Can you gain the Natural Ambition feat more than once and pick a different lvl 1 class feat? Is there any rule stopping you from taking the same feat twice if you can gain a different benefit?
I thought I read a rule saying you can only pick the same feat once. Was that a different version of the game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, why did they choose to put these rules all over the place rather than in the section on feats. I would really love to see someone at Paizo do a text clean up at some point. Put some of these stuff where it should be found.
Glad there are posters that know where to find these little rules. Just spent time reading the class feats and feats section. Nada.
Man, why did they choose to put these rules all over the place rather than in the section on feats. I would really love to see someone at Paizo do a text clean up at some point. Put some of these stuff where it should be found.
Glad there are posters that know where to find these little rules. Just spent time reading the class feats and feats section. Nada.
It is in the "how to read the rules" part of the introduction section, it is probably the best place for it.
I do wish they had sidebar callouts like the MCG Cypher system books have though.
Man, why did they choose to put these rules all over the place rather than in the section on feats. I would really love to see someone at Paizo do a text clean up at some point. Put some of these stuff where it should be found.
Glad there are posters that know where to find these little rules. Just spent time reading the class feats and feats section. Nada.
Isn't page 18 basically intro? You should have seen it before heading into ancestry feats from a practical standpoint.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't page 18 basically intro? You should have seen it before heading into ancestry feats from a practical standpoint.
It is fair to assume that they might have seen it and forgotten it since first reading the section, or outright skipped the section like the vast majority of people I have asked who have started PF2e.
(which is a shame, as it is such a well designed section for giving people an intro as to how the system now works)
Isn't page 18 basically intro? You should have seen it before heading into ancestry feats from a practical standpoint.It is fair to assume that they might have seen it and forgotten it since first reading the section, or outright skipped the section like the vast majority of people I have asked who have started PF2e.
(which is a shame, as it is such a well designed section for giving people an intro as to how the system now works)
I understand that, I'm guilty of it a lot myself, why I always either google or search AoN or the book before asking, but it just felt a little too dramatic to imply that intro rule stuff at the start of the book before the actual rules/mechanics was "all over the place".
I understand that, I'm guilty of it a lot myself, why I always either google or search AoN or the book before asking, but it just felt a little too dramatic to imply that intro rule stuff at the start of the book before the actual rules/mechanics was "all over the place".
On that note, I am so happy with how well organised the book is. SOOOOO much easier to find rules or sections than in PF1e.
There are a few nitpicks that I have (spells being alphabetical rather than grouped by level and settlement level guidelines being buried in downtime rules until the GMG came out) but ultimately it has been a joy to just reach over and flip to the section I need.
I still want that errata though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree. I have read the book before wasn't going to reread the entire thing to this rule. I find it surprising that anyone would think going to the section called Feats would not have this rule in it since it applies to almost nothing else but feats.
I initially look for the rule on Archives of Nethys, but their sections are in a lot of different places.
Did not try a Ctrl F because typing in Feats to control F in a book full of the word feat did not seem like a great idea. I already tried that in the Google machine and that didn't work.
Suffice to say thanks [b]thenobledrake[/i], glad your memory is better than mine on this topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going to the section called Feats ends up not making sense because that's the third section of the book that contains feats - makes way more sense to be in the introduction (alongside all the other basic concepts of how the game works and how to use the book) even though that creates a kind of blind spot for people that are already confident with how a book "should" be organized so they haven't really focused on the 'for newbies section' where every gaming book ever (just about) has stuck all the most important bits of knowledge about the game in hopes that readers will find it early on.
I don't agree. That special applies solely to feats. It should be in the feats section.
Books should be set to discuss the rules in the sections with abilities they apply to, not as a general rule put in an introduction section people will generally not check if they are experienced players. If they want to put it twice in both sections, that would be fine. If you're going to have a chapter called feats or spells or classes, then rules that apply to those aspects of the game should be in those sections.
That make it much easier to reference even if you are a new player who has read the introduction. After you are familiar with the game, you should be able to find the relevant rule in the relevant section of the book.
Books or references are organized in a certain way so that rules and or subjects that apply are in the areas where they should be found. It makes referencing those rules easier, faster, and makes for a more efficient layout.
One thing I definitely agree with the critics on is this is a big book with a lot of rules and it has been a huge turn off for some of my players given how spread out the rules are. They often miss things. When I tell them, they just get irritated that they have to look in five different areas of the book to understand how a rule works.
I have to disagree. I have read the book before wasn't going to reread the entire thing to this rule. I find it surprising that anyone would think going to the section called Feats would not have this rule in it since it applies to almost nothing else but feats.
I initially look for the rule on Archives of Nethys, but their sections are in a lot of different places.
Did not try a Ctrl F because typing in Feats to control F in a book full of the word feat did not seem like a great idea. I already tried that in the Google machine and that didn't work.
Suffice to say thanks [b]thenobledrake[/i], glad your memory is better than mine on this topic.
It is before feats though, before the very first ones, aka before ancestry feats, then come class feats, then general and skill ones.
You can disagree if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that explanation of how a thing works does it's work just fine if it's presented at the intro. This is becoming into one of blowing things out of proportions. Everyone else has been doing just fine since release in finding this and not taking feats twice when they couldn't be taken twice or more.
|
I have come across a rare issue while doing a character build and need an official ruling given that the plan was to use the character in organized play. It is similar to the subject of this tread. The two sources that are at odds with one another are the following:
1:the alchemist dedication provides the Alchemical crafting skill feat (here is the link to the dedication for those that need a refresher: https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=665)
2: the Alkenstar tinker background also provides the same skill feat (Alchemical crafting)
(here is the link to the background for those who need a refresher: https://2e.aonprd.com/Backgrounds.aspx?ID=88)
I know that this is a rare occurrence but I have been unable to locate a rule that would clear this niche issue. If one of the folks for pfs2/organized play have a ruling for this please let us know. Many people bring up the “skill proficiency overlap” rule as I personally call it but it doesn’t seem to call out this issue under that rule. Would I get a different skill feat that I qualify for or am I just stuck with 2 copies of alchemical crafting?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no rule that allows for replacing a duplicate skill feat in a case like this. In a normal home game, the GM could obviously make a special allowance, but Pathfinder Society doesn't have any special campaign rule to allow a replacement feat, either.
|
|
There is no rule that allows for replacing a duplicate skill feat in a case like this. In a normal home game, the GM could obviously make a special allowance, but Pathfinder Society doesn't have any special campaign rule to allow a replacement feat, either.
So I guess the next errata could make one to solve this issue in the future. The background fits the flavor as to why they use explosives as their main weapon of choice even those they are a fighter. We know that there are some elves in the mana wastes given that the pf1 pregen for the gunslinger is a half-elf. So my concept has legs to it and the uniqueness makes them even more tangible. You know that a strategy is workable when there is a meme that represents it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess the next errata could make one to solve this issue in the future.
Sure. Welcome to the waiting line.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. No need for an errata. You've got the feat twice.If you have the feat twice, then you can retrain one of them.
In a case like this, where neither feat was a selection, that is not true. Because you can only retrain to something else that would have been a valid selection at the time.
It's just like how a Lizardfolk can't retrain their Breath Control bonus feat into toughness, or a Fighter that doesn't want to use a shield can't retrain their Shield Block bonus feat into Fleet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a related note, are feats from different classes that have the same name considered to be the same feat? Could a Sorcerer with Bard MC take Cantrip Expansion for each class in order to add two more cantrips to each repertoire?
You better understand the basic power of your bloodline. Add two additional cantrips from your spell list to your repertoire.
Study broadens your range of simple spells. Add two additional cantrips from your spell list to your repertoire.
And if they couldn't because the feats are so similar, could a Sorcerer with Wizard MC take Cantrip Expansion for both classes because they operate differently? One adds them to your repertoire while the other lets you prepare more.
You better understand the basic power of your bloodline. Add two additional cantrips from your spell list to your repertoire.
Dedicated study allows you to prepare a wider range of simple spells. You can prepare two additional cantrips each day.
On a related note, are feats from different classes that have the same name considered to be the same feat? Could a Sorcerer with Bard MC take Cantrip Expansion for each class in order to add two more cantrips to each repertoire?
I would say yes, because the feats do affect different archetypes.
Another related bug is an automatically granted feat with restrictions. Such as the the Basic Alchemy Benefits that give the Alchemical Crafting feat. Herbalist and Poisoner archetype give the Basic Alchemy Benefits with additional restrictions on what items can be used. So it could be ruled that if you have both dedications that you can only use your Alchemical Crafting and/or Infused Reagents if you can find an alchemical item that is both an alchemical poison and has the Healing trait.
Of course the more sane ruling would be that you could use the benefits for either type of item.