| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raging Courage (barbarian feat): allows you to spend actions to shake off being afraid.
Intimidating Strike (fighter feat): you spend 2 actions to make an attack against a foe. If it hits, your enemy is frightened and flat-footed until the end of your next turn.
Why make these class feats? What if I want to play a fearless cleric? Or what if I want to play a really intimidating druid? These do not sound like the kind of feats that should be locked behind class walls!
I think a lot of people are worried that by making feats "class feats" instead of "general feats" it will limit character options. I'm fine with class feats that largely only modify class features - barbarian feats modify rage, druid feats modify wild shape, rogue feats modify sneak attack, etc. But, the recent blog has thrown a red flag, in demonstrating that abilities that should be available to all classes are also going to be locked behind class feats.
Free the feats! If a feat is not modifying a class feature, there should be a very very compelling reason that it is a class feat and not a general feat! Unless it's actually impossible for anyone of a different class to perform the feat, then locking the feat behind class walls is just going to limit character customization. Which is not why we play Pathfinder!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My bet is a lot of these feats will simply be available at earlier levels for the classes they're associated with.
I think other classes will get them later or can unlock them via archetypes.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, modular class features are just called "feats" now, so asking "why does only the fighter get intimidating strike" is sort of like asking "why does only the Magus get Arcane Accuracy" or "why does only the Monk get to make a flying kick" or "why does only the rogue get Rope Master" or "Why does only the Avenger Vigilante get Signature Weapon?"
Plus, there's no reason some feats can't be cross-listed on more than one class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are being locked behind feats because class feats are the old class features. All class features used to be "locked" behind classes so mechanically it hasn't changed much, but I think the terminology is confusing to people right now because they are thinking of what feats used to be.
Ninja'd.
EDIT: Also, getting access to other classes feats is probably going to be the major point of multi-classing in the new edition.
I think it’s pretty straightforward and what other commenters said. But I do not know how I feel about the prospect that maybe ALL class features will be class feats instead. I’m not opposed to it, but it would be a big change for there to be no standard class abilities you get automatically. Curious how much will be optional for each class.
You could very well be right Ring of Gyges. This system that is shaping so far seems to be leaning very much in the direction of allowing multi-classing in a more carte blanche way. Pathfinder removed the multiclassing exp penalty, and instead added a carrot in way of capstone. So you got rewarded for staying in your class by getting bigger and more awesome versions of your class abilities. It looks like in 2ndE they are removing the penalty of not having your class abilities scale without taking more levels in the class, and instead taking the route of enabling you to dip willy nilly since you are just grabbing feats here and there. You may not get higher level feats as quickly this way, but you have a more custom and unique character that osn’t Sitting there with weaker abilities than players who specialized in one class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with class feats that largely only modify class features - barbarian feats modify rage, druid feats modify wild shape, rogue feats modify sneak attack, etc.
I strongly agree with this, but would even push against it a little more. There shouldn't be class feats at all. Anyone should be able to take any feat. If I get access to sneak attack from some alternate pathway that comes out in a book 6 years from now, I want to be able to take that sneak attack feat. You may not gain any benefit from a particular feat, but they shouldn't be locked up.
Now, if we want to reduce prereqs for feats for certain classes, I'm all for it.
They are being locked behind feats because class feats are the old class features. All class features used to be "locked" behind classes so mechanically it hasn't changed much, but I think the terminology is confusing to people right now because they are thinking of what feats used to be.
Ninja'd.
EDIT: Also, getting access to other classes feats is probably going to be the major point of multi-classing in the new edition.
I think it is entirely unclear if this is really the case, yet. I haven't seen anything to would lead me to believe that spellcasting, for example, is now a feat/progressed by a feat.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
No thanks on that for me.
I want Fighter and Barbarian to be able to get cool tricks that are at least harder for other people to do. I really would like Rogue to have every single class option dedicated to sneak attack. I don't want Cleric to be a better Fighter than Fighter just because "fighting" isn't distinct enough on its own and so all its options are also Cleric options.
Was the OP joking?
I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.
Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.
Personally, I am rather hoping that sneak attack turns into a massive (like +5) accuracy bonus from certain situations and rogue feats focus on making nasty/ debilitating critical hits rather than trying to (poorly) emulate other classes features which they could get instead by multi-classing and grabbing a different class' feat. I think that the designers are going to hold off on showing us how magic works for a couple more weeks at least. We already know the action economy on spells is getting a major overhaul, we already know that BAB, DCs, and Saving throws are getting a massive overhaul, I would not be suprised to learn that spells/level and spells/day are getting a similarly different treatment, but we will have to wait and see what any of that looks like before we will know how powerful magic can be without accompanying class feats to back it up.
I'm fine with class feats that largely only modify class features - barbarian feats modify rage, druid feats modify wild shape, rogue feats modify sneak attack, etc.I strongly agree with this, but would even push against it a little more. There shouldn't be class feats at all. Anyone should be able to take any feat. If I get access to sneak attack from some alternate pathway that comes out in a book 6 years from now, I want to be able to take that sneak attack feat. You may not gain any benefit from a particular feat, but they shouldn't be locked up.
Now, if we want to reduce prereqs for feats for certain classes, I'm all for it.
So did you allow Weapon Specialisation and Greater Weapon Focus to be taken by clerics, rogues, paladins, rangers and bards in your games? These are examples of "class feats" in Pathfinder 1e.
Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.
This is where they're headed to a point. In Pathfinder 1e you could play a fighter that focused on his defensive abilities and would be the best armor wearing guy around. Or you could focus on your weapon and be the best weapon wielder in all the land. Pathfinder 2nd edition has toned down the degree to which the fighter can specialise in armor and have instead forced him to focus at least to some degree on weapons. I expect (and others have also speculated on this) that Paladins will be the best armour wearers around.
It's nowhere near the pigeon holing we got in D&D 4th ed. But it is less free than we have in Pathfinder 1st ed. I expect Paizo will count on the expanded skills to ease some of the hurt of having slightly less flexibility (you can have a healer fighter for example).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I figure that when you're highlighting examples of class feats for PF2, you'd want to stick to the ones that are easiest to explain without invoking systems you haven't revealed yet. So "generic sounding feats" are kind of the only ones you can talk about before you dig deep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.
I try to avoid saying "just wait for more info", because I'm looking at the stuff I like and forming opinions based on that- generally it would be unfair of me to say other people should hold on.
But, in this case, I would hold on. The reason is that we haven't seen any general feats yet. We do know a couple of things, though, and I think they're promising.
- Other classes can get at least some stuff from at least Fighter. General feats seem like a pretty likely candidate there.
- We do know that you can trade a general feat for a skill feat. Skill feats seem pretty legit so far- a "no tattling" effect for Intimidate, and a useful animal pet (animal companion?) or healing for Nature. General feats are going to be no worse than that (otherwise everybody would just grab more skill feats all the time).
So did you allow Weapon Specialisation and Greater Weapon Focus to be taken by clerics, rogues, paladins, rangers and bards in your games? These are examples of "class feats" in Pathfinder 1e.I'm fine with class feats that largely only modify class features - barbarian feats modify rage, druid feats modify wild shape, rogue feats modify sneak attack, etc.I strongly agree with this, but would even push against it a little more. There shouldn't be class feats at all. Anyone should be able to take any feat. If I get access to sneak attack from some alternate pathway that comes out in a book 6 years from now, I want to be able to take that sneak attack feat. You may not gain any benefit from a particular feat, but they shouldn't be locked up.
Now, if we want to reduce prereqs for feats for certain classes, I'm all for it.
I never had a player ask, and I never thought to offer, but yes, I would have allowed it. But even from a more design-thinking standpoint than a rules exception in my home game; if weapon specialization had prereqs that read like, "Weapon Focus Feat, Character Level 6 (Fighters may take this feat as their 4th level bonus feat.) That would be the best of both worlds. <-- I mean, aside from it is a boring feat.
Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pigeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.This is where they're headed to a point. In Pathfinder 1e you could play a fighter that focused on his defensive abilities and would be the best armor wearing guy around. Or you could focus on your weapon and be the best weapon wielder in all the land. Pathfinder 2nd edition has toned down the degree to which the fighter can specialise in armor and have instead forced him to focus at least to some degree on weapons. I expect (and others have also speculated on this) that Paladins will be the best armour wearers around.
It's nowhere near the pigeon holing we got in D&D 4th ed. But it is less free than we have in Pathfinder 1st ed. I expect Paizo will count on the expanded skills to ease some of the hurt of having slightly less...
Yeah, I'm not saying that it is the worst thing I've ever seen, it's just headed in the opposite direction of what I would like. For example, my biggest issue with archetypes is that about half of them should be PrC's. Why should 'admixture specialist' be relegated to the wizard class? It even thematically works better better for a sorcerer, changing up stuff on the fly, etc, etc.
Anyway, it's just a thing I am noticing, and I wanted to put my 2 copper in on it. It isn't that I don't understand what is happening, I didn't get confused, I just actually don't like it.
I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.
I mean that’s kinda like seeing just one or two more genera I Rogue talents and saying they should be available to everybody and then extrapolating a pigeon-holed character concept to class emphasis. All classes could very well get similar feats, it’s just these were examples of how the Barbarian gets rid of fear and fighters give it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.I try to avoid saying "just wait for more info", because I'm looking at the stuff I like and forming opinions based on that- generally it would be unfair of me to say other people should hold on.
But, in this case, I would hold on. The reason is that we haven't seen any general feats yet. We do know a couple of things, though, and I think they're promising.
- Other classes can get at least some stuff from at least Fighter. General feats seem like a pretty likely candidate there.
- We do know that you can trade a general feat for a skill feat. Skill feats seem pretty legit so far- a "no tattling" effect for Intimidate, and a useful animal pet (animal companion?) or healing for Nature. General feats are going to be no worse than that (otherwise everybody would just grab more skill feats all the time).
True enough, if there is a general rule that we don't know about yet that essentially says, "You can take any class feat 2 levels delayed." Then I would be thrilled to death.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean that’s kinda like seeing just one or two more genera I Rogue talents and saying they should be available to everybody and then extrapolating a pigeon-holed character concept to class emphasis. All classes could very well get similar feats, it’s just these were examples of how the Barbarian gets rid of fear and fighters give it.I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.
I would agree if I had just seen the first two on an alphabetical list; but the ones I have seen are the ones that are being teased in blog posts. I have to assume that the teasers are at least somewhat indicative of the final vision.
True enough, if there is a general rule that we don't know about yet that essentially says, "You can take any class feat 2 levels delayed." Then I would be thrilled to death.I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.I try to avoid saying "just wait for more info", because I'm looking at the stuff I like and forming opinions based on that- generally it would be unfair of me to say other people should hold on.
But, in this case, I would hold on. The reason is that we haven't seen any general feats yet. We do know a couple of things, though, and I think they're promising.
- Other classes can get at least some stuff from at least Fighter. General feats seem like a pretty likely candidate there.
- We do know that you can trade a general feat for a skill feat. Skill feats seem pretty legit so far- a "no tattling" effect for Intimidate, and a useful animal pet (animal companion?) or healing for Nature. General feats are going to be no worse than that (otherwise everybody would just grab more skill feats all the time).
I really like that idea. Even if it's not official, that's something I'd likely house rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like that idea. Even if it's not official, that's something I'd likely house rule.
This will naturally give casters all the martial feats in the game while giving non-spellcasters none of the spellcasting feats in the game. After all, what good is "empower" to a non-spellcaster? Will you also allow martials to take feats like Storm's Retribution? That would be even more homogenisation than we're possibly already getting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like that idea. Even if it's not official, that's something I'd likely house rule.This will naturally give casters all the martial feats in the game while giving non-spellcasters none of the spellcasting feats in the game. After all, what good is "empower" to a non-spellcaster? Will you also allow martials to take feats like Storm's Retribution? That would be even more homogenisation than we're possibly already getting.
Well, it really depends on the power level of the feats. Based on what we've heard, there's a lot you can do with it for setting up house rules.
Like, what if we had a player sacrifice a skill rank to gain a "rank" in a class, opening up the class feats at level -2 or -3? Costs something in order to gain flexibility an expand upon concepts.
Or maybe Counterspell doesn't cost a spell slot to use (we don't know yet), so that could open up the possibility of a fighter gaining the ability to Counterspell using this system, which would he freaking awesome.
There's lots we could do!
I mean, as a thought experiment, what would happen in PF1 if you made a Fighter's combat feats equivalent to Vigilante talents equivalent to Focus Powers equivalent to Style Strikes and Ki powers equivalent to Investigator talents equivalent to Phrenic Amplifications etc.?
Seems like this would be a mess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you give every class access to every class feat you would remove every reason to play anything but a full caster. That would pretty much be a reason for me to never pick this game up to begin with.
Right now I hope they will take the opportunity to give martials some interesting and unique abilities through class feats so my turn as a fighter can be a bit more interesting than taking a full attack action every time I can.
I just don’t see why a cleric that can revive dead people and summon angels, devils and anything in between should be as intimidating as a fighter through the use of his weapon or be able to resist fear through sheer willpower like a barbarian, their spell-given abilities are versatile and strong enough as they are.
If you give every class access to every class feat you would remove every reason to play anything but a full caster. That would pretty much be a reason for me to never pick this game up to begin with.
Right now I hope they will take the opportunity to give martials some interesting and unique abilities through class feats so my turn as a fighter can be a bit more interesting than taking a full attack action every time I can.
I just don’t see why a cleric that can revive dead people and summon angels, devils and anything in between should be as intimidating as a fighter through the use of his weapon or be able to resist fear through sheer willpower like a barbarian, their spell-given abilities are versatile and strong enough as they are.
I agree, give them unique things that only they should be able to do. If that was what we were seeing I would be all onboard. But right now we are seeing “give up an attack to make your opponent flat-footed.” Which doesn’t feel particularly fightery to me. If anything it seems like it would be more useful for a rogue.
Now, you want to combine spring attack, whirlwind attack, and vital strike in to a 3-action (read: full round attack) maneuver with a d4 rounds cool down period then I promise to be excited, and completely happy with locking it up into the fighter class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fighter being the long previewed class makes this tough since the question of "what is particularly fightery, exactly" isn't exactly helped by precedents from PF1. Since in the previous edition everything (or darn near it) that a Fighter can get, someone who is not a fighter can get it too. Sure, they might not be as good with it as a total package but archetypes of other classes got weapon training or armor training and absolutely everybody gets feats.
Edit: Nobody else gets Bravery right? Of course, that class feature is kind of worse than "a good will save."
I think the OP is championing for a classless system. I don't think that's even in the radar for the most experimental rules for the PDT.
Sure there is a reason not to do that: the desire to keep the clases diferenciated by more than those class abilities. Which the deva have
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, "Class Features" exist to say "all rogues can do this, all fighters can do that, etc."
Class Feats, on the other hand, exist to be able to represent "Some fighters use a sword and a shield" or "Some fighters use bows" or "some fighters use big two-handed weapons" and to support all those choices mechanically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes are good - they gracefully allow for scaling powers like spells and sneak attack and bloodlines and all that. I don't think abolishing classes is a good idea (and it's not going to happen - I'm assuming PF2 will have classes and class feats and that's not going to change.)
But putting everything behind class walls is a terrible idea. Intimidating Strike is like PF1's Cornugon Smash - would people really want Cornugon Smash to be a fighter-only feat? Would people want Iron Will to be a monk-only feat?
I know "class feat" should be interpreted as "class feature" - but what I'm worried about is by taking abilities that would have been general feats in PF1 and making them class feat(ure)s in PF2, we're limiting the customizability of character builds. And that customizability is always PF1's primary selling point (check out any of the threads on reddit for "Why should I play Pathfinder?" and customization is always #1.)
If at all possible, feats should be designed to be general feats by default. That's what allows maximum customization. By making something a class feat, it signals that the ability will never be available to other classes. I understand there are cases where that should be the case - abilities that are based on a sorcerer's bloodline should never be available to someone without that bloodline, for example - but in general, we want people to have freedom in building their characters.
Someone on reddit noted that the examples at top aren't even particularly thematic - in PF1 the fighter was the one with Bravery, and the barbarian was the one with Intimidate as a move action, so it seems arbitrary to now say "fighters can't shake off fear, that's a barbarian thing" and "barbarians can't intimidate people with their presence, that's a fighter thing."
Let people build the characters they want. If an ability has to be behind class walls for some good reason (balance, or altering a class feature, as examples) then that's fine. But don't take things that would have been general feats in PF1 and make them class-specific in PF2. That's killing customization - which is Pathfinder's key selling point.
Fighters aren't intimidating people with their presence, that's a skill thing. They're using their weapons, which is a Fighter thing. Anybody else spends an action to intimidate and an action to attack like normal.
We don't have any info on what the general way to deal with fear conditions is, so I can't really say much there. I do think "powering through fear conditions" is kind of a berserker rage vibe thing, and a good fit for Barbarian.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they had called these talents instead of feats we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. I think they were trying to make the terminology less convoluted (I got how many talents and how many feats? Or I get how many General feats, how many Class Feats and how many Skill Feats? Don’t know how that turned out.) and I am sure there is some mechanics reason for it like having the ability to choose feats from other classes at some point or at some cost, like being considered a lower level for their requirements.
On the note of the Fighter getting Intimidating Strike, it was said that they developed the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric to work close together. So the Fighter being able to make an opponent Flat-footed benefits the Rogue, who will likely be revealed Monday. So they chose that feat so we have the info of it going into the Rogue and know what they mean when they bring it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idk, what we've seen so far sure seems like they are just locking more things behind class walls, and increasing feat taxes.
Don't worry though, now the feat tax tyou won't even be able to ever take because what you want is locked behind someone else's class tax!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Idk, what we've seen so far sure seems like they are just locking more things behind class walls, and increasing feat taxes.
Don't worry though, now the feat tax tyou won't even be able to ever take because what you want is locked behind someone else's class tax!
From what I understand in PF2, no feats will have prerequisites of other feats unless those two feats directly build upon each other, and many feats will automatically improve as you level (Power Attack, for example, eventually gains twice the effect with no additional investment).
And "class feats" being exclusive to classes is exactly the same thing as "only rogues get rogue talents, only barbarians get rage powers, etc." It's just that Rogue talents have been renamed "Rogue Feats".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idk, what we've seen so far sure seems like they are just locking more things behind class walls, and increasing feat taxes.
Don't worry though, now the feat tax tyou won't even be able to ever take because what you want is locked behind someone else's class tax!
From what I understand in PF2, no feats will have prerequisites of other feats unless those two feats directly build upon each other, and many feats will automatically improve as you level (Power Attack, for example, eventually gains twice the effect with no additional investment).
And "class feats" being exclusive to classes is exactly the same thing as "only rogues get rogue talents, only barbarians get rage powers, etc." It's just that Rogue talents have been renamed "Rogue Feats".
The power of presentation matters a lot. This thread wouldn't be happening if they just called them talents. There would also be a clear divide between "feats" which can be picked up by anyone or a general list of classes, versus talents being 100% "only this class".
Idk, what we've seen so far sure seems like they are just locking more things behind class walls, and increasing feat taxes.
Don't worry though, now the feat tax tyou won't even be able to ever take because what you want is locked behind someone else's class tax!
Yeah, I find it pretty unlikely that they will have general feats that will be needed for out of class builds that have class feats as prerequisites. Like has been said, these are just class features with a different name. Just because one class gets it does not make it detrimental for another class to not have access to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The power of presentation matters a lot. This thread wouldn't be happening if they just called them talents. There would also be a clear divide between "feats" which can be picked up by anyone or a general list of classes, versus talents being 100% "only this class".Idk, what we've seen so far sure seems like they are just locking more things behind class walls, and increasing feat taxes.
Don't worry though, now the feat tax tyou won't even be able to ever take because what you want is locked behind someone else's class tax!
From what I understand in PF2, no feats will have prerequisites of other feats unless those two feats directly build upon each other, and many feats will automatically improve as you level (Power Attack, for example, eventually gains twice the effect with no additional investment).
And "class feats" being exclusive to classes is exactly the same thing as "only rogues get rogue talents, only barbarians get rage powers, etc." It's just that Rogue talents have been renamed "Rogue Feats".
I disagree that it is simply a matter of presentation. If they had “fighter stunts” and one of them was “give up an action to make your opponent flat footed if you also hit them” then that would give me pause as well. It may be that calling everything a feat helped to bring a little scrutiny to this issue, but the underlying concern is there regardless of what it is called.
I disagree that it is simply a matter of presentation. If they had “fighter stunts” and one of them was “give up an action to make your opponent flat footed if you also hit them” then that would give me pause as well. It may be that calling everything a feat helped to bring a little scrutiny to this issue, but the underlying concern is there regardless of what it is called.The power of presentation matters a lot. This thread wouldn't be happening if they just called them talents. There would also be a clear divide between "feats" which can be picked up by anyone or a general list of classes, versus talents being 100% "only this class".Idk, what we've seen so far sure seems like they are just locking more things behind class walls, and increasing feat taxes.
Don't worry though, now the feat tax tyou won't even be able to ever take because what you want is locked behind someone else's class tax!
From what I understand in PF2, no feats will have prerequisites of other feats unless those two feats directly build upon each other, and many feats will automatically improve as you level (Power Attack, for example, eventually gains twice the effect with no additional investment).
And "class feats" being exclusive to classes is exactly the same thing as "only rogues get rogue talents, only barbarians get rage powers, etc." It's just that Rogue talents have been renamed "Rogue Feats".
Isn't there a Rogue talent that does that? Granted, it's one of the sneak-attack based ones so Slayer can take it. Other classes need Greater Feint to do something like this.
I feel like we need to know about more than like 4 fighter feats (remember they have the longest class feat section) before we talk about the overall quality.
Like we know from PF1 that some rage powers are way better than other rage powers, right?
From where I sit the benefit of calling everything feats (we get skill feats and ancestry feats too) is that it lets you say "For purposes of feats" instead of "For purposes of feats, class talents, racial features, skill unlocks, etc." A couple of times in PF1 we ran into trouble with "x counts as y for purposes of a vague laundry list of things"- now that's not a concern.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idk, what we've seen so far sure seems like they are just locking more things behind class walls, and increasing feat taxes.
Don't worry though, now the feat tax tyou won't even be able to ever take because what you want is locked behind someone else's class tax!
From what I understand in PF2, no feats will have prerequisites of other feats unless those two feats directly build upon each other, and many feats will automatically improve as you level (Power Attack, for example, eventually gains twice the effect with no additional investment).
And "class feats" being exclusive to classes is exactly the same thing as "only rogues get rogue talents, only barbarians get rage powers, etc." It's just that Rogue talents have been renamed "Rogue Feats".
Sure, but there are certain Rogue Talents that I would have loved to take on characters from another class. Do you have any idea how long I've wanted to build a character with the Rumormonger rogue talent? So much delicious narrative power! And why shouldn't a bard be able to take it? Or another class? But I never could, because it was locked behind a minimum of 3 levels of Charlatan (or 10 levels of any other rogue.) And that sucks, because it sounds like it would be a really fun ability!
Since PF2 is starting from scratch, let's do it right - maximize the freedom, don't arbitrarily lock abilities behind class walls unless they need to be, either for balance reasons or because they're modifying class abilities. But abilities like "Intimidate on a hit" should not be class-specific. If the fighter can get it early, I'm OK with that, as long as other classes get access to it as well.
^ If so, would it be fine for non-spellcasting classes to pick up how to cast a spell or two, to be fair?