A little worried about feat starvation in PF2

[Malk_Content]

It is a retort. Long prerequisites to get a style means they require multiple levels worth of investment, especially if you aren't a martial with shortcuts built into the chassis. In PF2, where they exist, they also have a prerequisites unless you are a martial with shortcuts. That prerequisite just happens to be standardized to "martial dedication."

If I want to be an Archery based Rogue in PF1, I have to spend several feats for it to work, not being actually really usuable for several levels. In PF2 I have to spend several feats for it to become concept defining, but it works fine for the most part.

The nature of investment and opportunity existed in both games.

The primary conceptual effect of Cleave can be achieved by anyone. Lunge I'll admit doesn't have an analogue in PF2. It could be done as a general feat when it eventually exists, and if that was an example of how such a feat could shake out I wouldn't be overly oppossed to it.

The GM did lie by ommission. This is obviously a new player and the GM failed to expound on the play advantages of a choice. Yes two short swords doesn't give you an advantage, which is why the listed advantages were clearly about the mechanical benefits of wielding two different weapons.

Combat might be 50% of the game at your table. It might be 25% or 100% at others.

And PF2 still allows build concepts. In fact I'd say it creates more diverse characters on a systematic level (not on a current amount of content level of course) due to the sacrifices characters have to make. Back to the Druid example, the difference between how 2 different druids operate in the world is more than in PF1 (systematically not content again) because of the restrictions.

You arguement about detracting from your concept of a Rogue can always scale both ways. I'm unhappy about the level 2 concept of my PF1 Rogue because I had to choose between Camouflage and Bleeding Strikes. Any system that doesn't just go "be whatever you want" is going to hit conceptual limits at some point.

And yes all abilities are situational. You may never fight undead and find your Turn ability doesn't get used. You end up fighting too many undead and can't actually Sneak Attack! And so on and so forth. This is why Session 0 is a thing, retraining is a thing and generally just talking between your group is a thing.

And yes, that is the entire point of Quick Unlock. If you aren't in a time sensitive situation it isn't all that important.

[ChibiNyan]

It is different spending 2 feats in PF1 than 2 feats in PF2. Even if it's usually gonna be less of them in PF2, they're a lot more valuable.

[Cyouni]

Ok, I'll bite.

What skill feat compares to Implausible Infiltration? What skill feat compares to Blank Slate? Those are both 100% skill feats under your system.

You're blending the silos that are designed to stay apart for a reason, because you don't realize that Class Feats are by default more powerful than Skill Feats by design. Trapfinding is more powerful than Skill Feats...because it's a Class Feat - you're getting master proficiency at level 1.
Alchemical Savant - skill-based as it is - is Legendary Quick Identification. At level 1.

You're trying to duplicate the problem of PF1, because extra class ability - even if it's a skill-based type - will be more powerful than Skill Focus.

The difference with the Pirate, which you like using for your example, is that things like Sea Legs were on the same level of power as a skill feat of that level, but you had to take it with a class feat. So you were downgrading because you wanted that archetype. So things like that would possibly be archetype feats that could be grabbed with a skill feat slot.

[Ssalarn]

Cyouni wrote:

The difference with the Pirate, which you like using for your example, is that things like Sea Legs were on the same level of power as a skill feat of that level, but you had to take it with a class feat. So you were downgrading because you wanted that archetype. So things like that would possibly be archetype feats that could be grabbed with a skill feat slot.

Pirate is also something that the design team has mentioned in some of their interviews and such as being a thing that spurred other thoughts, like the possibility that even if something is an archetype feat, that shouldn't necessarily preclude it from taking a skill feat instead of a class feat if that's really what the ability it grants is. So even Pirate isn't the best example in this instance since they were still in the process of nailing down how archetypes worked when that was released.

[j b 200]

Do you not remember how every single rogue talent was used to get a feat instead since they were all complete garbage compared to keeping up in combat? Have you not seen how every single feat for a Witch is used to get a Hex since they are just so much stronger than any feat you could take before quicken spell? This is why they have siloing. This is to get you to actually take a skill feat. It also helps to avoid the unintended consequences of feat design.

By saying this feat is only for fighters, you avoid powergaming corner cases and eliminates the need to have encyclopedic knowledge on the part of the designer, not to mention the player. I don't have to load up prerequisites on a feat to keep the full BAB classes from getting it too early, while also not gating it away from anyone who doesn't have 6 extra feats to burn just to get to it.

To be an effective archer rogue, you had to be a human, take point-blank shot and precise shot, use your first talent to take stealthy sniper, and expert sniper at level 3. OR god forbid you don't want to be human, you have to wait til level 3 for precise shot and then use your level 4 rogue talent to take expert sniper.

But you're also still behind the curve, because the fighter with the same Dex has a +4 to hit and +3 to damage by level 5 (weapon focus, weapon training, weapon specialization) and is using a longbow instead of a short bow.

[Jason Bulmahn]

Alright everybody...

This is being blown way out of proportion with a bunch of assumptions and guesses being substituted as fact in ways that are far from productive or conducive to a friendly discussion.

Before I close this out and refer it to moderators, let me state a few things...

1. Feats come in buckets that are meant to reinforce the choices you have made. There is an understanding in design about what each bucket is capable of doing with a feat, but the lines are blurry because game concepts are often blurry. It makes sense for there to be a dwarf ancestry feat that makes you good at crafting. It also makes sense for there to be a similar skill feat. The same goes for class feats.

2. We have decided that archetypes can contain feats in their list from different buckets. While the dedication is a class feat, the other feats might be different.

3. We understand that putting feats in buckets like this may make a some concepts a challenge to make at first without jumping through some hoops. We are trying to identify those and find ways to fixing them where appropriate. Archetypes are going to be a big way to make some of these shine.

I hope that provides some clarification for folks. This thread is locked.