| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no feat tax if you play a thematic race. It's less about balance, and more about making those unusual races feel even more special.
It's the same horrible game philosophy that gives us amazing martial options...that can only be used by members of a specific religion.
There is no feat tax if you play a thematic race. It's less about balance, and more about making those unusual races feel even more special.
It's the same horrible game philosophy that gives us amazing martial options...that can only be used by members of a specific religion.
Honestly I am waiting on the day that a religion feat comes out that is an option everyone already thought they could do without needing a feat.
Unprovable assertion. And since mast of those options are not really that tied to their deities they could have easily been normal feats.
Um no it is very provable, Bladed Brush was made because Shelyn's favourite weapon is the glaive. No Shelyn, no Bladed Brush.
Other deities have the glaive. Multiple deities have a starknife, crossbow, maces, bows... Nothing in the feat is remotely Shelyn specific. Or divine in any way. It's a mundane feat gated behind a god because...
|
Anyway back on the main question at hand:
There is a feat tax because the person who wrote it made it this way. Now if you want to debate that you dislike a feat tax...well ask your GM, if he would change a feat.
I personally don't bother with changing feats requirements when my players ask me about it. You either meet the requirements or you don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's worse those feats will lead to more "Shelynites" in play that don't care about anything but their nifty feat. So the representation the deity gets goes up but more and more of those will just be "dirty min-maxers" and before long that's what everyone will see glaive wielding Shelynites as.
The feat is the pretense for including the explanatory text for "how these spells work as wild talents". It's a space-efficient way to debut 43 new utility talents without having to break standard templating rules.
It's not like the Kineticist is hard up for feats anyway. One of the biggest complaints about the class pre-Psychic Anthology was "There just aren't very many feats that are even relevant to what I do." The one thing in Psychic Anthology I'm wondering about is: Why is Logical Spell available for Metamagic Invocation? A Kineticist doesn't use emotion components (edit: Got it, it's for Psychokineticists only.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um no it is very provable, Bladed Brush was made because Shelyn's favourite weapon is the glaive. No Shelyn, no Bladed Brush.Other deities have the glaive. Multiple deities have a starknife, crossbow, maces, bows... Nothing in the feat is remotely Shelyn specific. Or divine in any way. It's a mundane feat gated behind a god because...
It's Shelyn specific because she's a Core deity who has that weapon as her favored weapon. There's other deities that have the glaive as theirs but the setting isn't built around them the way they are around the Core 20.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's worse those feats will lead to more "Shelynites" in play that don't care about anything but their nifty feat. So the representation the deity gets goes up but more and more of those will just be "dirty min-maxers" and before long that's what everyone will see glaive wielding Shelynites as.
That's a problem with "min-maxers", just because they use an option shouldn't make that option tainted for everyone who wants to use it.
The feat is the pretense for including the explanatory text for "how these spells work as wild talents". It's a space-efficient way to debut 43 new utility talents without having to break standard templating rules.
I didn't find those new talents too exciting without the feat cost so with the feat cost... When I can reverse gravity with no burn why the burn cost on most of them?
That's a problem with "min-maxers", just because they use an option shouldn't make that option tainted for everyone who wants to use it.
But we should still be able to use it.
|
|
Except Bladed Brush was introduced in a book that delves deeper into the setting. Not as deep as the Chronicles line, but deeper than most Role Playing Game line.It's Shelyn specific because she's a Core deity who has that weapon as her favored weapon. There's other deities that have the glaive as theirs but the setting isn't built around them the way they are around the Core 20.Um no it is very provable, Bladed Brush was made because Shelyn's favourite weapon is the glaive. No Shelyn, no Bladed Brush.Other deities have the glaive. Multiple deities have a starknife, crossbow, maces, bows... Nothing in the feat is remotely Shelyn specific. Or divine in any way. It's a mundane feat gated behind a god because...
... and Shelyn is a Core Deity of the setting.
What's worse those feats will lead to more "Shelynites" in play that don't care about anything but their nifty feat. So the representation the deity gets goes up but more and more of those will just be "dirty min-maxers" and before long that's what everyone will see glaive wielding Shelynites as.That's a problem with "min-maxers", just because they use an option shouldn't make that option tainted for everyone who wants to use it.
The issue for me is that there is nothing in the feat remotely related to her. So people looking at it aren't invested in it's being her feat. It promotes those min/maxers by it's being mundane, normal and generic. You could literally slap any name on it and no one would blink.
Now, if it actually was reflective of her it'd be different but reading the feat as is would lead no one to Shelyn anyone than crossbow master makes you think of Abadar.
|
|
What's worse those feats will lead to more "Shelynites" in play that don't care about anything but their nifty feat. So the representation the deity gets goes up but more and more of those will just be "dirty min-maxers" and before long that's what everyone will see glaive wielding Shelynites as.That's a problem with "min-maxers", just because they use an option shouldn't make that option tainted for everyone who wants to use it.The issue for me is that there is nothing in the feat remotely related to her in the feat. So people looking at it aren't invested in it's being her feat. It promotes those min/maxers by it's being mundane, normal and generic. You could literally slap any name on it and no one would blink.
Now, if it actually was reflective of her it'd be different but reading the feat as is would lead no one to Shelyn anyone than crossbow master makes you think of Abadar.
It's about using a Glaive gracefully rather than using brute force, and it's also named Bladed Brush.
Deities having favored weapons that Clerics, Inquisitors, and Warpriests get for proficiency free and are non-magical that they lose access to if they stop worshiping that deity promotes MMs hunting for a specific weapon but that doesn't mean Deities having favored Weapons is a bad thing.
Um no it is very provable, Bladed Brush was made because Shelyn's favourite weapon is the glaive. No Shelyn, no Bladed Brush.
It is not a coincidence that you always mention blade brush first when this topic comes around. Why don't you mention, for example, Besmara's ranger combat style? an option locked behind the worship of a specific deity.
What's worse those feats will lead to more "Shelynites" in play that don't care about anything but their nifty feat. So the representation the deity gets goes up but more and more of those will just be "dirty min-maxers" and before long that's what everyone will see glaive wielding Shelynites as.That's a problem with "min-maxers", just because they use an option shouldn't make that option tainted for everyone who wants to use it.The issue for me is that there is nothing in the feat remotely related to her. So people looking at it aren't invested in it's being her feat. It promotes those min/maxers by it's being mundane, normal and generic. You could literally slap any name on it and no one would blink.
Now, if it actually was reflective of her it'd be different but reading the feat as is would lead no one to Shelyn anyone than crossbow master makes you think of Abadar.
Ranged weapon and divine feats makes you wonder how many gods Legolas would have to worship in Pathfinder.
What's worse those feats will lead to more "Shelynites" in play that don't care about anything but their nifty feat. So the representation the deity gets goes up but more and more of those will just be "dirty min-maxers" and before long that's what everyone will see glaive wielding Shelynites as.That's a problem with "min-maxers", just because they use an option shouldn't make that option tainted for everyone who wants to use it.The issue for me is that there is nothing in the feat remotely related to her in the feat. So people looking at it aren't invested in it's being her feat. It promotes those min/maxers by it's being mundane, normal and generic. You could literally slap any name on it and no one would blink.
Now, if it actually was reflective of her it'd be different but reading the feat as is would lead no one to Shelyn anyone than crossbow master makes you think of Abadar.
It's about using a Glaive gracefully rather than using brute force, and it's also named Bladed Brush.
You can do that kind of justification for any combat feat in the game. every combat feat could be justified to be locked behind a deity. Power attack? obviously just for forumites.
|
|
Um no it is very provable, Bladed Brush was made because Shelyn's favourite weapon is the glaive. No Shelyn, no Bladed Brush.It is not a coincidence that you always mention blade brush first when this topic comes around. Why don't you mention, for example, Besmara's ranger combat style? an option locked behind the worship of a specific deity.
Because none of those feats are Besmara or Ranger specific.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not a coincidence that you always mention blade brush first when this topic comes around. Why don't you mention Besmara ranger combat style? an option based on the worship of a deity and that you failed to associate the fluff with the deity?
I mean, those are completely different things. Besmara's ranger combat style is a collection of normal feats that anybody could have taken anyway, they just are thematic to Besmara all together. Bladed Brush is a single feat that's available only to Shelynites, and it's attractive because "finesse at reach" is attractive.
Nobody's asking why they can't take weapon finesse and quick dirty trick, because everybody already can. People want to know why they can't get the thing they actually can't get, when that thing turns out to be good.
What does this tangent have to do with Kineticists?
The feat is the pretense for including the explanatory text for "how these spells work as wild talents". It's a space-efficient way to debut 43 new utility talents without having to break standard templating rules.I didn't find those new talents too exciting without the feat cost so with the feat cost... When I can reverse gravity with no burn why the burn cost on most of them?
I think the real benefit is that you can now add new spells as kinetic invocations with a could of lines in any player companion. I don't know about the burn costs, but they're not really more mysterious than any other burn costs on utility talents anyway.
What does this tangent have to do with Kineticists?
It came up because you have to pay a feat to get the invocations unless you're one of the elemental outsider races. So tangentially similar gating?
|
|
You can do that kind of justification for any combat feat in the game. every combat feat could be justified to be locked behind a deity. Power attack? obviously just for forumites.What's worse those feats will lead to more "Shelynites" in play that don't care about anything but their nifty feat. So the representation the deity gets goes up but more and more of those will just be "dirty min-maxers" and before long that's what everyone will see glaive wielding Shelynites as.That's a problem with "min-maxers", just because they use an option shouldn't make that option tainted for everyone who wants to use it.The issue for me is that there is nothing in the feat remotely related to her in the feat. So people looking at it aren't invested in it's being her feat. It promotes those min/maxers by it's being mundane, normal and generic. You could literally slap any name on it and no one would blink.
Now, if it actually was reflective of her it'd be different but reading the feat as is would lead no one to Shelyn anyone than crossbow master makes you think of Abadar.
It's about using a Glaive gracefully rather than using brute force, and it's also named Bladed Brush.
You could, but those feats came first and you would be changing them after the fact. Balded Brush came about solely because of Shelyn, without her, it wouldn't exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does this tangent have to do with Kineticists?It came up because you have to pay a feat to get the invocations unless you're one of the elemental outsider races. So tangentially similar gating?
I guess? To me it seems like it's not completely analogous. Kinetic Invocation occupies one of your 10-11 feats, and in my experience once you get the basics on a kineticist you're left with feats free to do silly things ("gonna spend 3 feats on an animal companion") or you just take extra wild talent a lot. So Invocation being my like 9th level kineticist feat is fine since it's not like I'm getting great new feats there anyway.
Bladed Brush occupies a "Deity" spot (of which there is conventionally one) and forces one of five alignments (generally the most PC appropriate alignments) so it's hardly the same in terms of opportunity cost.
I think my house rule is going to be that the Kinetic Invocation feat is going to give you one of the eligible wild talents for free. That seems reasonable.
It is not a coincidence that you always mention blade brush first when this topic comes around. Why don't you mention Besmara ranger combat style? an option based on the worship of a deity and that you failed to associate the fluff with the deity?I mean, those are completely different things. Besmara's ranger combat style is a collection of normal feats that anybody could have taken anyway, they just are thematic to Besmara all together. Bladed Brush is a single feat that's available only to Shelynites, and it's attractive because "finesse at reach" is attractive.
Both are options that have as a prerequisite the worship of a deity. And both are options that are still functional if you take away the unnecessary worship part.
The same way the invocations didn't need the the extra prerequisite.
|
|
Pretty much as PossibleCabbage says, the kineticist don't have a lot of feats to choose from to begin with so heh, most kineticist are basically good to go with 3 or 4 feats out of the 11 feats that they get, if you are human you basically almost done feats wise by level 3.
Everything else are just optional feats.
Both are options that have as a prerequisite the worship of a deity. And both are options that are still functional if you take away the worship part.
The same way the invocations didn't need the the extra prerequisite.
I mean, Orc Hewer is still functional if you take away the "be a Dwarf" prerequisite, "Weapon Specialization" is still functional if you take away the "be a fighter" prerequisite, "Power Attack" is still functional if you take away the 13 strength prerequisite.
Most things that have requirements before you take them would work perfectly well if you didn't have those. So what?
You could, but those feats came first and you would be changing them after the fact. Balded Brush came about solely because of Shelyn, without her, it wouldn't exist.
You have no way of knowing that unless the person that made it comes in and says so. For all we know they made this nifty glaive feat and were ready to add it into a book when someone said it'd work better for a divine fighting style feat.
What does this tangent have to do with Kineticists?It came up because you have to pay a feat to get the invocations unless you're one of the elemental outsider races. So tangentially similar gating?I guess? To me it seems like it's not completely analogous. Kinetic Invocation occupies one of your 10-11 feats, and in my experience once you get the basics on a kineticist you're left with feats free to do silly things ("gonna spend 3 feats on an animal companion") or you just take extra wild talent a lot. So Invocation being my like 9th level kineticist feat is fine since it's not like I'm getting great new feats there anyway.
Bladed Brush occupies a "Deity" spot (of which there is conventionally one) and forces one of five alignments (generally the most PC appropriate alignments) so it's hardly the same in terms of opportunity cost.
For me it's kind of similar: instead of deity/alignment you're picking race/stats to avoid the feat cost. Myself, I don't like invocations enough to spend a "free to do silly feat".
Wow.
"Unleash the Kraken!"
The Dork did say.
Both are options that have as a prerequisite the worship of a deity. And both are options that are still functional if you take away the worship part.
The same way the invocations didn't need the the extra prerequisite.
I mean, Orc Hewer is still functional if you take away the "be a Dwarf" prerequisite, "Weapon Specialization" is still functional if you take away the "be a fighter" prerequisite, "Power Attack" is still functional if you take away the 13 strength prerequisite.
Most things that have requirements before you take them would work perfectly well if you didn't have those. So what?
The "so what"? part is that it would be a better game without unnecessary prerequisites.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's worse those feats will lead to more "Shelynites" in play that don't care about anything but their nifty feat. So the representation the deity gets goes up but more and more of those will just be "dirty min-maxers" and before long that's what everyone will see glaive wielding Shelynites as.
I think this is strangely appropriate in this case, since the exact same dynamic would exist in-universe. If the fighting style really is that strong but taught exclusively as part of a martial religious tradition then a lot of people would join that religion specifically to learn the fighting style. This in turn would lead to a degree of resentment, that these glaive wielding Shelynites aren't really committed to the faith but just joined in a perfunctory sense to learn the fighting style. In this sense I do think the min-maxers actually are representing a legitimate in-universe dynamic that would occur if a religious fighting style really did offer a substantial combat advantage to its adherents.
|
|
You could, but those feats came first and you would be changing them after the fact. Balded Brush came about solely because of Shelyn, without her, it wouldn't exist.You have no way of knowing that unless the person that made it comes in and says so. For all we know they made this nifty glaive feat and were ready to add it into a book when someone said it'd work better for a divine fighting style feat.
Seeing the unlikelihood of that scenario I've been suggesting what is most probable. A graceful and artistic fighting style specific to glaives that was completely unrelated to Shelyn until someone decided to attach her to it to act as a "block"? I just can't picture that playing out, sorry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "so what"? part is that it would be a better game without unnecessary prerequisites.
I feel quite the opposite honestly. There are, at time of posting, so many feats that "reading them all when making a character" is a daunting, unreasonable task. What I find helpful a lot of the time is "Okay, I'm a Gnome Druid from Nirmathas who worships Gorum, so I'll look at the various feats and traits that I can take because of that and see if any of them appeal to me.
The thing is that in the case where prerequisites are silly or unreasonable, it's entirely appropriate for the GM to intervene and eliminate them (e.g. I made "Combat Expertise" not exist.) But we can't ask Paizo to do it for us. The game, after all, has a human empowered to make rulings for a reason. So your Baphomet Cultist who infiltrated Shelyn's church to learn their secret glaive techniques? By all means go for it, that's pretty appropriate to what those wacky Baphomet kids are like.
The "so what"? part is that it would be a better game without unnecessary prerequisites.I feel quite the opposite honestly. There are, at time of posting, so many feats that "reading them all when making a character" is a daunting, unreasonable task. What I find helpful a lot of the time is "Okay, I'm a Gnome Druid from Nirmathas who worships Gorum, so I'll look at the various feats and traits that I can take because of that and see if any of them appeal to me.
The thing is that in the case where prerequisites are silly or unreasonable, it's entirely appropriate for the GM to intervene and eliminate them (e.g. I made "Combat Expertise" not exist.) But we can't ask Paizo to do it for us. The game, after all, has a human empowered to make rulings for a reason.
Well, DMs intervening to improve the game is always welcomed and encouraged. But having to do it it's a sign that thing were not made right from the beginning.
And yes, we can't say paizo to eliminate combat expertise as prereq for the combat maneuver feats, but we can ask for the feat to not be prereq for any newer feat that is unrelated to fighting defensively.
It is true that they are not obliged to listen to that and keep publishing horrible prerequisites, but at least things were pointed out.
===============
I don't find your example of the gorumite gnome to be enlightening at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "so what"? part is that it would be a better game without unnecessary prerequisites.I feel quite the opposite honestly. There are, at time of posting, so many feats that "reading them all when making a character" is a daunting, unreasonable task. What I find helpful a lot of the time is "Okay, I'm a Gnome Druid from Nirmathas who worships Gorum, so I'll look at the various feats and traits that I can take because of that and see if any of them appeal to me.
The thing is that in the case where prerequisites are silly or unreasonable, it's entirely appropriate for the GM to intervene and eliminate them (e.g. I made "Combat Expertise" not exist.) But we can't ask Paizo to do it for us. The game, after all, has a human empowered to make rulings for a reason. So your Baphomet Cultist who infiltrated Shelyn's church to learn their secret glaive techniques? By all means go for it, that's pretty appropriate to what those wacky Baphomet kids are like.
Which is fine when there is a reason only X can learn something or because Y god is sending you power. But when apparetnly only those who follow abadar can use a crossbow to shoot a gold pouch off of a guys waistband or only Halflings can have had a piece of gear they "didn't know about" in their pack it looks like your just gating for the sake of gating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I felt like the reason for most of the divine fighting techniques was "only followers of a god, thereby already invested in the sacred weapon, would bother to try to innovate techniques for this weapon, rather than picking a better one."
Since if you think about it, the glaive is one of the worst polearms in the game, a crossbow is almost uniformly inferior to a composite longbow, a bunch of deities get daggers, the greatsword is all fine and well but it's no nodachi or butchering axe, etc.
People with the options to use better weapons should, unless they have some external reason to say "no, I should use the inferior weapon for reasons of faith."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I find helpful a lot of the time is "Okay, I'm a Gnome Druid from Nirmathas who worships Gorum, so I'll look at the various feats and traits that I can take because of that and see if any of them appeal to me.
I do it from the other side. I start with an idea. Find a picture of that idea, work from there. So, I start with something like a polearm user. Find a race that fits: It's got +dex and -str so I look for dex options. Find Shelyn's feat: now I have to worship her. Find a trait that fits, that forces me into a region. Fill in the blanks from there.
So I never start off with "I'm a Gnome Druid from Nirmathas who worships Gorum" but maybe a class/archetype or feat or ect that caught my eye. ;)
|
Echoing Cabbage here, there are different philosophies in play. There are some core, top-down designs, and then there are setting-based developments that are explored from the concept outwards.
On combat styles/deity-related options:
Why does Besmara have that hodge-podge collection of feats? Because they embody fighting like a dirty stinkin' pirate. Could that particular one have been the 'piracy' fighting style? Maybe, but Inner Sea Combat's section was "Faithful Combat Styles". They'd have to all be deity locked, or none would.
Why are they deity locked? Because we do not actually need 16 more ranger styles to confuse people who just want to play a ranger. Especially not styles with these martial threads. Sure, more options can be good for a confident player with strong system mastery, but they're in a better position to hand-wave the requirements anyway.
And yes, none of these combat styles would exist without the deity existing in the first place.
-
As for the (on topic) Kineticist issue, it's a bummer, but it's not wrong that Kineticist are in sore need of more ways to spend a feat. I need a reason to not just VMC every kineticist. It really should have just come with the free spell-like wild talent.
What I find helpful a lot of the time is "Okay, I'm a Gnome Druid from Nirmathas who worships Gorum, so I'll look at the various feats and traits that I can take because of that and see if any of them appeal to me.I do it from the other side. I start with an idea. Find a picture of that idea, work from there. So, I start with something like a polearm user. Find a race that fits: It's got +dex and -str so I look for dex options. Find Shelyn's feat: now I have to worship her. Find a trait that fits, that forces me into a region. Fill in the blanks from there.
So I never start off with "I'm a Gnome Druid from Nirmathas who worships Gorum" but maybe a class/archetype or feat or ect that caught my eye. ;)
I've built like this a few times, but I usually have the most satisfying and coherent results when I start with a setting-based concept, or a marriage of the two. Pick one or two setting-suited flavors, and then take a top-down approach from there.
It's definitely a different strokes matter - but I don't think that setting support and 100% modular design can entirely work together. Sometimes those requirements are actually needed to guide people in the right direction. While some outliers such as dervish dance exist, I don't think it should entirely rule out race/deity locked content, even the more egregious cases such as Desna's Shooting Star or Bladed Brush.
Combat Expertise should totally go the way of the dodo, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does Besmara have that hodge-podge collection of feats? Because they embody fighting like a dirty stinkin' pirate. Could that particular one have been the 'piracy' fighting style? Maybe, but Inner Sea Combat's section was "Faithful Combat Styles". They'd have to all be deity locked, or none would.
But they DIDN'T have to. It could have been "expandend combat style".
Why are they deity locked? Because we do not actually need 16 more ranger styles to confuse people who just want to play a ranger. Especially not styles with these martial threads. Sure, more options can be good for a confident player with strong system mastery, but they're in a better position to hand-wave the requirements anyway.
Printing a lot of stuff that are not "needed" is just what paizo does all the time. There is no difference here.
And yes, none of these combat styles would exist without the deity existing in the first place.
I'm sure they have plenty of places where to print a "pirate" ranger combat style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I felt like the reason for most of the divine fighting techniques was "only followers of a god, thereby already invested in the sacred weapon, would bother to try to innovate techniques for this weapon, rather than picking a better one."
Since if you think about it, the glaive is one of the worst polearms in the game, a crossbow is almost uniformly inferior to a composite longbow, a bunch of deities get daggers, the greatsword is all fine and well but it's no nodachi or butchering axe, etc.
People with the options to use better weapons should, unless they have some external reason to say "no, I should use the inferior weapon for reasons of faith."
And yet if for some reason they lose their faith and worship another glaive wielding god no dice you forget how to be graceful with it. Even though nothing about the feat is magical or supernatural, best part is you can't teach to your glaive wielding buddy either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet if for some reason they lose their faith and worship another glaive wielding god no dice you forget how to be graceful with it.
This is how it should be and how I would rule.
Even though nothing about the feat is magical or supernatural, best part is you can't teach to your glaive wielding buddy either.
Why is your buddy using a glaive and not a better weapon, assuming they have martial weapon proficiency? A glaive-guisarme, a lucerne hammer, a bardiche, and a horsechopper are all better weapons someone with the same proficiencies can use just as well.
Only time it would make sense to develop a "glaive-specific fighting style" is if you're someone who only gets proficiency in a deity's favored weapon, instead of just martial weapon proficiencies. People in the diagesis should be aware of which weapons are better than other ones, after all.
I feel like if people are using glaives, and not better weapons,it's because Bladed Brush exists, so they can write some dalliance with the Sheylnite church into their backstories.