| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We haven't yet heard any details about feats other than they will be in PF2 and a new subset called "class feats", but I'd like to get ahead and air out my wishlist of changes to feats that I hope to see in the new edition. Primarily, I'd like to see changes proposed in Michael Iantorno article on Feat Taxes implemented, or at the very least heavily influence feat development.
And expanding on the above proposed changes:
1) Convert feats with tradeoffs into default action options. Feats like Power Attack, Deadly Aim, and Combat Expertise already have a built in penalty as a tradeoff to the benefit, thus adding onto the cost of a feat slot, lessening their value. However, these feats are part of the most basic set of features of combat, so why would someone need special training to decide to forego their defense in order to make a powerful attack? In my home campaign, I've even extended this concept to other feats like Lunge and Piranha Strike (and retained the ability score and BAB prerequisites). I'm even toying with the idea of doing this to Cleave, because I see a lot of similarities to Charge (which does not require a feat):
- Both have specific requirements to get the benefit: Charge requires a full action and a minimum of 10 ft. distance from target. Cleave requires Str 13, BAB +1 (and Power Attack, but that's omitted now), and a successful hit, plus another target to be adjacent to the first and within reach.
- Both have similar penalties: Both Charge and Cleave impose a -2 penalty to AC until your next turn.
Perhaps an additional attack might be considered superior to a +2 bonus to attack, but the set up is specific, and you can always say that the 2nd attack is made at a penalty (which makes sense because your effort is reduced by the 1st attack). So why is Charge a default option and Cleave requires a feat?
2) Condense feat chains into single feats with built in requirements. No more "<feat> / Improved <feat> / Greater <feat>". Condense all of them into one feat, and build in incremental requirements to unlock the additional features. So feat chains like the Two-Weapon Fighting one is one feat, and you get the benefits of Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at BAB +6 and Dex 17, and the benefits of Greater Two-Weapon Fighting at BAB +11 and Dex 19. I even did the same for Style Feats like Archon Style, with he added benefit that I only have to look up one feat instead of three to know what I can do. (This may make Style feats more OP than other feats, but prerequisites and benefits could always be tweaked).
Thanks for listening!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the most important thing about feats is NOT to lock viable combat actions that anyone should be able to do behind a feat. Sometimes it seemed like every time a new PF book came out, with new feats of course, that suddenly there were actions players had been doing all along that now they required a special feat to do.
One example is covert spellcasting. Some spells really *require* the possibility of casting them covertly, and the asumption was that they could be cast in this manner until... suddenly they couldn't.
I'm not saying that all spellcasters should be able to cast any spell undetectably. Just that there needs to be some thought put into the covert vs overt casting spectrum before PF2.0 gets printed.
Another example is feats like ride-by attack. It sounds like the new action economy will already account for this, since you could move, attack once, and move again. Stuff like this should be automatically available to anyone, and not locked behind a feat. And it does sound like we're moving in that direction.
Feats should give extra options, not take away options. Feats should do cool stuff above and beyond what Joe Standard can accomplish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We haven't yet heard any details about feats other than they will be in PF2 and a new subset called "class feats", but I'd like to get ahead and air out my wishlist of changes to feats that I hope to see in the new edition. Primarily, I'd like to see changes proposed in Michael Iantorno article on Feat Taxes implemented, or at the very least heavily influence feat development.
And expanding on the above proposed changes:
1) Convert feats with tradeoffs into default action options. Feats like Power Attack, Deadly Aim, and Combat Expertise already have a built in penalty as a tradeoff to the benefit, thus adding onto the cost of a feat slot, lessening their value. However, these feats are part of the most basic set of features of combat, so why would someone need special training to decide to forego their defense in order to make a powerful attack? In my home campaign, I've even extended this concept to other feats like Lunge and Piranha Strike (and retained the ability score and BAB prerequisites). I'm even toying with the idea of doing this to Cleave, because I see a lot of similarities to Charge (which does not require a feat):
- Both have specific requirements to get the benefit: Charge requires a full action and a minimum of 10 ft. distance from target. Cleave requires Str 13, BAB +1 (and Power Attack, but that's omitted now), and a successful hit, plus another target to be adjacent to the first and within reach.
- Both have similar penalties: Both Charge and Cleave impose a -2 penalty to AC until your next turn.
Perhaps an additional attack might be considered superior to a +2 bonus to attack, but the set up is specific, and you can always say that the 2nd attack is made at a penalty (which makes sense because your effort is reduced by the 1st attack). So why is Charge a default option and Cleave requires a feat?2) Condense feat chains into single feats with built in requirements. No more "<feat> /...
I fully agree with this. Generally there are a lot of auto-include feats in 1E where the only reason a character doesn't have them is because they are built for a fundamentally different role (i.e. a wizard won't have power attack).
If a feat is basically essential for making a character functional in their chosen role (that being melee, ranged, or magic) just make it a mechanic that everyone has access to.
I also agree with what wheldrake said, but i would like to add combat maneuvers as a significant example of this. The reason why combat is so boring for many martial players is because they don't have options. Part of why they don't have options is because combat maneuvers are locked behind expensive feat chains.
Exactly. "Hit a little harder but with less a little less accuracy" seems like a thing anyone should be able to just do, without needing a special feat.
I'm a fan of the work that the Elephant in the Room people did with feats. I'd like to see something like that.
Can't agree enough!
I'm not saying that all spellcasters should be able to cast any spell undetectably. Just that there needs to be some thought put into the covert vs overt casting spectrum before PF2.0 gets printed.
With the edition reset, there's the opportunity to actually fix this and include manifestation information inside the statblock of the spell (similar to what Dreamscarred Press did with their Psionics system). This would allow each spell to specify what kind of manifestations it has, allowing spells like Charm Person to be discreet while spells like Fireball are flashy light shows.