be almost as good as if they just chose the Comp Shortbow. I don't think that is gimp, but it surely is weaker unnecessarily.

I think one approach is distinguishing simple from martial proficiency usage of crossbow.
Similar to how bastard sword distinguished martial from exotic (previously).
Both in baseline functionality, and eligibiliy for novel Feat functionality, it seems relevant
to know if the user has martial proficiency (if only for that weapon), or just simple.
This lets Feats and baseline functionality be "scoped" much more accurately and appropriately. /my2c

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

If I wanted to, say, create an archetype that was all about fighting with a two handed weapon effectively, I could do so in a way that it packages all the pieces you would need to build that character in one tidy place, one that could then be taken by everyone. The old system allowed us to do this.. kinda, but it was all over the place, and was easily seen as bloat, especially as the years went on.

But that would be cool. A two-handed weapon archetype that any class (yes any class) could take (along with bowmen archetypes, sword and board archetypes, one-handed archetypes, etc) would be higher in flexibility and customization and allow you to fix the stuff that "all over the place". This was a paladin would be a warrior for a patron god. If that god likes backstabbing dagger wielders, he isn't locked into heavy armor, sword, and shield native to the current class. The ranger becomes an outdoorsman. Whether that involves bows or dual-wielding or just a big ol' greataxe is up to the player, not the class designer.

This strikes me as approaching the Harnmaster situation, where *everything* is a skill, and the only limitation on the skills you can learn is finding someone to teach them to you (or an instruction manual) or developing them yourself. But then you have to maintain them. If you don't maintain your skills, you may not be as good at them later on as you were originally.

Reading these forums, particularly the playtest ones, has made me realize once again that Harnmaster is probably not a good fit for most PF players. Too much "realism" and not enough heroic fantasy. Oh, well.

Simple vs Martial weapon could be why. The Crossbow has several disadvantages compared to the Short Bow, perhaps too many (it does have better range though). The sling is in the same predicament. It is possible they need to be reviewed (I am not sure why the sling has a reload of 1 while the Shortbow is 0, myself).
If you are in a class that gets Martial Weapons, you should probably choose the composite shortbow. If you only get simple weapons, well then you probably aren't using the weapon all that much anyway? I don't think it is gimp to use a crossbow as a backup/range weapon if your class is not proficient with Composite shortbows. You should have other class features that make up for that lack of martial proficiency.

A Ranger who uses the Crossbow does come out a feat behind to only be almost as good as if they just chose the Comp Shortbow. I don't think that is gimp, but it surely is weaker unnecessarily.

To be clear, I certainly agree that there are rationales one can provide for why the composite shortbow should be better -- that it's a martial weapon, perhaps arguments from realism, and so on. One could likewise provide rationales for why (say) slings and thrown weapons should be decidedly inferior to bows in PF1.

Nevertheless, I have players come to me who have character concepts they want to play (inspired by some film, movie, or comic) which primarily utilize these kinds of weapons. And it'd be a lot more fun if I could say "sure, just do this, and you'll be fine", instead of "well hold on, if you want to do that you have to carefully plan your character, and you should know you're going to have be strictly inferior to someone who just uses a different weapon".

Since the goal of the game is to have fun, and a lot of people want to have fun by playing these kinds of character concepts, I'm inclined to think it would be a good thing if PF2 allowed people to do so.

I think one approach is distinguishing simple from martial proficiency usage of crossbow.

Similar to how bastard sword distinguished martial from exotic (previously).
Both in baseline functionality, and eligibiliy for novel Feat functionality, it seems relevant
to know if the user has martial proficiency (if only for that weapon), or just simple.
This lets Feats and baseline functionality be "scoped" much more accurately and appropriately. /my2c

Yeah, something like that would be great. It would certainly provide a simple and straightforward way of addressing the problem!

WatersLethe wrote:

So I'd like it if we could have a way to get all the cool class stuff and customize our fighting style.

Exactly this. To put it another way, one of the PF2 changes I really like is that Skill feast are separated from Class feats. In PF1, I had to give up combat options to get skills. By separating the choices and making sure they don't overlap, I am not having to completely abandon skill improvement in order to feel effective in combat.

What about continuing that paradigm with character theme? Because you know I have to bring this back to the Ranger--I shouldn't have to give up Wild Empathy to make myself better at a using a bow. Sure, maybe in real life that makes sense, but by doing that, your undermining the experience of playing a Ranger. Yes, there will always be someone who wants to strip off anything they can, to get something else, but then you're just facilitating more min/maxing and laying more traps for people to stumble into.

A character can feel customized without having to let the player swap out every core aspect. I recognized that this hampers the mutability of a class and its ability to be easily built into every possible variant, but I think you'll get more player satisfaction if you give us a class that works by default, than if you just give us a bunch of pieces that we have to assemble. Because I honestly can't recreate the PF1 Ranger feel from what the playtest provides.

I kind of have to disagree a little bit. I think that despite the min/max'ers and traps, I should be able to swap out most things.

My current 1e character is basically Megaman, so I didn't want him to have magic. 1e has 2 archetypes that allowed me to do that. However, there are still some class features left over that don't fit my theme and that I will never use, so that feels like a waste.

I know my example is pretty extreme since it's a sci-fi character operating in a fantasy setting, but the point is still there.

My solution to min/maxing and traps is to just have a robust selection of similar options with minimal flavor texting so the player can make up his own fluff.
That way you have options without encroaching as much on the core theme of the class.

Porridge wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

I mean, seriously, it is all but impossible to gimp a character unless you completely drop the ball on stats needed to use the weapon.

So, I’m not sure what you have in mind. But if you look at the expected damage calculations done here, you’ll see that (for example) a generic ranged combatant who uses a crossbow or a sling will do significantly less damage than they would using a composite shortbow. (In the “8-to-hit” version of the calculation, the composite shortbow user will do almost double the expected damage of a crossbow or sling user.)

Simple vs Martial weapon could be why. The Crossbow has several disadvantages compared to the Short Bow, perhaps too many (it does have better range though). The sling is in the same predicament. It is possible they need to be reviewed (I am not sure why the sling has a reload of 1 while the Shortbow is 0, myself).

If you are in a class that gets Martial Weapons, you should probably choose the composite shortbow. If you only get simple weapons, well then you probably aren't using the weapon all that much anyway? I don't think it is gimp to use a crossbow as a backup/range weapon if your class is not proficient with Composite shortbows. You should have other class features that make up for that lack of martial proficiency.

A Ranger who uses the Crossbow does come out a feat behind to only be almost as good as if they just chose the Comp Shortbow. I don't think that is gimp, but it surely is weaker unnecessarily.

Actually especially regarding the crossbow, this was historicaly not a weapon with much dedication in mind. Bowmen were "expensive" to train, it took years over years of training to train a decent bowman while crossbows were ranged weapons you could put into the hands of fairly inexperienced soldiers, it was never intended to be the weapon of choice of ranged specialists. Experienced bowmen where always superior to crossbow wielding men. That's why the crossbow is a simple ranged weapon.

StratoNexus wrote:

That said, generic combat styles should NEVER be used as the basis for an Archetype. It is perfectly OK for an Archetype to feature a single combat style (Cavalier and Mounted Combat, for example). But the Archetype should be about something else primarily. The Gray Maiden is a great example, there is definitely a strong element of the armor, but there is equal focus on other forms of hardiness.

This is where I think terminology and thematic focus has distorted the fundamentals of system. "Class Feats" are really just the most powerful & combat focused tier of Feats. "Prestige Archetypes" should not be definitive of what else you can do with with "Class Feats".

I don't think "Archetypes" is even ideal as sole frame-work for other things you can do with "Class Feats" (outside own class), there should be simple Universal "Class Feats" with no Dedication requirement (although their pre-reqs could de facto or de jure make them not 100% Universal). Framing them as "Universal "Class" Feats is clearer to see how "mere" combat style focus is perfectly fine. That doesn't mean "Archetypes" with Dedication can't exist, probably offering MORE over-all than a simple Feat (i.e. packages of proficiencies along with discrete abilities), but that doesn't need to, and shouldn't, be the ONLY paradigm.

Likewise, as people complained about lack-luster-ness of Pirate Archetype, thematic skill abilities should be typed as Skill Feats EVEN WHEN part of Archetype mechanic, and that goes for Class-excusive Feats as well... Which should also be able to be typed as Skill/General as appropriate...

I think the greatest problem I'm finding with the distortion of terminology and thematic focus is that...I have absolutely no idea what your paragraphs are about. Class Feats. Dedications. Archetypes. Prestige Archetypes. I understand what each of those are, but that's about it. They all cost a feat? And a Dedication is how you Multiclass, except you are still your own class. And archetypes are feat chains, and some anybody can take, others are the multiclassing thing. Then what is this Prestige Archetype? Is that a Prestige Class? Are you still the one class like with the multiclassing via archetypes via feats?

Even with the rad discussion about how all feats weren't created equal, the nomenclature feels like it is a weird mishmash of "hey we did something really different, but the kind of different where it's still samey except we changed the relative value of some uses of, say, one word (feats) and made it really clear that it is still the same - different depending on the word that appears before it. Get it? Then, to make our something really different... different, we changed how we did something we already did last time (archetypes), so that it is different, and that it changes how you did something else you already used to do differently (multiclassing) so it is the same as some of these different uses of the same word we started with (feats). Only we made a kind of promise that maybe we will still keep the old way, which will be different to now but the same as before, only in the new edition (archetypes). Plus, like last time, there is a huge emphasis on feats (feats)."

My current 1e character is basically Megaman, so I didn't want him to have magic.

Wait, what? Even ignoring Magic Man's weapon, Megaman uses an awful lot of stuff that falls far beyond the purview of Pathfinder (and even Starfinder) weapons. I would probably go full Wizard to get my choice of Acid barrier, Chill Spike, Block Dropper, Needle cannon, Mirror Buster, and of course the big screen-clearers like Gravity Hold, Astro Crush or Time Stopper (not flash stopper, since you can't attack during it)

Honeslty, I've said my piece in other threads, so I'm not going to say it again. Let me offer up the following data. In this thread, looking at only the first page of posts and ignoring neutral ones and repeats from the same individuals, I saww the following:

Negative posts: 11 individuals, With 165 likes, an average of 15 likes per negative post.
Positive posts: 5 individuals, With 37 likes, an average of 7.5 likes per positive post.

My message in short: Instead of repeatedly trying to justify your decisions about PF2, consider the significant negative feedback and decide:
1. If you don't care, you're going to make the game you want to make, whether or not other people like it.
2. If you do care, and you're willing to listen to that feedback, even if it means making significant changes to the underlying system.

Finally, just because I think it's important to say, you are supposedly making Pathfinder 2nd Edition. You've stated you want it to feel like the game we know and love. Question: If you took the world of Golarion, and played in it using 5e rules, would that feel closer to Pathfinder 1st edition than Golarion using 2nd edition rules?

I'm not saying big changes aren't good, particularly where things are significantly broken, but if you're going to make a different game and market it as a second edition, that's extremely misleading. As someone else had said, it's not that the cake tastes bad, it's just that it's not really cake, even though it's marketed as such.

Traits, multiclassing and alternate racial traits were being used to customize... but they were also the source of some of our biggest power imbalances that seriously skewed the game. They were the features that frequently allowed players to cherry pick their power level.

I'm not interested in a new game that doesn't allow me to cherry pick my power level.

I chose to specifically keep playing Pathfinder not for the APs, not for PFs, but because it's the most fun for character builds.

I hated PF1 complexity but it was a cost I was happy to pay because It came with a wonderful pre-game playground that made the effort feel worth it.

PF2 is just as complex as PF1 but character building is so straight jacketed I can't get any fun from it.
I'm not willing to pay the tax of complexity for no reward whatsoever.

Other games are not fun to build characters with, but they have other selling points: they play smooth and are simple to run.
PF2 doesn't do that either.
It's complicated, for no reason at all.

I'm sorry our tastes don't meet.

I hope you can make the game that is perfect for your goals and be happy and succesful with it, even if it's not for me.

Regards.

Finally, just because I think it's important to say, you are supposedly making Pathfinder 2nd Edition. You've stated you want it to feel like the game we know and love. Question: If you took the world of Golarion, and played in it using 5e rules, would that feel closer to Pathfinder 1st edition than Golarion using 2nd edition rules?

Funny you should mention that, I have converted some PF1/Golarion material to 5th Ed, and as of right now, I feel 5th Ed supports the action/feel of Golarion better than the Playtest. 5th Ed is closer to PF1 than the Playtest, as 5th Ed is sort of a 3rd Ed Lite, to me.

Except that 5th edition is a low magic (item) campaign. The world of Golarion would need some serious adjustments for this and have items that would fit the system better than a lot of current items that 5th has.

Plus, no Goblin characters...

Fury of the Tempest wrote:

Honestly? I wonder why they need to keep things level locked at all.

Instead of having level locked to such a significant degree, why can't they just have the feats in four different tiers... lets called the 'Trained', 'Expert', 'Master' and 'Legendary'. With the all the feats in the same tier being about the same level in power as each other, giving you greater diversity and options as you level up, until you unlock the next tier in feats, and can select from them instead?

Not sure whenever or not the lower-tier feats should have some form of auto-progression through.

I really like this idea! My suggestion was going to be open up the feats to more classes but let some classes pick them earlier (e.g. Rogue and Ranger can pick Quick Draw at lower level than anyone else).

But tying the feats to the proficiency system really brings things together, in my opinion.

Glad you like the idea! As for your suggestion... well, doesn't that basically mean you'll be able to access the tiers quicker than others?

Like, say... a fighter able to gain access to the Expert Martial feats faster than the other classes? With the cleric able to gain access to Master Divine feat faster than the other classes?

Naw, I prefer the level locked feats to "tiers". They work better with M/C archetypes and they make it easier for developers introduce level appropriate abilities at the appropriate level.

Eh... I think for the multiclassing archetypes you could do a degree of level locking, with them being the only level-locked feats.

That, or have general tiers that apply to characters in general, and not just with their abilities... I guess like Paragon and Epic from 4E.

Except that 5th edition is a low magic (item) campaign. The world of Golarion would need some serious adjustments for this and have items that would fit the system better than a lot of current items that 5th has.

Plus, no Goblin characters...

Magic items are simply optional, you can thrown in as many as you want, and 5th Ed still has some very strong spells, much stronger than anything in the PF playtest. Goblins are also an official option (VGtM).

thaX wrote:

Except that 5th edition is a low magic (item) campaign. The world of Golarion would need some serious adjustments for this and have items that would fit the system better than a lot of current items that 5th has.

Plus, no Goblin characters...

Magic items are simply optional, you can thrown in as many as you want, and 5th Ed still has some very strong spells, much stronger than anything in the PF playtest. Goblins are also an official option (VGtM).

This... The 5e *world* (Forgotten Realms) is low magic. If you run a campaign, you can dole out magical items for 5e like you would in Golarion and it doesn't significantly impact your campaign. Heck, those items function extremely similarly to how they function in Pathfinder 1st.

To the original point, I entirely agree. D&D 5e is *much* closer to Pathfinder 1st edition in overall feel than Pathfinder 2nd edition is. Maybe that's not a problem for developers, but it's a huge problem in my book.

To the original point, I entirely agree. D&D 5e is *much* closer to Pathfinder 1st edition in overall feel than Pathfinder 2nd edition is. Maybe that's not a problem for developers, but it's a huge problem in my book.

I think this is because both PF1e and D&D5e are evolutionary developments of D&D generally, while PF2e is a more radically and qualitatively different design. And as I've noted elsewhere, this is also a major problem for me.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thaX wrote:

Except that 5th edition is a low magic (item) campaign. The world of Golarion would need some serious adjustments for this and have items that would fit the system better than a lot of current items that 5th has.

Plus, no Goblin characters...

Magic items are simply optional, you can thrown in as many as you want, and 5th Ed still has some very strong spells, much stronger than anything in the PF playtest. Goblins are also an official option (VGtM).

This... The 5e *world* (Forgotten Realms) is low magic. If you run a campaign, you can dole out magical items for 5e like you would in Golarion and it doesn't significantly impact your campaign. Heck, those items function extremely similarly to how they function in Pathfinder 1st.

To the original point, I entirely agree. D&D 5e is *much* closer to Pathfinder 1st edition in overall feel than Pathfinder 2nd edition is. Maybe that's not a problem for developers, but it's a huge problem in my book.

Yes, and converting 3rd Ed/PF1 material to 5th Ed is a doddle, and a lot of fun. I consider 3rd Ed/PF1 material the secret sauce for 5th Ed, I like to crunch it up a bit (port some rules from 3rd Ed/PF1 back into 5th Ed, plus the aforementioned conversions of classes, spells, monsters, etc), and the system is designed with that in mind (or making it lighter, lean it in a more Basic, or 2nd Ed AD&D direction).

I can see some easy adjustments/variants for PF2 (like omission of +Level, untying extra weapon damage dice from magic items), so that's nice.

tivadar27 wrote:

To the original point, I entirely agree. D&D 5e is *much* closer to Pathfinder 1st edition in overall feel than Pathfinder 2nd edition is. Maybe that's not a problem for developers, but it's a huge problem in my book.

I think this is because both PF1e and D&D5e are evolutionary developments of D&D generally, while PF2e is a more radically and qualitatively different design. And as I've noted elsewhere, this is also a major problem for me.

Bingo, as I have said, it's too revolutionary for my taste, would prefer a more evolutionary approach. 4th Ed is a bit like that for me, cutting off the head to cure the headaches. Though, this is a playtest (stress-test of sorts), so some of the more radical changes may be reined in or changed, or omitted completely.

Honeslty, I've said my piece in other threads, so I'm not going to say it again. Let me offer up the following data. In this thread, looking at only the first page of posts and ignoring neutral ones and repeats from the same individuals, I saww the following:

Negative posts: 11 individuals, With 165 likes, an average of 15 likes per negative post.
Positive posts: 5 individuals, With 37 likes, an average of 7.5 likes per positive post.

My message in short: Instead of repeatedly trying to justify your decisions about PF2, consider the significant negative feedback and decide:
1. If you don't care, you're going to make the game you want to make, whether or not other people like it.
2. If you do care, and you're willing to listen to that feedback, even if it means making significant changes to the underlying system.

Finally, just because I think it's important to say, you are supposedly making Pathfinder 2nd Edition. You've stated you want it to feel like the game we know and love. Question: If you took the world of Golarion, and played in it using 5e rules, would that feel closer to Pathfinder 1st edition than Golarion using 2nd edition rules?

I'm not saying big changes aren't good, particularly where things are significantly broken, but if you're going to make a different game and market it as a second edition, that's extremely misleading. As someone else had said, it's not that the cake tastes bad, it's just that it's not really cake, even though it's marketed as such.

Use forum data all you want. Paizo has the REAL data. The data that includes people who don't post. What's the word for it? Vocal minority? Not saying this is the case 100% but it's definitely a possibility don't you think? People who are unsatisfied are much more likely to come into threads and complain about it. Then it becomes a bit of an echo chamber.

I trust that Paizo is smart enough that if their survey results were giving similar numbers to the ones you are posting that they will make significant changes, but I'm willing to bet I'm probably right about the vocal minority and that a significant amount of players are pretty happy about the playtest.

I know the two groups I have been playing with are super happy and prefer it over 1e in fact but again Paizo has the real data and maybe we are in the minority.

Aren't there several complaints about the surveys not doing a great job at covering all the feedback somebody might want to make?

The reason it is a low magic campaign is because of the system, not the setting. This is not happening with PF2.

I am sure 5th edition is a system some will use in the interim, before the eventual change to a new edition for the brand. My belief is that the PF2 final product could be a better fit than shoehorning in another system, whatever it maybe, to make like PF1. (My friend had the idea of using Fate)

I still have to wrap my mind over exploration mode and such, as it might be good to get into those rules and how they interact with the others to provide a better experience for all involved as I continue to playtest.

Aren't there several complaints about the surveys not doing a great job at covering all the feedback somebody might want to make?

No? I don't see many at all. And I felt like there was plenty of opportunities to give dissatisfaction in the current system. Almost every question had an option that stated you liked how 1e did it instead.

The Sideromancer wrote:

Aren't there several complaints about the surveys not doing a great job at covering all the feedback somebody might want to make?

No? I don't see many at all. And I felt like there was plenty of opportunities to give dissatisfaction in the current system. Almost every question had an option that stated you liked how 1e did it instead.

Then you're not paying attention... The surveys are horrible. This has been stated repeatedly. They don't ask the right questions, generally speaking, to infer really anything from. Maybe the newer surveys are more complete, but we'll see.

Also, to point this out, I'll argue that a lot of people are feeling disenfranchised at this point. Coming to post here, and be on topic with what they want to say, is a very low bar. Having to play through a game they don't care for to fill out a survey that's poorly laid out is a 5+ hour time commitment.

I'd argue it's questionable at best where the better data will come from...

Just to be clear: I am overall quite positive on the playtest, and optimistic about its final implementation. I think the devs have done a very fine job, and are continuing to admirably put to use feedback and hard data.

There are only a bare handful of sticking points that stop me from saying I would adopt PF2e as it currently stands.

It's honestly pretty silly to count favorites (which aren't supposed to be upvotes anyway) on forum posts in a forum specifically about giving criticism.

It's honestly pretty silly to count favorites (which aren't supposed to be upvotes anyway)

If people use favorites as upvotes then functionally they become upvotes and you can use their number to count effective upvotes, the only difference being said upvotes are in favorites form

Honeslty, I've said my piece in other threads, so I'm not going to say it again. Let me offer up the following data. In this thread, looking at only the first page of posts and ignoring neutral ones and repeats from the same individuals, I saww the following:

Negative posts: 11 individuals, With 165 likes, an average of 15 likes per negative post.
Positive posts: 5 individuals, With 37 likes, an average of 7.5 likes per positive post.

My message in short: Instead of repeatedly trying to justify your decisions about PF2, consider the significant negative feedback and decide:
1. If you don't care, you're going to make the game you want to make, whether or not other people like it.
2. If you do care, and you're willing to listen to that feedback, even if it means making significant changes to the underlying system.

Finally, just because I think it's important to say, you are supposedly making Pathfinder 2nd Edition. You've stated you want it to feel like the game we know and love. Question: If you took the world of Golarion, and played in it using 5e rules, would that feel closer to Pathfinder 1st edition than Golarion using 2nd edition rules?

I'm not saying big changes aren't good, particularly where things are significantly broken, but if you're going to make a different game and market it as a second edition, that's extremely misleading. As someone else had said, it's not that the cake tastes bad, it's just that it's not really cake, even though it's marketed as such.

Honestly, the most upvoted post is that of Jason Buhlman on page one with 55 votes. You could presume that those upvotes come from people rather in favour of PF2, so your "Positive posts: 5 individuals, With 37 likes, an average of 7.5 likes per positive post." is a very shacky assumption at best.

WatersLethe wrote:

It's honestly pretty silly to count favorites (which aren't supposed to be upvotes anyway)

If people use favorites as upvotes then functionally they become upvotes and you can use their number to count effective upvotes, the only difference being said upvotes are in favorites form

As I mentioned above, the post with the most "upvotes" by far is that of Jason Buhlman, so your theory about the majority hating PF2 like you do is quite preposterous.