I only have 1 question.
Are Linnorms in the Bestiary?
I was playing Pathfinder: Kingmaker and came across a Crag Linnorm that killed me real quick and I thought of you
Search Posts
This is also the first time, to my knowledge, that Mark has ever replied to me directly on a thread! I feel so special! Thanks for the response :) Have you gone on any of Mark's twitch streams? I love it when he sees someone in the chat and gets excited because he recognizes people from the forums.
Obviously you didn't play enough PF1. It's clearly Know Peerage.
Forgive me is your example actually referring to something specific that has flown over my head? Not a real example, no. It's based on the worst case scenario if Activision Blizzard decides to go all in on mobile games, and those mobile games follow the pay-to-win trend in that particular industry.
I get the feeling that people have become used to Rogues and Fighters being second-class (haha) classes, and the notion that you should play them if you want to do something flashy is just too foreign. Like, the only reason I can see people wanting a different gunslinger or swashbuckler class as opposed to general archetypes, or class archetypes of fighter, is to not have to play a fighter. To be clear, I do believe a compelling source of power or talent could provide the basis for a new, distinct class. There is no class that gets most of their cool features from manipulating luck. (Also Riskbreaker IS a cool name) There is no class that uses their in-born racial heritage to perform incredible feats of strength or agility (like a martial sorcerer, with a non-magical bloodline). This could easily be used as a basis for a good marksman character, in the vein of Wanted (curving bullets, quick movement, or other capabilities that were supposed to be a mix of training and heritage) I specifically object to new classes being made with the premise that they have specific martial training unavailable to rubes like Fighters or Rogues. I also object to mechanics like Grit being gated from Fighters despite every description of those mechanics sounding exactly like a Fighter's bread and butter.
Yeah, to be clear, a cash grab is a real thing and it can be a problem. For example, a major game company could fire a ton of staff and focus on using their prior successful franchises in low-effort spinoffs that have a high profit to cost ratio. The fans of the previous type of game that built up the franchise's reputation are very much left out in the cold even if the company makes a lot of money from the move. 4E didn't have the hallmarks of a low-effort attempt at making a new system. It seemed like Wizards were all in. They also made good faith, and pretty successful, attempts to fix it during its time.
Every character should be able to do borderline impossible things. Non-combat things should ideally be tied to skill feats, magic things should be tied to spells or focus powers, and in-combat martial things should be equally achievable by Fighters specializing in those martial things. I don't think you can base a whole class solely on its ability to do something cool without going into detail about how they do that. If it's pseudo-magical luck, then you've got some sort of luck-magic class going on with some cool potential. If it's derived from training and skill, well say hi to Fighter and Monk. If it's sheer determination or gumption, say hi to Fighter again. Panache? Seems like it's tied to being flamboyant and confident, so should be tied to Charisma, but why can't Fighters and Rogues be charismatic people able to do borderline impossible things with sufficient training?
It may be possible that Focus isn't a suitable garden to plant Grit/Panache into, but I certainly don't think we should start with that assumption. I'm not sure what Risk/Reward paradigm makes those resources ineligible for Focus powers. Remember, Focus Powers are obtained usually through class feats which can be quite lengthy and often introduce new mechanics to a player. What's stopping a Grit power feat being created which does one thing if not spent, and another if spent? I could also easily envision restrictions such as: "If a focus point is gained via the Grit feat's Grit Recovery rules, that point can only be used on other Grit abilities." It may seem convoluted, but in practice wouldn't be any worse than multiple pools. Unless you multiclass, it wouldn't even come up, and if you do multiclass it would help reduce the nova potential of that combo.
I'll largely use rarity as a flag for my attention when I see a new spell or item. Just a little "Hey, GM, you might want to consider the repercussions this thing will have on your game" Within my worlds I already know what's rare or not, and I adjudicate purchases and loot as appropriate.
I tend to believe them when they say they started PF2 from the ground up and certain aspects parallel evolved into similarity with 4E. Let's Occam's Razor it (since apparently we can't trust the devs at their word) Option 1: A team of devs started building an update to the 3.5E system and took out their 4E and 5E books to cut and paste rules elements from both to make an amalgamation game, making sure each element worked with all others while doing so. This cut and paste work was intentional and deliberate. Option 2: A team of devs started building an update to the 3.5E system and made several decisions similar (not identical) to those made by a team that also made an update to the 3.5E system. Some of their decisions may have been subconsciously influenced by other existing systems. I would argue that option 2 is more likely, if only because adapting prior work to fit into a larger system is often more difficult than creating a new system from the ground up, especially if you want a fluid, internally consistent system. It's not as though attacking someone and shoving them is an example of something that no one could ever independently think up. Pretty much all other examples of PF2's similarity with 4E fall in the same vein. It's not like, for example, 4E came up with Vancian casting and PF2 just happened to as well.
I feel that system mastery should be rewarding when it shows through intelligent strategical and tactical application of the systems in play to achieve unexpected and interesting results. It should not be a reward for having extra 20 hours to spend on manuals or the SRD reading build options. Going to have to agree with this. System mastery should be apparent when two different players play copies of the same character. This lets people learn and improve in play, rather than receive punishment for their ineptitude over the course of a ~1 to 2 year long campaign. Letting people who have tons of free time tease out niche rules elements that function by RAW (then argue with the GM to let them into the game) absolutely stomp on less invested players is just asking for the less invested players to find a new system.
a swashbuckler type class with a long list of social and charisma based feats, but isn't locked into rapiers I was thinking more along the lines of a spell-less martial bard. Now that you mention it though, I'm not too sure what sort of things the charisma Rogue can do.
Certainly the designers *must* have drawn some inspiration from 4E. They would be physically incapable of doing otherwise, given that humans in creative fields are constantly influenced by the things they've experienced. I tend to believe them when they say they started PF2 from the ground up and certain aspects parallel evolved into similarity with 4E. It would have been more of a concern if they had forcibly steered away from 4E out of a desire to be different, which would have undoubtedly caused an over-correction. Many of the fundamental concepts of 4E were good, but they tended to err on the side of grinding down snags and outliers that give a game character, rather than PF2's approach of allowing inelegance if it encourages fun and is acceptable to the players. Charisma's relative weakness is an example of this difference of mindset; it's not elegantly symmetrical with the other ability scores, but cramming something untested into it to make it pleasing from a design standpoint was too risky.
Fighters literally have a class feature called Bravery. Making a class that's got "grit" and "bravery" that's super good with a certain kind of weapon but *isn't* a Fighter just seems like you're trying to find a reason not to play a Fighter. Archetypes of Fighter could be everything you're looking for. Some ideas I'd be more inclined to buy into include things like: a swashbuckler type class with a long list of social and charisma based feats, but isn't locked into rapiers an alchemical fighter who crafts various kinds of ammunition or coatings to deal with different threats, but isn't locked into guns archetypes of all classes that gives a Western feel (especially Paladin)
Also, being brave is a Fighter thing... Starting to think some people are just anti-fighter.
I've always thought the gunslinger should have been a fighter archetype. Frankly, it's a bit insulting that someone besides the fighter got a mechanic called Grit. No one has more grit, guts, and determination than the fighter!
I want to underscore DMW's point about bias in reviews. Lots of people in the business of reviewing things are actually in the business of self promotion. Youtubers, bloggers, and even forum and reddit posters are incentivized to present their material in a manner that drives views and clicks rather than in an unbiased, fair manner. An accurate review is likely going to essentially boil down to "If you like x, y, and z, then you should convert to PF2, if you don't, then stay where you are" which everyone already knows and is pretty boring. It's so much more entertaining to play up the controversy between The One True Opinion and The Obviously Wrong Viewpoint. Sure, there will be good reviews out there, but it can be hard to tell which are which. Best to give the rules a good look over with your own two eyeballs before discussing it in a rational manner with your group.
DMW: "If you have issues with PF1, give PF2 a look" Crayon: "That's strange, bordering on nonsensical!"
Also, I didn't say you can't say negative things. I just said it's funny, like actually humerous, in this instance. Like going 'round the table at Thanksgiving and getting to this one guy who throws up his hands and says he's not thankful for anything, harrumph!
The thread doesn't ask a question though. Someone started saying things they're looking forward too, and others joined in. Saying you're not looking forward to anything is a bit like going out of your way to go to a wine tasting to tell everyone you don't like wine.
Not much. It seems like a pretty straight downgrade from 1e across the board, and it's completely incompatible with my homebrew setting. There's something funny about this comment. Maybe it's the fact that it obviously misses the point of the thread? It's like the kid who waits an hour in line at the mall to meet Santa, but when its his turn he says "I don't believe in Santa" and walks away.
1. Witch. I need my hexes, yo. Once we have Witch I can cobble together a Shaman. 2. Slayer. I don't even care that this might just be a ranger/rogue multiclass. Properly explored it will be an elegant martial addition like it was in PF1, and another way to get sneak attack with different flavor. 3. Oracle. I don't even like it, but other people do a LOT. 4. NPC classes. Don't give me that look. I want to play a commoner from level 1 to 20 even if it doesn't make sense.
The premise that PF2 is somehow a watered down PF1 is flat out wrong. It's an improvement over PF1 in many ways, built by people who love and still play PF1. There will be AT LEAST as many different ways to build a character, and building a variety of different concepts is still the foundational cornerstone of the system. Lots of the build complexity (e.g. the stuff that makes it take a long time to get a character built to be effective) was simply moved to more interesting, active complexity. Combat is going to be so much more dynamic, and experienced players are going to get more mileage out of the same characters simply by knowing how to make sound tactical decisions. When to block, when to delay, when to use which combat feat etc. I recommend taking a hard, fresh look at the system when it launches without listening to outside opinions. It will either suit you or it won't.
My biggest pet peeve of the traits: Tusked. Oh? Now we're straight up giving extra attacks to certain races with a trait? A race that's already quite strong? And to hell with all the other races that would be a better thematic fit for a bite attack (kobolds anyone?). When I saw that trait I knew the whole trait system was busted for good, and let people take feats strictly for abilities rather than nonsensical flavor that may or may not have even fit my world.
I'm pretty sure someone with the Medicine skill can be the primary healer.
Since I'm porting a currently running campaign over, and the characters have some pretty important loot, I need to import the Rail Gun and the Arc Rifle. I'll also need to update some homebrew items, but that's not a concern.
We know the idea is that prestige classes will be archetypes with requirements that can be met at roughly 6th level. While I'm not sure how that's going to interact with prior multiclass dedications, I think the potential is there for prestige classes to mesh much better with a wider variety of character builds. Shadowdancer, for example, had combat reflexes, dodge, mobility, stealth 5, and perform (dance) 2, as requirements. It primarily gave progression in roguey stuff, as well as a variety of shadow magic things. Should it require rogue dedication? Simply trained in stealth and some sort of performance? Should it have mostly shadow stuff in its feat list, or should it also include rogue themed feats? Should the shadow stuff be focus power based? In general, how many levels of feats should prestige classes have? Enough to take all of prestige feats from 6 to 16, to mimic their 10 levels in PF1? Just a handful of really good feats you could take at any level mixed in with your base class stuff?
You know what would be kind of cool? Spending a focus point to gain the unlimited use of a hex, then refocus lets you change hexes, or refresh your ability to do the 1/day/target thing again. I just really liked the all-day nature of hexes!
Let's steer away from that particular flame war for now though. Regarding reactions; I could see a setup where you choose to be asked each time or assign a priority list to automatically take reactions as they're triggered. I'd also like to point out that if it's easy to make into a CRPG, it's also easier to code into character gen software or virtual table tops like Fantasy Grounds.
I've been playing the Pathfinder: Kingmaker computer roleplaying game and I think it just has to be said: Second edition is going to be crazy amenable for turning into a CRPG. Not just to faithfully re-create the game, but to provide an enjoyable experience for non-ttrpg players. You have: 1. Straightforward ABC character generation that's easy to code and walk through. 2. Separate pools of feats, obtained in a predictable progression that can be easily visualized over a 20 level spread 3. Opt-in mechanics to limit cognitive overload and let subsystems be independently excluded or modified 4. 3 action economy for straightforward turn based combat 5. High skill floor, allowing a narrower band of game difficulty options 6. Fewer build options that require pre-planning many levels in advance 7. Easier monster customization, to make more interesting monsters that are enjoyable to face, and also easier to scale slightly up or down for player level wiggle room 8. Better defined out of combat rules for searching, sneaking, traveling, etc to help spice up the time walking between encounters or through the world 9. Refocus feature allowing extension of adventuring days without encouraging players to retreat and spam rest for a better overall gaming experience 10. Easy to code and parse conditions, which stack or cancel in obvious ways 11. Scaling cantrips providing consistent magical blasting to avoid fatal encounters with non-obvious threats like swarms, which are highly intolerable to inexperienced gamers 12. Sensible experience system with meaningful numbers for new players 13. Opportunity to provide new kinds of hidden rewards, like bonus feats, without destroying game balance to cater to non-loot motivated players, or fans of "use a skill to improve it" systems.
One more thing I'm looking forward to: watching old rules elements get updated to the new edition. I can't wait to see what guns get turned into, as well as the entirety of the Technology Guide. If they do it right, we could see a feasible way to convert Starfinder into PF2 rules. Oh, and I can't wait to see what kinds of guides, conventions, and house rules the community starts to put together.
Just LOL if you don’t have a sniper with Force Soles Mk 2 walking half a mile above the rest of the party at all times, outside the max range of all non-sniper weapons on the ground. I love everything about this. I love that it's laughable to assume someone *isn't* walking in the sky. I love that the sniper would be a speck, communicating exclusively through the comm unit and binoculars or scope. I love that the sniper would only be relevant during combat, otherwise spending time looking around at clouds. Sipping from their canteen. I love that the sniper could be hit by a passing plane, whose pilot would have no idea what just got smeared across their transparent aluminum.
After a month of release, we should make a poll to see how many characters are multiclassed.
Mark is a hero.
They have gone a long way towards varying the weapons . But has armour been varied enough ? Are there still going to be a bunch of useless armour options like splint and half plate ?It could be seen as limiting though In the playtest there were fewer obviously junk armor options. Most added up to a similar total AC with armor and dex cap. Surprisingly, Half Plate was just all around better than full plate if you had 14 dex.
Also, hirelings are great for manning your ship.
Here's a facet of the discussion I'd like to focus on a bit further: "A caster deciding to spend resources without multi-classing to give their build some weapon-centric goodies is inherently stepping on the toes of martial classes, regardless of the flavor or strength of said goodies." That's the position at least a few posters appear to be taking. Here are some questions regarding that: 1. If casters shouldn't natively get any weapon-centric stuff, why do things like Savage Slice exist? 1.a. If Savage Slice exists, why can't similar options exist for any fighting style? 1.b. If Savage Slice is just druidy flavor, why was it arbitrarily decided that druids like slicing? 2. Is a martial classed character spending skill points to be able to perform rituals stepping on caster class toes? 3. Is the Fighter's baseline kit comparable to other class's (e.g. spells, barbarian rage) or is their class niche disproportionately dependent on their feats? 3.a. If Fighters are all about their feats, does that make them inherently step-on-able because this is a system about customization with feats?
Ohhh that make sense. Nevermind. I got confused with the subsequent talk about making other witch characters.
Wait... how is a witch with a spellbook a huge stretch? I've gotta be able to name a dozen witches from popular culture with spellbooks...
Caster/caster multiclassing is going to be a big deal, I'm calling it now. More slots and more spell options are going to be VERY attractive.
Weapon Focus (Longbow) or Point Blank Shot both gave me what I'm after in this discussion: investment in archery. We're not talking about strength or weakness of options relative to PF1 or PF2. This is all I've been saying all this time. When a player asks me "What can I do to improve my archery?" and I say "You can spend a feat to multiclass fighter or ranger, then get access to an archery feat, or you can stay in your lane and just do more druid stuff" I feel that this is insufficient. I should at least be able to say "You can spend a skill feat to do archery trick shots!" Fortunately, as a GM I will be able to say "Go nuts multiclassing, you got all these extra feats to play around with, let me know if you need any more help breathing life into your concept before level 6"
I'm going to be as clear as I possibly can because it seems that I'm not getting my point across: 1. I want to be able to say I'm invested in a weapon. As a character in a roleplaying game, I feel that should always be an option, just as you can invest in different skills, or invest in different classes. 2. Investment in a weapon doesn't have to be as strong as combat feats from another class. It could even be on par with skill feats. 3. Fighter class feats should not be endangered by the above, because they are presumably cool and interesting enough to hold up the class on their own. 3a. If low power weapon investment feats *do* threaten the Fighter class, then the class is in serious trouble. 4. If the *only way* to invest in a weapon is to multiclass, which people in this thread seem to be alternating between arguing and denying, then I will make multiclassing easier for my table by giving out extra feats. 5. Extra feats typically open up options for actions, rather than straight boosting numerical power, so extra feats should be relatively low-impact.
[Unsolicited advice on building an elf longbow shapeshifting character] So, I want to tell you this with all the love in the world, but you have a habit of trying to answer subjective discussion with rather unhelpful nit-picking of examples. Examples which there could be an infinite number, but we don't have the time to fully explore. Usually I try to stay focused on the big ideas, especially since we don't have all of the final rules at our disposal. I also haven't fully memorized every nook and cranny of the rough draft of the rules. If I tell you that it takes too long for my character concept to be adequately represented by the mechanical choices of my build, your response shouldn't be "You're wrong, see, I did it fine". It should be to try to understand why I feel the way I do. So, to counter nit-pick, as an example as to why nit-picking isn't helpful:
It also gets me access to Elven Curve blade, which works with Dex, so I'm perfectly suited to use that instead. So I'm just as invested in the Elven Curve blade as the bow. In PF1 I would have all the druid stuff (not that it matters to this discussion) and an archery feat. PF2 actually gives me more of my concept with the pest form wild shape at this level. Level 2 Take either Fighter Dedication (and now retrain your ancestry feat because Fighter gives you what you want), Ranger Dedication. There are no Wild Shape things here, and if you are wild shaping for melee then Savage Slice doesn't work anyway. I'm operating under the assumption the Savage Slice was meant to work for Wild Shape, and if not, there will be another relevant feat to take for either Wild Shape or Bow, and even if that's not the case Savage Slice indicates there should be some weapon-based in-class feat for me to take. If not, then say I do take Fighter Dedication. Still not invested specifically in a bow.
Still no bow or archery specific investment, and certainly not longbow itself. Level 6 If Ranger take Favoured Aim. If Fighter take Point Blank Shot or Assisting Shot. You don't get to take Insect Shape, but it isn't a prereq for the more powerful Shapes anyway. Yay, by level 6 I have something I can finally say makes me an archer character besides the equipment I'm carrying. In PF1 I had that at level 1. Not to mention, 6th level druid feats might by that point be more valuable than my bow fixation. After 6th levels I may have abandoned the idea altogether and I'm a Elven Curve Blade character now.
Okay, so we're just going to have to fundamentally disagree that being able to be invested in a weapon or fighting style is a "fighter thing". I think it's something anyone should be able to do, you don't. We can move on. Then I would think a DM would let you do that. Trade out one weapon group with the other. That's a fair suggestion. Being, the GM, however, I went another route and said everyone gets double feats so that we can potentially avoid having to house rule individual feats on a case-by-case basis, and people who don't want special adjustments can spend their feats on more cool in-class stuff. After all, I don't need investment to come in the form of strong out-of-class fighting style feats, but those sure do count as a form of investment! Being assured that additional feats aren't as big of a power boost as it was in PF1, I'm pretty comfortable with this approach for now.
So you would agree that minor, less cool options that would allow one to consider themselves invested in a weapon style wouldn't unduly step on the Fighter's toes?
Class meant quite a bit in PF1/3.5. Fighters could not smite evil or cast fireball without multiclassing. So yes class meant something. It was just every half way decent thing fighter could do was feat. Everyone had access to those feats. I do not think that should be the case. I think if you like a feature another class has you should multi class into it. Otherwise I would think any class ability should be a feat. Let’s have all spells be feats so we truly have an open system. I am personally not fan of that but if we want an open system there you go. I would say it would be something like an accountant saying it sure is cool what those Navy Seals do. Let me take feat so I can do that stuff too. As I said, they meant something insofar as they were bundles of features. If you wanted to smite evil and lay on hands and get good cha-enhanced saves, but you have to be good, you went paladin. If you wanted spells, you went to a spell class. If you wanted to have cool shape shifting abilities you went Shifter or Druid. At any point, if a class said you can't do something the character concept requires, then that class is no longer an option as long as there's another way to achieve a closer approximation of your concept. This notion that *weapon choice* is now a class feature is brand new. It's also not strongly supported based on how easy it actually is to get proficiency. Also, all along Fighters being the Combat Feat class has been a problem with me. In PF1 they finally clawed their way out of that hole with advanced armor and weapon training. If in PF2 the still don't get cool class features, relying instead on just having the best weapon feats, they're going to end up being bland, multiclass fodder. And I seem to need to repeat myself: looking for a way to be invested in a weapon or fighting style, which is a natural thing to want in an RPG, doesn't mean being the *best* at that weapon or fighting style, nor does it mean the character should wholly revolve around that thing.
It's a problem because you have to sacrifice some of the content of the bundle of mechanics to get the investment with the certain weapon type or fighting style. The druid example was because it was from an attempted and failed character concept I tried to make in the playtest, and the point of failure was that the mechanics I wanted from the class outweighed finding a means of being invested in a weapon. The original concept was an elf longbow wielding druid who used spells to buff team members and shoot from the edge, and would wild shape and melee when buffs and heals ran out. As it turned out, the longbow was the least important feature and got starved out, since earlier access to wild shape trumped whatever minor bonuses to bows I could get. Looking for any reason to stick with longbow, I found it was just too cumbersome with the volley penalty, so shortbow it went. Then I ran into the problem of that slashing weapon feat hanging there enticing me to go full melee. How that has changed with the final PF2 rules I have yet to see. I know volley has changed, and there may be in-class druid bow feats, and there may even be non-dedication weapon style feat pools. As for the weapon runes; that certainly does help, yes.
I think a big part of the reason I'm more concerned about this than others is that I'm very much not in the "Class needs to *mean* something" camp. To me, class have always been a bundle of mechanics that you use to achieve a character concept. In any game where class starts making too many decisions for you, I quickly begin to lose interest. I start by coming up with a character by asking things like "What are they like? How do they solve conflicts? If they get in a fight, what do they use to defend themselves?" I'll take what I need from classes to get the mechanical representation of my concept, not make decisions on my concept based on what's available to X class. In PF1, since feats were available to anyone to customize what weapons you can pick up and utilize, class was open to select the rest of the necessary mechanics. I didn't shy away from picking up a Scythe because it wasn't on the list of clerics' approved weapons. The mere thought that I *shouldn't* use a weapon because I chose X class is foreign and repugnant to me. Now, the problem in 2E isn't generally that I can't pick up any weapon I care to, it's that I don't have good reason to, and what's more, some classes actively discourage certain choices. It's an unfamiliar space to be in, and I'm concerned about the perception I'll have of being uninvested. I know from other game systems where it happens (Diablo 3) even small mechanical nudges one way or another can totally derail what I had hoped to achieve with a character. Something as simple as the magical weapon the boss was wielding could send me down a totally different game experience for several or more levels. For all the flaws of feat taxes in PF1, they did encourage you to pick a type of combat. I'm glad they're gone, but I'm still searching for that means of clearly saying "This character prefers this weapon" if that's part of what that character's story entails. Diving into multiclassing just to achieve that is like doing a 1 level dip in PF1 just for Weapon Focus.
Heck, at this point, I'd take a set of skill feats that lets you use your weapons of choice for more things! Quarterstaff vault Intimidate with X Weapon X Weapon Performance (Shoot apples off people's heads)
I feel like daggers are always a tricky example because they are a simple weapon and thus will naturally be weaker than martial. The martial equivalent would be a starknife. But in either case, just focusing Dex over Str (which you would want for throwing) would make you better with the knives than the Scimitar. Daggers don't need to be good. I'm opposed to there being in-class options for certain weapons but not others, simply because someone decided which weapons are okay for druids to use.
Gaining access to spells is a bigger deal than switching one in-class weapon option for another. Going for them needs to you to plan on multiclassing from level 1 when you're selecting ability boosts. Even then, PF2's spellcaster multiclassing is fantastic compared to PF1. The problem is the flow of building a character focused on a weapon they have little indication that they can't focus on. At *minimum* there should be options to expand on the use of weapons that the class grants proficiency in. Otherwise you end up with this: 1. I want to make a Sorcerer/Cleric who fights with a quarterstaff!
I actually like and think that it is the point of Pathfinder 2 that not every class should be the master of dual wielding or two handed attacks. That may be a feature of the fighter through class feats. So yes it may be harder for the Champion/Paladin to be the master of two handed attacks. I think that is the point though. "Mastery" is one thing. No one is arguing that every character of every class should be able to become "masters" of what ever form of combat they like. A PF1 cleric with a reach weapon wasn't some kind of demi-god of martial fury. It is 100% fair to expect to be able to spend character resources on basically anything you want to pursue though. That's kind of been the base expectation of Pathfinder and 3.5e for quite some time now. It doesn't have to be a good idea. It doesn't have to mesh well with your class's other tools. The whole point is that it's your character, and you get to decide what's right for them. In PF2, a player says they want to play a fighter who dabbles in spells? You tell them that spells are a powerful thing, and it'll cost them class feats, and here's how to do it. In PF2, a player wants to throw daggers as a druid and asks if maybe they could get something in place of the slashing weapon druid feat? Gotta multiclass out to another class solely because someone's vision for druids didn't include being slightly better at daggers than scimitars. Also doing so will push back some key things you also care about one or two levels even if you just wanted to spend one feat.
|