Liir's page

Below are my thoughts on this, I’d be curious if anyone finds an ability that doesn’t make sense following these rules:

If the ability requires a melee weapon, it requires a melee weapon performing a melee strike.
If the ability requires a ranged weapon, it requires a ranged weapon performing a ranged strike.
If the ability specifies a thrown weapon, it requires a weapon (ranged or melee) with the thrown trait performing a ranged strike.
If the ability specifies a required weapon, it works as above based on the type of weapon in the requirements.

If the ability specifies a melee strike, you can perform it with any melee weapon.
If the ability specifies a ranged strike, you can perform it with any ranged weapon or a melee weapon with the thrown trait.
If the ability specifies a thrown strike, you can perform it with either a ranged weapon with the thrown trait or a melee weapon with the thrown trait.

Examples with the abilities mentioned in the first post:

Point Blank Shot: requires ranged weapon (and thus the text only applies to ranged weapons making ranged strikes).
Double Slice: requires melee weapons (and thus the text only applies to melee weapons making melee strikes)
Rage: requires melee weapons (and thus the text only applies to melee strikes)
Raging Thrower: specifies thrown weapons (and thus the text only applies to weapons with the thrown trait performing ranged strikes)

This is an interesting thread, and here is my initial thought as a forum (backseat) designer.
Add another character choice at 1st level that would grant the equivalent of one auto-scaling feat.

Choices:
Combat Style -- whatever it takes to be competitive
Expertise -- bonus Skill Increase and Skill Feat at levels 1, 5, 9, 13, 17
Animal Companion -- all the main Animal Companion Feats
Spell Adept -- limited spell casting, choose one spell list, 1 slot per spell level up to 8th?
Lay Healer -- basically giving Lay on Hands + Mercy Feats
Mastery -- bonus Class Feat at levels 1, 5, 9, 13, 17

I'm surprised that "spell" bonus isn't a category, since they specifically called out "powers" as still being spells.

I think having a spell bonus would address most of the confusion. I assume that it did exist at one point but was combined to make the math work..

Highest mental ability score seems fine to me.

Agreed here, along with Will Saves and Focus.

As other posters have noted, I think the simplified 3 action system is one of the best innovations of 2E. Adding a new action type would turn us back around in the wrong direction. One version of D&D had a rule that changed movement speed into a currency. Instead of using an action, you would spend 10 feet of movement to stand up from prone. I would embrace and expand upon that concept, to fix several issues in 2E.

..break into design mode, feel free to skip…

Instead of a race granting 25 feet of movement they would instead grant 5 points of Speed. Well, scratch Speed, because we’re going to expand the concept further.. so let’s call it Stamina. (Note: I don’t like that term either). What can you do with Stamina?

Move 5 Feet = 1 Stamina
Move 5 Feet in Difficult Terrain = 2 Stamina
Draw a Weapon = 1 Stamina
Open an (unlocked) Door = 2 Stamina
Stand up from Prone = 2 Stamina
Grab an Item out of a Backpack into Hand = 2 Stamina

..now we’re really going to break things..

Raise a Shield = 2 Stamina
At this point, we drop the 3 action system into a 2 action system. Everyone can take 2 actions and spend Stamina.
Stamina is reset to full at the end of your turn (you start at full).

Make an Opportunity Attack = 2 Stamina
Nimbly Dodge an Attack = 2 Stamina

..and we just rewrote the Reaction system.

What about Running people down?
Action (1): Adrenaline Rush – You gain 2 Stamina

What about Spellcasters and “full-round” casting?
Gather Power = 1 or more Stamina (this may require a skill check).
Description: You convert Stamina to Spell Power at a 1 for 1 ratio.
Some spells cost Spell Power (you will need to build up in combat to cast), metamagic uses Spell Power..

.. and I’m done stream of consciousness designing -- thanks if you made it this far…

And how many of those feats are actually useful? It's not really a choice when one feat line is basically necessary to take to be useful in combat. Archer Ranger for instance. There's not much choice there. Either take point-blank shot -> precise shot -> rapid shot. Or you are useless with a bow. Nice customization!

..

This point was brought up by one of the developers in a podcast as well. He said they didn't want to create a list (tree) of mandatory feats, for combat styles like archery, because it killed customization. To which my response would be..

The problem isn't that the feats exist, taking feats are how you customize your character. The problem is those feats were absolutely mandatory to keep up with all the other combat styles. If those feats added +20% damage instead of +300% damage, you could still build a master archer, without making those feats absolutely required for anyone who wants to effectively use a bow.

<snip>... and I also think that for most classes, its important that archetypes remain optional. <snip>

I was stuck on this line (in agreement) for awhile, but if you look at what would likely happen I don’t see the necessity for class with no archetype.

Back to the fighter archer example, instead of picking Fighter class, reading the (currently) 7 feats and picking the archery-based one. You would pick the Fighter class, the Archer archetype and select from the 1 (or 2) available feats. Meanwhile the wizard archer could do the same thing -- instead of reading the Fighter class, fighter feats, multiclass rules, and creating a plan up to 4th+ level.

They could even have a little table in the Fighter class with “common” archetypes: Archer (page XXX), Stalwart Defender (page XXX), Skirmisher (page XXX), or review all the Archetypes starting on page XXX.

Also note that while I keep using the Archer example, I’m talking about all class feats. So for example the Druid could pick Archer, or one of the “common” druidic archetypes: Druid of the Leaf Order or Druid of the Animal Order (also in a pretty table).

In addition, Archetypes (if we stick to that name) are really just groups of feats, so you could have for example an Animal Companion "archetype" that any class could take, as well. Either way, as I explained in my original post.. I fully expect this to be the future -- this is only about the original core rulebook design.

I've been pushing for (something like) this in posts for a couple months now, I'm pretty sure its been discussed. I wasn't going a add anymore, but since you re-ignited the fire (and I had the following already written).

...

In my opinion, Class Feats add an unnecessary amount of bloat and confusion in 2nd edition and they will be reduced to being almost meaningless in the future (or worse – see below).

As currently designed Class Feats are a collection of feats themed around a specific class. At least, that is what you’d think. In reality-- Class Feats are often groups of feats related to an individual aspect of a class and then thrown together into a single pool.

The easiest example of this is the Fighter class. Imagine you’re making a bow focused Fighter, you will likely read through all of the Fighter Class Feats in order to find and select all of the archery related feats. This scenario is the same for a Ki-based Monk or a Wild Shape based Druid.

Now look into the future -- Paizo decides to make feats to support a whip-based Fighter. They have a choice: 1) Create multiple whip-themed Class Feats for the Fighter or 2) Create the “Whip Master” archetype. If they choose option 1, they will have more work to do -- because people want to play a whip-based Rogue or Bard. Do they add additional “class-customized” whip feats for those classes, and even more for the whip favored weapon cleric?

Doesn’t it make more sense to create the “Whip Master” archetype, and let the Fighter, Rogue, Bard or Cleric use their “Class Feats” on it.. and if that does make sense, shouldn’t we just design the game that way from the beginning? There is no need for pools of generic class feats, there is no need for class feats at all..

At some point in the future there will (hopefully) be hundreds of Archetypes, and people won’t even look through the lists of Class Feats [except to pick the “mandatory” ones, which will grow ever larger as new books are released – but I digress].

Your class should be the foundation, upon which you select one or more archetypes to create your customized theme. Each supplement would be “clean”.. a deity supplement with Clerics of XXX archetypes, a sea-based supplement with sea-based archetypes, etc…

Note: I would change the term “Archetype” to Discipline, and thus class progression tables would call out selecting Discipline feats instead of Class feats. We could then talk about the ABCD’s of character creation.

Note 2: Personally I would also cut down the spell lists and add them back (including more powerful versions) within Archetypes (Disciplines). Archetype restricted spells would be “uncommon” to others. That way you can not only cut down the number of spells people need to review to play a class, but also safely create more powerful (themed) spells. For instance a Necromancer archetype with powerful necromancy spells that a generic “Wizard” couldn’t automatically access.

I agree that Raise a Shield, Superstition, taking a Stance, etc doesn't feel fun to me. Its also unbalancing for melee versus ranged, because ranged doesn't need to spend an action to move.

My solution is adding another trait that basically says once per turn, when you move you can also perform one other activity (i.e. Raise a Shield).

Example Rule: Once per turn, when you perform an activity with the Move trait, you can simultaneously perform a second activity with the On The Move trait that costs the same or less actions.

I still like going the other way.

Instead of trying to make all ability scores equally useful you make the choice more about what kind of character you want to play.

Will Saves = Highest of Int, Wis, or Cha
Focus = Highest of Int, Wis, or Cha
Remove the Trained skills bonus from Intelligence.

(Focus could be called Will Points or Willpower)

To me, this would make the choice more about your character, and which four skills you believe your character would be good at...

This is interesting, but it doesn’t feel right.

I like the idea that some items cost focus to activate, cast a Fireball from a Flaming Sword, or using Focus to “awaken” the Giant’s Blood to drink and polymorph into a giant.

I don’t want to track both the non-focus effect and focus effect for every magic item on my character.

I also don’t want to track if I used the once per day (free) use of an item or not. If needed, I would rather see the “spell point” method used for the item, i.e. when you invest in the item for the day, you gain 1 Focus.

I don’t like items having both charges and a Focus option (wands or staves).

I don’t like Focus being based on Charisma. I’d rather have Focus be called Will Points (WP) and based on the higher of Int, Wis, or Cha. I would also have Will Saving Throws work the same way (and drop the Skill Training bonus from Int to balance the "mental" stats).

Looking closer, there are both melee weapons and ranged weapons with the Thrown trait, and thus a melee weapon with the Thrown trait could (RAW) be used for any feat that requires melee weapons, for example: Double Slice to throw two daggers.

It appears they left out specifying if the Strike is melee or ranged if the feat requires a melee or ranged weapon, and I'd expect for simplicities sake that the rule or errata will be based on that at some point in the future.

I.E. if the feat requires a melee weapon, the Strike is a melee Strike, and if the feat requires a ranged weapon, the Strike is a ranged Strike.

.....and it gets worse looking at the magical items section.

VOID specifically calls out a melee or thrown weapon (this means ranged weapons with the Thrown trait??)

RETURNING specifically calls out a thrown Strike (this should be a ranged Strike with a weapon with the Thrown trait??)

Which makes me wonder.. if they have considered that you can make a ranged Strike with a VORPAL melee weapon (with the thrown trait -- like a Starknife), not sure if that is intended..

So I decided to make a Trident and Shield Fighter, and ran into many issues.

Are thrown weapons melee or ranged (or both)?

If they are melee weapons and a feat requires a melee weapon and calls for a “Strike”, can that Strike be a ranged Strike? (see Furious Focus, Combat Grab)

If they are ranged weapons and a feat requires a ranged weapon and calls for a “Strike”, can that Strike be a melee Strike? (see Incredible Aim)

If they are ranged weapons and a feat requires a “reload 0” weapon, what is their reload? (see Double Shot)

There needs to be a pass done on the rulebook to clarify thrown weapon usage.

Of course, if you had 1st to 10th Tier spell, and you cast spells at a Tier equal to one half your character level (and thus your Character Tier is one half your level). That transitions quite readily to replacing Level in the basic formula with Tier:

Skill = Ability Modifier + Tier + Proficiency + (Temporary Bonuses)

Someone had to say it..

*snip*

If nearly everything related to a specific weapon group or fighting style were stripped out and given over to a separate feat pool, you wouldn't have to build a custom class feat or archetype to cater to every fighting style.

*snip

Archetypes are a separate feat pool; they are feat chains or feat trees grouped under a specific theme. Dedication is the only thing that makes them different from a “normal” feats and note that dedication is a separate trait from Archetype (thus presumably an archetype could exist without dedication). Archetypes are also easily expandable by class. An Archer dedication feat could require Hunt Target, and thus would only be available to Rangers with the Archer archetype.

Archetypes could have other traits like “Fighting Style” to tie them directly with class options. For example, instead of putting archery class feats directly in the fighter class, they could have a class feat, or just a built in 1st level class feature, that says pick one of the initial feats of a Fighting Style (which begin on page XXX). In the text of the class it would be explained that when you pick a class feat you can always choose an additional feat from your chosen fighting style instead of the generic fighter class feats.

Later supplements would create more Fighting Styles (or expand existing ones), and when a new player is creating a Fighter and says.. “I’d really like to use a whip!”. The experienced player or GM can say “No problem, that’s in the Masters of Pain rulebook”.

Thanks for the feedback and analysis! The corollary, though, is that we have to provide enough feat options to cover the things each class wants to do in its stereotypical concepts, as you suggest. A decent part of the push for removing gates (or certain gates) comes from several missing niches in certain classes in particular (archer paladins, for example), so with the added pages we'll get in the final book, if we don't paradigm shift, we will definitely need to come up with some awesome feats to fill these niches.

I think adding a multitude of class feats is a poor design decision. A player with no desire to be an “archer” paladin will need to plow through all the “archer” feats that are meaningless to their character concept. Followed by perhaps in the core rulebook or undoubtedly in a supplement all the paladin “great weapon fighting feats” and “two weapon fighting feats” and “mounted ally feats”, when from the get go they wanted to be a healing paladin with a sword.

The design team came up with a great concept of class feats, which I believe was at least in part to address the issue that not all PF1 classes had features that could be swapped out for archetype abilities; but after gracefully addressing that issue the next decision was to slam abilities from the class specific archetypes into a big old pile of class feats.

Jason just published a stream discussing simplicity versus complexity and barriers to entry. In PF1 you could pick a class and play, or you could pick a class and archetype and play, or with a lot of game experience you could try to build through multiple archetypes and/or multiple classes.

The design of class feats along with generic archetypes and the revamped multi-class rules have opened up a huge design space that seems to be over-utilized in the case of class feats and under-utilized for archetypes.

I’ve been creating characters for PF2, in anticipation of participating in the Play Test when our current campaign is concluded. The first character I made was a Fighter, for my ability scores I wanted a high Strength, Dexterity for Armor Class / Reflex, and Constitution for Hit Points / Fortitude, and Wisdom for Will. I wanted him to be a crafter which is Intelligence based, so I decided to sacrifice my Wisdom.
STR 18 DEX 14 CON 14 INT 12 WIS 10 CHA 10

My second character was a Rogue. I needed Dexterity for Armor Class / Reflex / Hit / Damage, still needed Constitution for Hit Points / Fortitude and Wisdom for Will. I wanted him to demoralize opponents (and knowing that a +1 means a lot in this system) decided I wanted a 16 Charisma.
STR 10 DEX 18 CON 14 INT 10 WIS 10 CHA 16

If I had wanted a 16 Intelligence on my fighter, in order to be a really “good” crafter (or multi-class Wizard) -- it would have required a large sacrifice in my other important ability scores. Rogues, because they are so Dexterity-based, have “extra room” to allocate ability scores, ditto for “caster” Clerics. As I advanced my Rogue and Fighter to higher level, I noted that the Rogue could cleanly assign his ability boosts to the abilities he cared about (DEX,CON,CHA,WIS); while the Fighter had to sacrifice one of his desired abilities at each boost.

Proposal:
> Change Will Saves to be based on the better of Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.
> Remove extra Skills from Intelligence (I’m super smart, thus I’m trained in Athletics?!?)
> Remove the Resonance modifier from Charisma (everyone gets 3 + Level?)

In the Play Test book Will Saves are described as “to resist effects that target the mind and personality”; that doesn’t scream Wisdom to me, in fact on the same page -- Charisma is defined as “This score measures your character’s strength of personality,”….

If not addressed in the final version, my house rule is going to be that combat medic can be used in exploration mode as a non fatiguing, 10 minute tactic

Not sure why this feels better than a wand of cure light wounds, but to me it does..

SALVE OF HEALING
Item 1+
Consumable, Healing, Magical, Necromancy, Oil
Method of Use held, 2 hands; Bulk L
Activation <<A>> Operate Activation
You spend 10 minutes applying the salve to 6 or fewer creatures.
Each creature regains the listed number of Hit Points.

Type minor; Level 1; Price 3 gp
The oil restores 2d8+4 Hit Points.
Type lesser; Level 3; Price 8 gp
The oil restores 3d8+8 Hit Points.
Type moderate; Level 5; Price 20 gp
The oil restores 5d8+12 Hit Points.
Type greater; Level 8; Price 60 gp
The oil restores 7d8+20 Hit Points.
Type major; Level 12; Price 250 gp
The oil restores 9d8+30 Hit Points.
Type true; Level 16; Price 1,200 gp
The oil restores 11d8+40 Hit Points.

Liir wrote:

Example 2:

Attack +7 versus Armor Class 23
Using the -10 method if you rolled a 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 (30%) you would critically fail.
Using the 10 or HIGHER method you would critically fail on a 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 (30%).

So I would critically fail if I rolled a 15, but not if I rolled a 2?

That is REALLY unintuitive. Instead of "higher is better", now it's "higher is better unless it's not high enough, in which case lower is better" thing that people are going to struggle to understand.

I agree with your point, though in practice (and with time) it would quickly become second nature.

GM: Roll to hit.
Player: Does a 17 (total) hit?
GM: Yes!
Player (looks at d20, notes it is a 7): I Crit!

That being said, I agree with Isaac's example above.. and if the plan is to stick to a +/- 10 always (and never use a different spread or modify the spread); this doesn't get you a lot.

I still think its neat though..

I just wanted to share something I found interesting. I’m not advocating this as a change that should be implemented, though I will point out some advantages of using this approach. Either way, to me it’s just.. neat.

Basically it is an alternative method of determining a critical success or critical failure.
Mathematically it creates the same chance to critical as the current 10 over or 10 under method (exceptions noted below).

Here are the rules:
If your result is a success and you rolled a 10 or LOWER on the d20 die, the result is a critical success.
If your result is a failure and you rolled a 10 or HIGHER on the d20 die, the result is a critical failure.

Example 1:
Attack +10 versus Armor Class 16
Using the +10 method if you rolled a 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 (25%) you would critically succeed.
Using the 10 or LOWER method you would critically succeed on a 10, 9, 8, 7, or 6 (25%).

Example 2:
Attack +7 versus Armor Class 23
Using the -10 method if you rolled a 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 (30%) you would critically fail.
Using the 10 or HIGHER method you would critically fail on a 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 (30%).

Exceptions: The maximum critical failure or critical success rate is 50% and it doesn’t account for having an automatic (critical) success on a 20 or an automatic (critical) failure on a 1.

Advantages: Less math, you don’t need to add or subtract to find the critical targets -- you only need to look down at the d20. Additionally, you can modify the critical target outside the +/- 10 range without complicating the math. For example: You could have a sword critically succeed on a 9 or lower (reducing its critical chance by 5%). It is much easier to look at a die and see it is 9 or less, versus comparing the result to the target AC+11 (instead of +10).

I also like ranger as a separate class.

Though I understand the sentiment with it's current state; I'd like to see what else they come up with.

On a related note the Animal Companion feats could just be rolled into an Archetype so that anyone can take them. The same could be said of crossbow (Crossbowman) feats, and snare (Trapper) feats.

Choosing an class and a "base" archetype would make it easier for new players to create their characters, control future class feat bloat, and add a huge amount of options for experienced players, but I'm ranting a bit based on one of my earlier posts.

Personally I would like to see the chance of success for a skill, attack, or spell versus an equal level opponent be in the 70 to 80 percent range. I find it really discouraging to have spells or attacks do nothing, especially if you are having one of those nights where the dice are against you.

..with a 55% chance to succeed with a Paralyze spell (versus same level).

Opponent (-3): 50% chance to slow, 20% chance to paralyze, 30% to do nothing
Same Level Opponent: 50% chance to slow, 5% chance to paralyze, 45% to do nothing
Opponent (+3): 35% chance to slow, 5% chance to paralyze, 60% to do nothing

..with an 80% chance to succeed with a Paralyze spell.

Same Level Opponent: 40% chance to slow, 40% chance to paralyze, 20% to do nothing
Opponent (+3): 40% chance to slow, 25% chance to paralyze, 35% to do nothing

Chances against the same level opponent hit the target, but against the +3 opponent, the 25% chance to paralyze is way too high, at least if you’re trying to represent a challenge -- like a boss. Except, the 65% to do something (with your limited spell slots), once again, is on target. The problem isn’t the chance to do something -- it’s the chance to almost end the battle with a nasty (save-or-suck) critical effect. To address this we add the creature ability of Enhanced. Enhanced reduces the critical chance against the opponent, look at a Level + 3 Boss, with Enhanced +5.

Boss (+3): 60% chance to slow, 5% chance to paralyze, 35% to do nothing

You have a good chance that your spell did something against the boss, but a very slim chance of a save-or-suck critical effect. Enhanced (+5) increases the amount over hit roll needed to critical from +10 to +15. How do we deal with a variable critical chance at the gaming table? On the creature stats in the bestiary or adventure, we specifically state the critical targets.

Normal == Armor Class: 11 [critical 21]
Boss (Level +3 over party) (Enhanced +5) == Armor Class: 14 [critical 29]

Obviously the average damage per turn would greatly increase with this system, but you can keep a similar time to kill by increasing hit points. I would leave the opponent’s offensive side of the equation (boss attempting to hit the players), unchanged, so a Boss (+3) casting a paralyze spell would have the roll effects of Opponent (-3) above, 50% to slow, 20% chance to paralyze and 30% chance to do nothing.

Can we have Archetypes back?

I like choices. I like reading through splat book after splat book and trying to match a specific archetype’s (or two!) ability with a feat chain to fit a character’s theme or just come up with something unique and interesting. I like considering if I should multi-class, what level I should multiclass and how that fits my character. Many players are not like me.

I don’t like scrounging through 1,000 combat feats to find the 20 that are relevant to me. I don’t like feats that nobody should take because they are so specific or situational that they are “trap” options. I don’t like reading through one hundred 1st level spells to find the ones with meat on them.

Over 60% of the druid class feats are order specific, over 33% of the Barbarian class feats are totem specific. Can you imagine 3 years from now when you’re reading the “Complete Guide to Druids” handbook (or webpage), and you’re skipping 30 of the 35 first level class feats because they aren’t relevant?

We need archetypes back. The barbarian class should have a very limited set of “generic” class feats that any barbarian can choose. Not a lot of choices, making a “standard” barbarian easy for a new player to create. The specific totems should be archetypes. You can continue to add new ones in book after book, but a barbarian with the animal totem archetype would only need to consider the barbarian class feats, and the animal totem class feats. They don’t need to even skip by the dragon totem class feats, because they are found under the dragon totem archetype.

In my opinion spells (and what were previously known as combat feats) need to work the same way. New players (and I) don’t want to comb through 30 1st level spells, which would surely become 100 or more 1st level spells in 5 years. You can capture the essence of the wizard or cleric in 10 or fewer spells per level. Add any additional spells to Archetypes, specific Schools or specific Domains. A cleric of Iomedae would only review 10 1st level cleric spells, and the 3-6 additional spells (from domains).

Using the design set forth so far, these Archetypes don’t even need to be limited to specific classes. A generic Archer archetype that in 1st edition was limited to Fighters, in 2nd edition it could easily be cross-class. Instead of the choosing the Storm Order archetype, perhaps an Archer archetype would be a better fit for a elven druid character concept.

I think we need a new basic action to carefully watch an area and/or enemy.

Guard (Basic Action – 1 action)
You are actively scanning for threats and prepared to take advantage of strategic openings. You can use the Attack of Opportunity reaction until the start of your next turn. Using the Guard action is apparent to all observers. You cannot Guard when you are flat-footed. Using this action ends your turn.

What does this give us?
• Adds the capability to use the threat of an opportunity attack as a tactical decision (with a cost) to all characters.
• Allows quicker decision making for players during combat -- because you know who is guarding and can perform an opportunity attack.

Mechanically, Guard is the same as readying an action to strike, except in exchange for being limited to a specific trigger: “A creature within my reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using”, it costs 1 action instead of 2 actions.

You could adjust the Fighter class feature for compatibility, replacing Attack of Opportunity with something like Combat Awareness. Combat Awareness: You can use the Guard action as a free action at the end of your turn. Attack of Opportunity would gain the prerequisite “You are guarding” and be added to the list of Specialty Basic Reactions (page 309).

You could add a Guard (action) trait and apply it to defensive actions. Guard trait: When you use an action with the Guard trait you can use the Guard action as a free action at the end of your turn. Some actions that could qualify for the Guard trait: Raise a Shield, Dueling Parry, Twin Parry, and Parry (from the weapon trait).

I think they should just bake access to the fighter class feats into the three other martial classes.

Replace Sudden Charge from Barbarian and Double Slice from Ranger with the following class feat. For the Paladin you would just add it to their class feats available (they currently only have three class feats at level one)

Martial Training (Feat 1) <Ranger, Barbarian, or Paladin>
Gain one fighter feat. For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your fighter level is equal to half your level (minimum of 1).
Special You can select this feat more than once. Each time you select it, you can gain a new fighter feat.

Other classes would need to take the "classic" route of Fighter Dedication followed additional Fighter multi-class feats.

I think backgrounds should be tied more closely to ancestry, expanded and made more fun and impactful.

Some backgrounds don't seem to grant the abilities you would learn if you spent your youth doing them. For instance, the Warrior background doesn't provide training in weapons or armor. Generally the ancestry feats are nice to have interesting tidbits, but don't really move the needle taken individually.

Expanded background examples:

Halfling Sneak
You spent your child hood in the shadows and on the roof tops of your village.
You gain the Distracting Shadows and Sure Footed ancestry feats.
Chose one of the following skills: Stealth, Thievery, or Acrobatics
You are trained in the chosen skill and it is a signature skill for you.
Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Dexterity or Intelligence, and one is a free ability boost.

Soldier
As a warrior of your tribe or militia, you waded into battle in your younger days.
You are trained in all simple and martial weapons.
You are trained in light, medium and heavy armor.
This background counts as Fighter Dedication for purposes of qualifying for feats.
Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Strength or Constitution, and one is a free ability boost.

Destined
You have been training for your chosen class all your life.
You gain an additional 1st level class feat.
Choose one additional Ancestry feat.
Choose two ability boosts. One must be to your class's Key Ability Score, and one is a free ability boost.

I would like to see Humans start with an additional Ancestry Feat, and all ancestries granted access to the Ancestry Feat - Adopted, which would grant the ability to take backgrounds restricted to other ancestries.

Multiclassing into a specific class will never be as powerful for all classes. Some classes always get more out of it. That's not a problem and never will be a problem.

I agree with your post. Though I lead my post with Fighter Dedication being mostly useless for those three classes, skipping the multiclass feat was a perk of the suggestion, not the main point.

Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin have historically been described as martial classes. The fighter class feats are basically combat feats from PF1E. Several of the fighter class feats are already duplicated in the three classes, a trend that would likely continue in future supplements.

Granting them easier (though limited) access to the fighter class feats allows for more customization right now and in the future, removes cross-class duplication, and doesn't increase their overall power (except skipping one feat).

Fighter dedication doesn’t provide much benefit to Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers and there has been a lot of discussion about creating Combat Feats and the gating of weapon styles behind the Fighter Dedication feat. A believe a simple fix for this issue is to just bake access to the fighter class feats into the three other martial classes.

You would replace Sudden Charge from Barbarian and Double Slice from Ranger with the following class feat. For the Paladin you would just add it to their class feats available (they currently only have three class feats at level one)

Martial Training (Feat 1) <Ranger, Barbarian, or Paladin>
Gain one fighter feat. For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your fighter level is equal to half your level (minimum of 1).
Special You can select this feat more than once. Each time you select it, you can gain a new fighter feat.

This is easier to digest if you open your Playtest PDF to page 89 [the first page of Fighter feats].

Feat Formatting
The current formatting for the feats doesn’t make some very important information readily apparent.
If you glance (not read) a page of feats you should..
… know that Point-Blank Shot is a Stance.
… know what powers are Attacks (even if they are not Attacks themselves, but have you take Attack actions – I’m looking at you Double Slice).
… know if they require that you have not yet taken an Attack action on your turn (Point-Blank Shot, Power Attack, and Sudden Charge).
… know if you can only use the ability _after_ you have taken an Attack action (Combat Grab, Furious Focus)

My point is important traits, ones that change the mechanics of a feat, need to have their own section on the feat, or their own symbol, color, etc… Knowing that the feat is a Fighter feat, or involves movement (Move trait) makes sense from an organizational standpoint, but when blended with mechanic changing keywords, obfuscates key information.

Open and Press
I don’t understand why the Open trait exists on many feats, I believe there will be some bewilderment from a player when you tell them that they can’t:
* Strike to kill the orc in front of them and then Sudden Charge to other orc beating on the Wizard.
* Certain Strike an orc that is near death and then Power Attack his friend standing next to him.

The second example is a double winner, since Certain Strike is a Press (which I didn’t realize until I looked carefully at it while writing this post).

I can understand if the feat has the Open or Press trait for balancing purposes or for thematic purposes, but currently it seems like often these two traits were assigned to put to use the Open/Press mechanic.

Liir wrote:

Where does it say that you can't spend two or more of the "Step 4: Four Free Ability Boosts" on the same Ability Score?

Page 18, Ability Boosts.

Quote:

When you gain multiple ability boosts at the same

time, you must apply each one to a different score. So,
for example, if your character is a dwarf, she receives an
ability boost to her Constitution score, her Wisdom score,
and one free ability boost, which can be applied to any
score other than Constitution or Wisdom.

Given that information, really need to stop using the word “free” in that section.

Instead of:
After you’ve chosen your character’s ancestry and background, you have four free ability boosts you can assign to her ability scores as you see fit.

If should say something like:
After you’ve chosen your character’s ancestry and background, apply an ability boost to four different ability scores of your choice.

... or they could just swap Step 4 with Step 5 and let those four free ability boosts really be "Free" (while retaining the 18 ability score maximum at 1st level from page 18).

Where does it say that you can't spend two or more of the "Step 4: Four Free Ability Boosts" on the same Ability Score?

After reading a large portion of the Dex to Damage thread, I started thinking about how I would address the issue. Many posters approached the problem by attempted to carve out a unique combat experience when using finesse weapons. I prefer systems to be consistent; and thus would rather have Dexterity directly impact damage as Strength does today. Instead, I set out with the following goals.

1. Make Strength more valuable to Dexterity based characters.
2. Close the Strength versus Dexterity divide.
3. Simplify.

The result ends up changing how armor works, by replacing the Armor Check penalty with a new attribute of armor (and shields) called Burden. Here are the "bullet-point" changes:

• Armor Check penalties of armor and shield are replaced by a new "property" called Burden.

• Burden reduces your Reflex Saves and Dexterity and Strength based Ability Checks (including Skill Checks).

• Movement is reduced by 5 ft per point of Armor Burden (note this excludes Burden from Shields).

• Arcane Spell Failure is 5% + (Burden x 5%)

• Burden of each item worn is reduced by your Strength Modifier, when Armor Burden is reduced in this way, the Armor provided is increased an equal amount
(Note: Burden is not increased by a negative Strength Modifier)

• Armor Burden and Max Dexterity Modifier is adjusted by the Wearer's Size. (Example: Small is -1 Burden and +1 Max Dex, Large is +1 Burden and -1 Max Dex), this offsets the movement penalty for smaller creatures.

• If you are not proficient in the armor or shield you are wearing increase the item’s Burden by 1. Burden from items worn with which you are not proficient apply their Burden as a penalty to attack rolls.

Example Items:
Leather [Armor: +2, Max Dexterity Modifier: +8, Burden: 0]
Studded Leather [Armor: +2, Max Dexterity Modifier: +5, Burden: 1]
Chain Shirt [Armor: +2, Max Dexterity Modifier: +4, Burden: 2]
Scale Mail [Armor: +2, Max Dexterity Modifier: +3, Burden: 3]
Chain Mail [Armor: +3, Max Dexterity Modifier: +2, Burden: 3]
Splint Mail [Armor: +4, Max Dexterity Modifier: +0, Burden: 3]
Full Plate [Armor: +6, Max Dexterity Modifier: +1, Burden: 3]

Using these modifications you need a higher Strength to get the most of your armor. May your burdens be lifted!