This is a topic that's been on my mind for a little while that I think could be worth discussing here: feats are one of my favorite game elements to play with in Pathfinder, but I also think the way they're distributed is flawed and, in some ways, antiquated. This is in contrast to spells, another game element with a huge number of items that I think have been structure more more efficiently.
The starting point to this is that many classes struggle to receive new feats over time: the Animist, for example, released nearly two years ago and still has only 39 feats. Although many feats are tailor-made to a specific class, many more are available to several classes, yet still have to be given out piecemeal. This structure reminds me of class-specific spell lists from editions past, where spellcasters had to have hundreds of spells assigned to them by hand despite overlapping often quite significantly with one another.
The thing is, though, PF2e solved the problem of spell lists with spell traditions, allowing different caster classes to all opt easily into the same four spell lists. This makes spells automatically backwards-compatible, becoming usable to any spellcaster who draws from the list they're added to even if the spell wasn't made specifically for any caster. It even preserves class-exclusive spells in the form of focus spells, meaning that spells allow for both generic and bespoke character options.
I'm not going to suggest some sweeping homebrew to categorize existing feats and implement a single structure, because that's a mammoth task, but I will say that I do wish feats had been implemented in a similar way to spells: if we had feats made automatically available to arcane spellcasters or Strength-based martials, for instance, then many classes would be able to automatically receive new feats as new expansions launch, even if those feats aren't made specifically for them. Conversely, because spells can still be class-exclusive, so would the above have been able to keep tailor-made feats for classes too. It would also have the benefit of making most classes, potentially even archetypes too, much more economical on page space, since you could simply have them refer to feats from broad lists instead of reprinting them each time, much like spells. Instead, the system we have now requires giving feats to each class individually, causing many feats to need to be printed several times across class lists and books, and many classes to be forgotten as expansions launch with no new feats for them.
|
Right now, for better or worse, feats are by far the main reason that characters take most archetypes. It would be a very difficult balancing act to make more generic feats AND to keep the current situation where characters have to choose from several equally attractive sets of options.
Look at the Mauler for a good example. If those feats were freely available then there would be no reason for it to exist and people could pick and choose to a greater extent.
Also, Paizo does address this already to a considerable extent. New feats are often added to base classes.
I guess I'm saying that I'm not sure this change would be worth the effort. It would almost certainly open up some unintended combinations that are just not possible currently, especially in non Free Archetype games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a topic that's been on my mind for a little while that I think could be worth discussing here: feats are one of my favorite game elements to play with in Pathfinder, but I also think the way they're distributed is flawed and, in some ways, antiquated. This is in contrast to spells, another game element with a huge number of items that I think have been structure more more efficiently.
The starting point to this is that many classes struggle to receive new feats over time: the Animist, for example, released nearly two years ago and still has only 39 feats. Although many feats are tailor-made to a specific class, many more are available to several classes, yet still have to be given out piecemeal. This structure reminds me of class-specific spell lists from editions past, where spellcasters had to have hundreds of spells assigned to them by hand despite overlapping often quite significantly with one another.
The thing is, though, PF2e solved the problem of spell lists with spell traditions, allowing different caster classes to all opt easily into the same four spell lists. This makes spells automatically backwards-compatible, becoming usable to any spellcaster who draws from the list they're added to even if the spell wasn't made specifically for any caster. It even preserves class-exclusive spells in the form of focus spells, meaning that spells allow for both generic and bespoke character options.
I'm not going to suggest some sweeping homebrew to categorize existing feats and implement a single structure, because that's a mammoth task, but I will say that I do wish feats had been implemented in a similar way to spells: if we had feats made automatically available to arcane spellcasters or Strength-based martials, for instance, then many classes would be able to automatically receive new feats as new expansions launch, even if those feats aren't made specifically for them. Conversely, because spells can still be class-exclusive, so would the above have been able to keep tailor-made feats for...
This is an issue that will essentially be left for a "PF3" to resolve.
Since class feats currently operate under the same limitations as D&D spells—meaning each class has its own specific list—the supply of new feats inevitably becomes increasingly scarce and difficult to generate over time.
The solution, as rightly noted, already exists within the spell system: creating shared groupings, much like spell traditions. This would likely involve categories such as martial feats, magical feats, and exclusive feats; martial classes would access the first group, spellcasting classes the second, hybrid classes both, while exclusive feats would remain strictly class-specific.
This would significantly ease the designers' workload when creating content to expand classes and would make virtually every new book appealing to every class.
As for the current system, the best option for those who find this problematic is for the GM to allow the use of "free archetypes," as this greatly reduces archetype prerequisite constraints and doubles the number of selectable class feats. It isn't an ideal fix, but it is a solution that is easily implemented.
I don't think the change is worth the effort either, to be clear, but I do think the current implementation has led to several classes not getting new feats for literal years. I'm also not suggesting to make bespoke class feats generic, so I don't see why that ought to happen to archetype-exclusive feats either. What I am saying, though, is that if feats had been treated more like spells in terms of classification, then we wouldn't need to make feats for specific individual classes for them to be able to automatically receive some in new books.
On that note, though, archetypes are interesting in that there are three underlying tiers of feat access: the first is feats from your class where you can get a feat as soon as you hit the level requirement, and the third is from a multiclass archetype, where you get to access all their feats but their level requirement is essentially doubled. The middle tier comes from non-multiclass archetypes where you access fewer feats than a multiclass archetype, but the level requirement is only increased by 2. I feel this is something that could have easily been preserved in a broader feat categorization system, much like how spellcasters can opt into spells of another tradition of a lower rank via archetype.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I think it's late in the design cycle to tackle this, I DO really like the way the Starfinder team took a bite at the apple with Standardized Ancestry Feats. The ability to have quick lists of those samey Ancestry Lore, Weapon Proficiency, Innate Spellcasting, etc feats as a universally applied mechanical template with a brief paragraph in an Ancestry entry is a very elegant and fantastic solution, leaving more page space for truly unique options for each Ancestry (Galactic Ancestries is easily one of my favorite Paizo books period for this reason).
Following on YuriP's example, having similar Standardized Class Feats would also be great, that way we're not having to reprint Quick Draw, Non Lethal Spell, Quickened Casting, etc multiple times in the same book, let alone across multiple books. I'd even go so far as to say apply this to generic and more universal class proficiency boosts, rather than having a bunch of bespoke names for them, to similarly trim down page space to reserve specifically for more unique features and personalized class feats.
But, as noted, reformatting everything in that way at this point would be a pretty monumental undertaking. Mostly I'm hoping they take some of these lessons they've learned from 2E and especially how some of it is addressed in Starfinder to draft some solutions for whatever comes next.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in agreement with the above: this kind of thing would be a 3e project, rather than a 2e undertaking, but Starfinder 2e also shows how it could start to be done in a future edition. SF2e's standardized ancestry feats I think also show the benefits to be had, since any ancestry that releases there can be easily fitted with a bunch of feats on top of whichever unique ones they may have. I didn't mention ancestries here, but they're in an even worse state when it comes to feats in Pathfinder, in my opinion, since not only are non-core ancestries practically guaranteed to never get any more feats after they release, some of them don't even get new feats at 17th level.
I actually think that use case is a perfect example of how this kind of categorization could help: for sure, the Investigator and Rogue have a lot of shared DNA, much like how the Wizard and arcane Sorcerers historically have a lot in common and a shared spell list. In a system that put class-agnostic feats in different discrete categories, e.g. one for wits and another for agility, then both classes would likely share some, though not all of those categories, much like how they share feats currently.
However, much like how the Wizard and Sorcerer have their own focus spells, so is there room for class-specific feats: nobody but the Rogue needs the Precise Debilitations feat, because nobody but the Rogue actually qualifies for it. Similarly, feats like Known Weaknesses or Solid Lead would remain exclusive to the Investigator, and there's even room for bespoke feats that are simply thematically appropriate, rather than dependent on unique class features. What this would effectively mean is that once the feat lists for each category are printed out, all you'd have to do is list which categories each class could qualify, and spend all that precious page space on unique feats instead. This extends beyond class feats and into ancestry feats too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thus, understand that the goal is to make adding and maintaining class feats easier, not to strip the classes of their distinct identities. For instance, even if martial feats were shared, a specific class would still retain its own exclusive list of feats based on its ikons; likewise, generalist classes like the Fighter and Rogue would still preserve their individuality through class features—such as the Fighter's superior accuracy and critical hit capabilities or the Rogue's sneak attack and extra skills.
The debate over whether a feat should be exclusive or not will persist—much like the discussion regarding whether "Quick Draw" ought to be exclusive to the rogue, ranger, and gunslinger. While this situation inevitably leads to disagreements—both within the community and between the community and the designers—it is a normal, expected, and unavoidable aspect of the process, and not a particularly serious issue.
The crucial point here is that grouping feats into generic categories makes it easier for designers to establish a standard for exclusivity. This replaces the current dilemma of asking, "Is this feat thematic enough to justify using up page space for Class X?"—a question that often prevents fitting, thematic feats from being assigned to certain classes simply because they are competing for space with other class-specific feats. Furthermore, this approach gives adventure and rulebook designers greater creative freedom and motivation to introduce new feats that make players feel effective.
The concept mirrors that of magic traditions; while it is true that traditions might slightly blur class distinctions—since a bard and a witch might cast the same spells—their other class features are more than sufficient to set them apart in terms of gameplay and theme, even with the shared elements.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with everything the OP says but I disagree with the sentiment about the design cycle of the game or it being a PF3 issue.
Multiclass feats do exist, and in a few books they've even been categorized in that way.
What frustrates me the most about the situation is that you don't need to break the bank or reinvent the wheel here, you just need to publish stuff. The issue is fundamentally a design choice: Paizo has consistently for years basically refused to put much effort into publishing new content for existing classes. That's not a requirement of PF2 that's a design choice.
Which is something to worry about for PF3 because so far all signs point to Paizo thinking the current paradigm of classes getting very limited access to new material is a good thing.
I'd personally like a "general" class feat list. I also think it would help a bit with class feat bloat. For example, each new class is usually printed with around 50+ feats. At least 10 of those are feats that already exist in other classes, and at least 15-20 that you know you'll never be taking because the rest are just superior. If we had a general class feat list, classes could instead be printed with 20 really good class feats and take these extra class feats if needed.
This would help archetypes as well. 90% of them aren't really options because they are downright bad. If the more general options were available to everyone from the get go, archetypes would be more specialized and have less filler. I feel this would be a win-win situation for everyone.
I guess my question is whether feats that enable "a set of options available to a bunch of classes" can't just be done with an archetype, specifically if the initial feat in the archetype is valuable.
Since the things I want most for expansions for classes are mostly the sorts of things that are specific to those classes: I want more kineticist impulses or another element, I want more inventor modifications/innovations, I want more thaumaturge implements, I want more barbarian instincts, etc.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess my question is whether feats that enable "a set of options available to a bunch of classes" can't just be done with an archetype, specifically if the initial feat in the archetype is valuable.
Since the things I want most for expansions for classes are mostly the sorts of things that are specific to those classes: I want more kineticist impulses or another element, I want more inventor modifications/innovations, I want more thaumaturge implements, I want more barbarian instincts, etc.
Most obviously the problem with archetypes is that they're semi-exclusive with each other. So if you want to do two things and both of them are solved by archetypes you can only have one of them until much later in the game. If they're normal level 2 or 4 or whatever feats you can take them much closer together.
Archetypes are a commitment and so they should feel more like a collection of ideas you want to be reaching for. If you're just grabbing one thing and then either leaving it or picking up other random feats just to enable the escape clause that's kind of a failure of the archetype imo.
This is a complete sidebar, but I feel archetypes are often presented as solutions to problems with certain classes or character customization as a whole when in practice they can't really achieve that, for the reasons Squiggit mentions. If you pick an archetype, it'll be at least four levels later until you get to pick another, and that's assuming you commit all the necessary feats in an unrestricted Free Archetype game, so you can't use them to spot-fill minor gaps in your character. Similarly, class archetypes can't be used to fill in individual gaps because they're all mutually exclusive with one another, plus their restrictions tend to make them inherently less appealing than the base class.
As for covering a category of feats via archetype, I feel that's already what some of them do: the Dual-Weapon Warrior, for instance, is there to offer a lot of dual-wielding feats to any class. This is where a categorization system would be an improvement too, because if the entirety of the archetype's generic feats could be encapsulated as: "you access all the feats in this category with their level requirement increased by 2", you could spend the whole leftover space writing unique feats or other archetypes instead, and the whole thing would be much more forwards-compatible by virtue of including any dual-wielding feat added later on.
|
Mark Seifter stated during the PF2 playtest that one of their design goal to strengthen class identity was to create class-specific feats that would give similar abilities but in a class-specific way.
Spellshape feats being common to several casting classes was an exception to this.
But more generalist class feats definitely goes against this guiding design principle
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I had a similar problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark Seifter stated during the PF2 playtest that one of their design goal to strengthen class identity was to create class-specific feats that would give similar abilities but in a class-specific way.
Spellshape feats being common to several casting classes was an exception to this.
But more generalist class feats definitely goes against this guiding design principle
I feel that ship has sailed a long time ago. If there could only ever be a one-to-one relationship between class and feat, then we wouldn't have dozens of feats available to multiple classes, especially so many generic caster feats. As it so happens, all of these classes still get to have unique feats, so the only time those feats fail to give them a strong identity is if their feats lack a strong identity of their own, as with the Wizard.
|
|
I feel that ship has sailed a long time ago. If there could only ever be a one-to-one relationship between class and feat, then we wouldn't have dozens of feats available to multiple classes, especially so many generic caster feats. As it so happens, all of these classes still get to have unique feats, so the only time those feats fail to give them a strong identity is if their feats lack a strong identity of their own, as with the Wizard.Mark Seifter stated during the PF2 playtest that one of their design goal to strengthen class identity was to create class-specific feats that would give similar abilities but in a class-specific way.
Spellshape feats being common to several casting classes was an exception to this.
But more generalist class feats definitely goes against this guiding design principle
TBT I feel the Wizard's feats lacking a strong identity is the consequence of the class itself lacking a strong identity in Paizo's mind.
Mark Seifter stated during the PF2 playtest that one of their design goal to strengthen class identity was to create class-specific feats that would give similar abilities but in a class-specific way.
Spellshape feats being common to several casting classes was an exception to this.
But more generalist class feats definitely goes against this guiding design principle
I can certainly understand that, but I’m not sure that it’s worth it in practice.
For instance, Reactive Strike and Stand Still are similar reactions yet unique to their respective classes: RS triggers off actions with the manipulate trait—and can even interrupt them on a critical hit—whereas SS doesn't trigger off manipulate actions but does interrupt movement actions on a critical hit.
I grasp that this distinction in the monk's reaction helps elevate the class's mechanical identity. But in practice, what I see is players looking at it and saying, “Oh, okay, so it's an AoO for the Monk, just with a slight twist.” Not to mention the fact that RS is the same for the vast majority of martial classes—essentially a copy-paste job across different pages.
So, I have to ask: the idea behind this design philosophy is interesting, but is it actually worth it in terms of practical gameplay?
This actually ties back to the point I made about spells: instead of having individual lists for each class—which would help define their identities—we have four traditions. This makes maintenance much easier and reduces the need to constantly revisit and update lists.
Which brings me to the question: do you prefer the old system, where every class had its list—but where those lists (except for a few core classes) often felt stagnant because they relied on individual authors remembering that the class existed? Or do you prefer the current system, where spells are grouped into broad thematic categories shared by classes that tap into those themes? This approach sacrifices a bit of class individuality (though, as previously mentioned, that identity is still defined by many other class features), but it drastically reduces the likelihood of classes being left behind as new books are released.
I feel that ship has sailed a long time ago. If there could only ever be a one-to-one relationship between class and feat, then we wouldn't have dozens of feats available to multiple classes, especially so many generic caster feats. As it so happens, all of these classes still get to have unique feats, so the only time those feats fail to give them a strong identity is if their feats lack a strong identity of their own, as with the Wizard.Mark Seifter stated during the PF2 playtest that one of their design goal to strengthen class identity was to create class-specific feats that would give similar abilities but in a class-specific way.
Spellshape feats being common to several casting classes was an exception to this.
But more generalist class feats definitely goes against this guiding design principle
To me, this principle of uniqueness was already lost during the very development of the *Core Rulebook*. While the fighter, rogue, and monk had their own distinct attack reactions, when it came time for the barbarian, the champion, and various other classes released later, the designers simply looked at them and chose to copy the fighter's reaction without giving it much thought. It’s an extra effort that I don't think the designers themselves were ever really keen on pursuing strictly.
TBT I feel the Wizard's feats lacking a strong identity is the consequence of the class itself lacking a strong identity in Paizo's mind.I feel that ship has sailed a long time ago. If there could only ever be a one-to-one relationship between class and feat, then we wouldn't have dozens of feats available to multiple classes, especially so many generic caster feats. As it so happens, all of these classes still get to have unique feats, so the only time those feats fail to give them a strong identity is if their feats lack a strong identity of their own, as with the Wizard.Mark Seifter stated during the PF2 playtest that one of their design goal to strengthen class identity was to create class-specific feats that would give similar abilities but in a class-specific way.
Spellshape feats being common to several casting classes was an exception to this.
But more generalist class feats definitely goes against this guiding design principle
That is exactly how I see it, too. It isn't really the feats that give classes their individuality; rather, it is the class itself that grants or alters the unique aspects of those feats. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that a lackluster list of feats is a problem in its own right, but it reinforces my view that what truly individualizes a class is its core characteristics rather than its feat options.
A fighter can have various playstyles depending on their choice of weapons and armor. Their feats serve to reinforce the choices the player has made, rather than defining the class—or even the character—itself.