I think there should be a way for classes to pick up feats from other classes, but I think it should require some sort of investment like VMC or "spend a general feat to gain a class feat for another class, counting your level as levels in that class -4" or something.
It should not be an unlimited, free for all, IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I too was a little taken aback by the feats they mentioned in the blog post. Not because I dislike them, but because the fear feat seems so much like a replacement to Bravery and Cornugan Smash has always been available to everyone. If they had said either class had those feats available to them I wouldn't have batted an eye, but both seem like feats that the other would also have access to.
That said, we don't know the whole picture here. Maybe those feats are available to both and that hasn't been properly conveyed to us yet. I'm fine with them calling all Talents/Arcana/Discoveries/Rage Powers the same thing. My hope is that we don't end up with a large swath of what were once thought to be universal feats drifting over into being locked behind classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know there is a way to get access to those feats or class abilities from those other classes that’s paizo has already tested: Taking levels in those classes!
But seriously, I am not in the camp for being able to just pull class features from other classes by default. But with how skills saves and a lack of BAB impacts the game this time around, it really shouldn’t be as big a deal to dip into another class for 2-3 levels to get one or two of theirbfeats you want. And of course this makes running a Gestalt campaign even easier, so if you want to homebrew being able to pick class feats from another class then your GM has the ability to ok that pretty easily.
I just feel like we should have a reason to pick the class you chose and take all of the benefits and drawbacks that comes with that. Including not being able to take that Fighter feat because you chose to play a Wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just feel like we should have a reason to pick the class you chose and take all of the benefits and drawbacks that comes with that. Including not being able to take that Fighter feat because you chose to play a Wizard.
Taken to its extreme, that argument says "eliminate general feats altogether, if you want an ability then gain it through class levels."
I'd rather err on the side of freedom than err on the side of restrictiveness. Balance should be preserved, but I do not want the game to tell me "your wizard can't be good at talking, being good at talking is a bard thing" or "your druid can't be good at intimidation, being good at intimidation is a fighter thing." Let me flavor my PC, I don't want the class to be the end-all-be-all in determining the flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because Paizo decided that class talents should be called feats instead of talents despite being linked to class progression instead of a character progression, and thus not functioning like feats do in any other d20 game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because Paizo decided that class talents should be called feats instead of talents despite being linked to class progression instead of a character progression, and thus not functioning like feats do in any other d20 game.
Except, you know those feats which have levels in a specific class as a prerequisite (Weapon Specialization comes to mind.)
If it helps, they are just printing many more of those and Ancestry feats can just be seen as those feats which require you to be an elf or a gnome or whatever to qualify for.
By having them listed as "Fighter Feats" instead of "Feats which require fighter levels" we can more easily grant them to future classes merely by putting those feats on the Warpriest, Swashbuckler, etc. lists, so we can do away with "Counts as a Fighter for purposes of x,y, z."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taken to its extreme, that argument says "eliminate general feats altogether, if you want an ability then gain it through class levels."
Anything taken to it’s extreme is going to have negative reprecussions, so you aren’t really making any kind of point with that statement. Nobody in this thread is asking for that and Paizo has not given any indication that they want to completely limit abilities to class only, so arguing against the worse case scenario isn’t really relevant.
So far we have seen less that ten feats/class feats and people are acting like Paizo has made it where you won’t be able to use a rapier as a Rogue without taking a Fighter class feat that has a cleric class feat as a prerequisite.
I'd rather err on the side of freedom than err on the side of restrictiveness. Balance should be preserved, but I do not want the game to tell me "your wizard can't be good at talking, being good at talking is a bard thing" or "your druid can't be good at intimidation, being good at intimidation is a fighter thing." Let me flavor my PC, I don't want the class to be the end-all-be-all in determining the flavor.
Most of what you are describing there is skill based, and I definitely agree that those sorts of thematic options should be open to all. But I also believe that some classes should be better at things than others. Taking the freedom desire to the extreme, we would end up with a game like True20 where there are no classes. And that is great, for that game. But it wouldn’t be Pathfinder. I absolute Want as much customization as possible, but some things should be kept exclusive to some classes, or if not then archetypes.
What if class feats function the same way as class spells? Some feats can be taken by multiple classes. Some classes get them at a different level. Also some feats are unique to only on class.
It would further homogenize class progression and make feats and spells more similar to each ogher. But with BAB gone there isn't any easy way to restrict what level feats can be taken without using class levels.
| 1 person 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.
That’s embarrassing. Meant to say I would not like Rogues to focus entirely on sneak attack, but we are just a little outside the edit window.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I somewhat suspect based upon what I have read that Paizo is concerned preserving about class flavor with their class feats. It's not just what a class feat does - e.g., remove fear effect - but also how the particular class does it. Multiple classes may have similar remove fear effects (or whatever other ability), but express this differently through their particular class mechanics and flavor.
I somewhat suspect based upon what I have read that Paizo is concerned preserving about class flavor with their class feats. It's not just what a class feat does - e.g., remove fear effect - but also how the particular class does it. Multiple classes may have similar remove fear effects (or whatever other ability), but express this differently through their particular class mechanics and flavor.
That’s what i’m Thinking. So Fighter intimidates by striking eight heir weapon, Barbarian may Have the ability to intimidate enemies that strike them as a reaction. Casters May have spells that intimidate and Rogues can add it to their Sneak attack I would guess. Each class should absolutely have their own identity and ways of doing things that make you want to take them.
And the more I think about it the more I think this system was designed with multi-classing in mind. Since your skills and attack bonuses automatically go up with character level, and you get a class featbon odd levels and skill feats on even, it makes the penalty for dipping into other classes so much more minimal. You still get to increase your proficiencies, just going to have to wait another level. It is pretty great for giving people the class ability freedom they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is a mishmash of 20 different similar abilities for different classes really the ideal solution?
Why not offer one or two abilities, and let the player flavor it as they choose, instead of trying to bake-in a flavor that might be unpalatable to some?
The whole idea of "class flavor" is scary to me. I've played a swashbuckling cleric, I've played a sophisticated bloodrager. I've played a lowbrow paladin, I've played a noble-born brawler.
As long as all these kinds of things are still well-supported by PF2, I'll be happy as a clam. But if we start to see certain abilities get locked behind class walls because they're deemed "iconic" (e.g., if Fencing Grace were a swashbuckler-only feat) then that would scare me.
I hope you are scared to death then. I want classes to be distinct and have their own abilities. You want to blend then we can talk multi-classing.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My hypothetical "dream system" would be classless.
Given classes are a thing, there needs to be something that makes classes special, but I would really like for people to be able to build a sort of hybrid character via feat selection.
Imagine your base class is a chassis that you can pick and choose other class features via feats.
For example, you pick a Fighter chassis and you get basic fighter stuff and a sort of class priority on certain fighter feats, but you can pick other class feats and even get the basic class features of the other classes via feats.
A "Class-less" system is not hypothetical, it exist. And as much as I agree with you (all my favorite systems are classless), I don't agree that Pathfinder should become one. Most Pathfinder players and DMs really like that mechanic, and Paizo would lose LOT of them. There is a demand, and these people should still have options to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is a mishmash of 20 different similar abilities for different classes really the ideal solution?
I'm not sure. But I suspect that one of the benefits is that this reduces the need for dipping into other classes for such things. It also remains to be seen the extent to which there will be "20 different similar abilities for different classes."
Why not offer one or two abilities, and let the player flavor it as they choose, instead of trying to bake-in a flavor that might be unpalatable to some?
That would work in a classless system, but I'm afraid that is scarcely the case in class systems like D&D and Pathfinder that lean heavily on classes as strongly-flavored archetypes reinforced by mechanical advantages.
The whole idea of "class flavor" is scary to me. I've played a swashbuckling cleric, I've played a sophisticated bloodrager. I've played a lowbrow paladin, I've played a noble-born brawler.
I'm not sure if I have seen anything so far that would suggest that you will not be able to play those characters in PF2.