I'd normally use archetypes to describe this but that word's already been co-opted by pathfinder. Something I would really like to see, not in a proper codified form in the rules, is that there will be a strong enough selection of Class Feats to make a specific type of character playable from the get go. What I mean is say, since fighter is a simple and easy concept, a fighter "path" would be "greatweapon fighter" or "two weapon fighter", and that a given path should have some minimum amount of feat support(ie at least 4-5 feats geared towards a build) to make that type of character a valid playstyle, without necessitating a specific archetype to play the character type(like... a lot of fighter archetypes that just get good with 1 type of weapon). I also hope that most skills of this nature are minimally baked into the class to have a range of freedom (Such as wild shape druid versus a casting druid that cannot shape at all... or Alchemist bombs vs mutagens).
What sort of feat support for concepts would you like to see, in core rulebook or later on?
These are the kinda things I want to see support for in the core rulebook.
Fighter - Great Weapon Fighter, Two Weapon fighter, Shield Master, Archer
Rogue - Thug, Assassin, Scout, Flanker
Cleric - Healer, Chosen(Domain focus), Conduit(spell focus), Warpriest
Wizard - Sword Binder, Specializations, Familiar focus
Sorcerer - Blood Fighter, Transformative, Subdued(Sneaky casting)
Bard - Solo Artist, Duettist( grants synergies to a partner of their choice), World's a Stage(team support), Fascinating Show(control oriented)
Paladin - Divine warden(aoe defensive support), Unkillable, Lock down, Healer
Monk - Martial Artist, Spiritual master
Druid - Fang and Claw(Wild shape), Caster(Storm, flame), Beast master (animal companion)
Ranger - Beast Hunter, Trapper
Barbarian - Totemic Rager, Wild Berserker
Alchemist - Mutagenic, Bomber, Annointment/Poisoner, Support/healer
Feats have already been changed to follow a progression. Spring Attack isn't going to have Dodge and Mobility as feats behind it.
Natural stuff like Archery will have an end of chain feat. You can just tell players to look at that now and follow the needed feats.
Just say no to feat chains.
All feats should grow with the character, stand on its own merits and have no other feats as prerequisite.
I didn't mean feat chains, sorry if it comes off that way, more "I would like there to be enough feats to support these concepts".
Just say no to feat chains.
All feats should grow with the character, stand on its own merits and have no other feats as prerequisite.
I really don't see what the problem with feat chains if they actually make sense. Pretty much every feat on your way to Shield Master makes sense. Shield Slam is pretty weird but is still useful.
You mean Builds?
You mean Builds?
If by by build you mean a collection of feats that support a particular playstyle, sure, but I don't really associate the world build with, which is why my post is pretty much a dud. I associate the term build with a complete or near complete character sheet designed to fill a specific purpose, ie " 13th level maneuver brawler build", and using the word build for " a collection of various loosely related feats to fit a certain mechanical archetype" doesn't really work in my head.
I'm thinking "to support melee characters that manipulate and control the fight, we have the awesome blow feat, intimidating strike, etc.", and that's a completely different concept that I can't find a good word for because when I think build I think "my fighter build took power attack, awesome blow, and break the earth to create difficult terrain and knock anyone else away while I focus on my main target".
Just say no to feat chains.
All feats should grow with the character, stand on its own merits and have no other feats as prerequisite.
Grow with the character? Awesome. Stand on its own merits? Of course.
Have no other feats as a prerequisite...? No. While excessive feat chains are bad, a prerequisite is okay as long as the more powerful feat clearly builds on the prior feat in some way. None of the feats currently listed as prerequisites to Whirlwind Attack have anything in common with it conceptually and so none of them should be there, but Mobility as a prerequisite to Spring Attack does make sense. Two-Weapon Fighting into Improved TWF into Greater TWF works just fine, and getting three bonus attacks per turn out of a single feat would be broken; it already "evolves" in that it gets better as your attack bonus and weapons improve.
So yeah. Use feat chains sparingly and only where they actually are thematically and mechanically linked. But do use them where appropriate.
Mind explaining why on earth someone should have to take mobility to do spring attack?
Either kick mobility out of the game or make it damn awesome. Either way don't require it for spring attack.
Paizo has already stated for PF2 they aren't doing things like that. The only feat chains you have are going to be related. Nothing is going to be locked out based on random feat taxes.
So I repeat, what is wrong with appropriate feat chains?
To be fair, in my home games I just give everyone Spring Attack for free. But viewed in context of the core rules, it makes some sense - Mobility improves your ability to move in combat with reduced distraction, then Spring Attack builds that into attacking as you will in the middle of your movement.
TWF into I.TWF into G.TWF is a far more pertinent example, and collapsing all three feats into one would be absurdly good compared to other feats.