Sydney S.'s page

Now that I think about it, it's kind of a recurring issue with pf2e class development in general. By lumping everything together as "class feats", they've created an issue where things like a message cantrip have to compete against potentially 6d4 damage in AoE at level 1.
Which is a player more likely to care about? There's a reason the pf1e kineticist has utility talents on its own track separate from the infusion options.

The elements have quite good 1st level feats actually. Plus the feats can be spent on familiar, weapon, and flexible blasts.

The feats gained from dedicated/dual gate must come with the relevant elemental tag; you can't take the unrestricted options.

And I strongly disagree with these "level 1 elemental feats are good" takes I'm seeing in here.
The only ones I'd take on purpose are aerial boomerang (maybe some other AoE option instead, but never two at once) and maaaaybe Winter's Clutch because minor free AoE damage is still free AoE damage. Assuming I didn't have line of effect to an actual enemy. And I didn't want to spend those three actions on just... moving to where I'd have line of effect.

All the Oozemorph Shifter needed to be an actual functioning character was the guy who wrote it to not add the overkill line of "However, she has no magic item slots and she cannot benefit from armor; cast spells; hold objects; speak; or use any magic item that requires activation, is held, or is worn on the body."

Seconding the original post.
Every ancestry other than human has to spend their ancestry feats remembering they didn't write "human" on their character sheet.
Humans, who lost absolutely nothing in the transition from PF1e to PF2e, instead go from gaining 1 bonus feat to gaining up to 5?

That's just not right. Not even a little.
As long as humans have the option to take class/general feats in place of their ancestry feats, every other ancestry should have options that compare to class feats.

For example, elves and gnomes getting a cantrip as an ancestry feat? Work with that. They don't just gain a free cantrip, they gain a free Multiclass Dedication feat for anything that would grant them arcane/primal cantrips, ON TOP OF some other small bonus, like training in arcana/nature.
Let humans be the "jack of all trades", and give the other ancestries more powerful, but more narrow, options.

Gosh I really hope Drow don't get turned into a heritage feat.
That's already a terrible shame for half-elves and half-orcs, we don't need actual unique races getting flung into that mess.
We need the races to feel more like themselves again, not turn more races into feats that take entirely too long to get going anywhere iconic.

Common class features that give you uncommon options work the same way.

This is obviously the intent, but not how the rule is currently written.

It doesn't matter that in some cases you only select a Common feat that grants an Uncommon reward, you haven't been given access to the Uncommon option, and that means you can't take more than one of them. And because you can't take more than one of them, there are some classes in the game that, as per the currently written rules of the game and Society play, are not legal for play at all.
You would end up selecting more Uncommon options than you're allowed by just statting up normally; there aren't Common options to take in their place.

Again, not arguing this is how it SHOULD work, because that would be ridiculous. Playtest rules just need a fix before the real launch, this is what playtests are for.

No, they're pretty on the dot here.
By the rules as they are written, several classes are unplayable in a Society setting due to the way they can't even be statted up without taking an Uncommon option somewhere.
They need to either reword the rule, change rarities, or introduce an explicit class feature granting you access to a class's Uncommon options for being a member of that class.

Part of the point of a playtest is to find these sorts of issues and fix them, not to say "yeah but it's obvious it's not supposed to *actually* work that way" like there's nothing wrong.

They probably just wanted to avoid using the word "sex" in the book.
Regardless of a person's particular conundrums of gender, they're going to fall under one of two generally blatantly obvious physical sexes.
Like, you can't even dream of disguising as a female if you have a beard (or your shaved beard starts creeping back in as stubble) and aren't a dwarf, y'know? There's a physical characteristic that's absolutely going to give you away.

I'd say the bigger problem is the feat isn't described as learned type of disguise like "If I wrap my chest just right it really flattens down, and then I add a bulky shirt on top..." and rather retcons in an aspect of your character: "What do you mean? I've always had slightly pointed ears, yeah. Got some... distant elven blood in me. Honest."
It should be either reworded entirely (to represent a learned benefit) or changed to a feat you can only take at 1st level. (to represent a physical, in-born characteristic)

For example, the Ranger in the playtest only gains Trackless Step at 5th level.
Considering how incredibly situational it is, yet also how incredibly thematic it is, it should be a 1st level class feature rather than 5th.

Nature's Edge at 9th level? Again, it's thematic, but not really a "9th level" benefit. Bump it down to 5th, it's not like a Rogue can just dip Ranger and Sneak Attack everything that sets foot in vaguely defined shrubbery.

Heritage feats should be something that changes what you are at a base level.
Any Goblin could learn to chomp things better with the teeth they *all* have, but you can't (short of a Reincarnation) have a Human that decides one day "I'm gonna be part Orc."

Edit: Another example would be Elves and "I can hear a bit good I guess."
That's not a Heritage feat type of change.
What IS a Heritage feat would be something like Aquatic Elves; you've got gills and can breath under water.