after years of 3.5, and now pathfinder, i realize that some things in rpgs are taken for granted. one of those things is that some abilities are avaiable to anyone willing to pay the cost of a feat and others are impossible to get without specialization. and yet, the game is updated with new opitions all the time and things start to get blurry. feats that make you get class abilities, spells that make class abilities obsolet, archetypes that can make opition previously unavailable to a class available, etc.
but then each class spend their resources in different ways. a feat useful for figthers can be useless to rogues and a spell useful for wizards is often useless for sorcerers.a figther gains bonus feats every even level the same way a barbarian gains a rage power or a rogue gets a talent, so whats the diference between then?
the point is: can we define without a doubt what should be a feat or a spell or a skill or a class ability? It would help a great deal for everybody to understand the game and make the classes more unique
|
What makes Pathfinder so unique is the ability to create a character concept in your head, and make it work in a wide variety of different ways using different classes. Since everything is designed to be balanced, I don't need to wait until very high levels to make my character concept work if I'm willing to make some sacrifices.
Sure, a feat that gives a class ability might seem overpowered, but most such feats have several prerequisites to balance things out. It allows a character to gain similar abilities and thus complete a concept much earlier than usual.
I'll admit that it does get somewhat confusing at times, but it allows the books to remain a treasure-trove of ideas and possibilities rather than a cold set of inflexible rules. Honestly, I like how Paizo has chosen to blur the lines somewhat.
If one only considers the content in the Core Rules, the distinction is fairly clear-cut, I think. Certainly in a case-by-case analysis, but even generally, Spells are a subset of class features that pertain to casters, Skills are a collection of abilities that improve with training that anyone (including NPCs) can develop, Feats are discrete abilities that generally require some minimum degree of training and indicate that the character with the feat is capable of above-average performance in some fashion but that are nevertheless available to anyone (including NPCs) who possess the prerequisites, and Class Features are skills or abilities that are unique to the developmental path of a specific class (representing specialized and focused training and life experiences).
The problem with this setup is that by designating unique and specific delineations, the complexity and potential for character creation is limited. By allowing alternate class features, feats, and spells, some of which cross the class-uniqueness line, the number of potential characters that can be constructed increases. After all, the rules we use are presented as an abstraction that make it possible to describe the actions and activities of fictional characters. My Trapfinder Ranger doesn't know that he's a "Trapfinder Ranger" just that he's pretty handy with weapons, very good with traps, and hates hobgoblins to the point that he knows exactly how they think (the better to hunt them).
The fact the the "Trapfinder Ranger" concept shares the formerly Rogue-only ability to find and disable magical traps doesn't invalidate the character concept, and neither should the desire or a unique, well-defined distinction between classes.
can we define without a doubt what should be a feat or a spell or a skill or a class ability? It would help a great deal for everybody to understand the game and make the classes more unique
The short answer, in my opinion, is that while perhaps such a definition could be artificially made, it would unnecessarily limit the potential for interesting and unique *characters*.
I don't think it's that hard to define the category of a given "ability". For example:
So you list three ways to avoid AoO. Seems off, but I think there's the following reasoning behind it.
Why Acrobatics to avoid provoking AoOs for moving? Because you need a mechanic that scales (you need to get better as the challenge to dodge more dangerous foes becomes harder) and is a little random. So it's a skill.
Improved [cm] lets you avoid AoO because you would normally provoke AoOs for being completely untrained in this sort of maneuver. Once you had some training in this kind of thing you don't open up your defenses while maneuvering. No scaling necessary, no randomness -> feat.
And about your hypothetical player question I'd do it like this:
You are adept in using a ranged weapon within a foes threatened area
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Point Blank Shot, base attack bonus +4
Benefit:As a standard action you can make a single ranged attack within an enemy's threatened area without provoking an attack of opportunity by him.
Normal: Making a ranged attack in an enemy's threatened area provokes an attack of opportunity by him.
Clearly a feat, but I would also add it to the ranger's combat style feat list so it kind of becomes a class ability for him. It should still be available to everyone else as well, so it is a feat.
IMO... if you need to roll for it, skill. If not, it's a feat. If you want him to roll and have a potential to fail to avoid the AoO, make it a part of Acrobatics... or Bluff maybe. However, if you want to remove the provoking entirely, make it a feat.
As for class ability... that's a little trickier... but if you don't want anybody but Rogues doing it, then make it a rogue talent. Simple as that.
well, I started this tread more with the intention of rating the spells...
it always bugged me that the martial classes depended on multiple different abilities while casters get almost nothing beside spells and are the most powerful classes.
I mean, the spells are so varied that I think magic should also be split into magical skills, magical talents, etc.
If one only considers the content in the Core Rules, the distinction is fairly clear-cut, I think. Certainly in a case-by-case analysis, but even generally, Spells are a subset of class features that pertain to casters, Skills are a collection of abilities that improve with training that anyone (including NPCs) can develop, Feats are discrete abilities that generally require some minimum degree of training and indicate that the character with the feat is capable of above-average performance in some fashion but that are nevertheless available to anyone (including NPCs) who possess the prerequisites, and Class Features are skills or abilities that are unique to the developmental path of a specific class (representing specialized and focused training and life experiences).
The problem with this setup is that by designating unique and specific delineations, the complexity and potential for character creation is limited. By allowing alternate class features, feats, and spells, some of which cross the class-uniqueness line, the number of potential characters that can be constructed increases. After all, the rules we use are presented as an abstraction that make it possible to describe the actions and activities of fictional characters. My Trapfinder Ranger doesn't know that he's a "Trapfinder Ranger" just that he's pretty handy with weapons, very good with traps, and hates hobgoblins to the point that he knows exactly how they think (the better to hunt them).
The fact the the "Trapfinder Ranger" concept shares the formerly Rogue-only ability to find and disable magical traps doesn't invalidate the character concept, and neither should the desire or a unique, well-defined distinction between classes.
When Paizo adapted D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder, they converted many minor extraordinary class abilities into feats. This blurred the line between feats and class abilities, and I think the game is better for it. Both feats and class abilities represent abilities gained through training. In general, the class abilities come from training that requires so much dedication that people who train in them have essentially adopted the class, and the feats are the ones in which people can train without such dedication. The alternative class features, such as "Trapfinder Ranger," represent that different groups have their own ideas about the classes and offer different training.
Skills, on the other hand, are pure practice. The only training involved was at the very beginning, when the skill became a class skill. Even after the 1st-level training the skill is barely useful. Solid usefulness is gained through practice.
Spells are acquired magic, in contrast to supernatural and spell-like abilities that are either innate to a species or require special training to unleash hidden inner magic. Thus, a wizard can learn a spell by reading and studying a page. Spells can even be bought and sold in the form of scrolls, potions, and wands.
Skills, spells, and class abilities cannot be divided by what they do. Special training enhances skills, and that training can be feats such as Athletic or class abilities such as Ranger's Track. Spells are very good at mimicking other effects. Their difference is in how they are gained.
I see all your points, but some feats and class abilities are ridicolous and should have been skill opitions instead. I don't see much point in feats that expand skill uses or that ombat manauver that is sleight of hand by another name.
and the spells, oh the spells! they do everything!some spells are just special abilities that use an important recource by giving bonus to skills or enhancing class abilities or permanancy...
from all the categories in the title I think spells are the one who deserve a limit just not to break the suspension of disbelief.
Has somebody seriously reshearched the jump spell?!?
What's wrong with jump? Imbuing someone with the power of a grasshopper is clearly magical in nature.
What is a feat? A pile of miserable little secrets!
*throws glass of wine to the floor*