From ancestries to class abilities, it seems pretty obvious that character progression is going to be different in the new system and it seems like there is a lot of concern that first level characters are going to have less "stuff" (mostly the things that used to be class abilities and racial traits) than their PF1 counter parts.
I understand why this feels restricting to these players, but for me, PF1 pretty much capped out at level 15-17 as far as playability went, and it seems like that might have been true for a lot more people as well.
I am hopeful that a lot of the hostility directed at the idea that 1st level characters will be less powerful than they use to be could be mitigated by developers making it easier to consider starting play at level 2 or 3 if you were trying to replicate the feel of PF1, with the certainty that games would be able to push in to higher levels then they often did previously.
The anticipated response to this is that we really don't know how higher level game play will work yet, which is true, and that is probably going to take a lot of play testing to determine if it works in practice, but it seems pretty apparent that it is the developers intent to make this so, and I am ok with giving them the benefit of the doubt that they will have better success with this if they get to design their own system and not be stuck with what already came before.
There are a lot of variables with this, but it seems clear that a delayed progression is a design feature of this new system and not a limited flaw of any one class or ancestry.
SO my question is: If the game is better balanced at higher levels, and designed to support higher level play, is it a "deal breaker" for you to start character builds at level 3 or 4 if you are more interested in recreating the feel of the existing Pathfinder games ? Knowing that game viability extends to higher levels than it did previously?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level 1 in pathfinder is already quite limited in what you can do. I really hope pf2 isn't even more limited.
I'd like for most character concepts to work in a sense at level 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like more classes to be built like the Starfinder Soldier, tbh. Where you choose a path or specialization at 1st level, can choose a second one at a higher level, and have more than two to choose from. These paths should be good but focused, to produce characters that are distinct from each other but still come online to some degree at level one.
So if you're an alchemist, you choose whether you want a path that gives you mutagens, makes you better with bombs, or a third option like say being able to make magic potions in addition to alchemical elixirs; that way whether it's bombs or mutagens that you need for your concept, you can start building the character you want from level one. If you're a wizard, you pick a specialty school that you are better in, and that you choose abilities and extra spells within, and then get another specialty school later. If you're a cleric you pick up domains; if you're a monk you pick up fighting style disciplines; and so on.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like for most character concepts to work in a sense at level 1.
This. You'd NEED high level play to work if it takes 5-6 levels to 'get to the starting point', meaning you'll only get 14-15 levels in your actual concept... This is especially troublesome if you could make that concept at 1st in pathfinder classic but 5th in new pathfinder: that's a LOT of time/levels NOT playing your concept.
Being able to play the character concept that you want to play straight out of the gate, from 1st level, is a stated design goal of PF2.0.
This doesn't mean that you need to have all the bells and whistles already ringing at 1st level.
I think it's a good thing to have less front-loaded classes. It lets you look forward to what you're going to get later on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am fine with the loss of weak abilities that do little to benefit my character concept design whether they used to be packaged from ancestry or class. For example, getting longsword and longbow proficiency has little appeal to me when playing a single class elven wizard or fighter. By the same token I always hated gaining trap sense as a barbarian. It has always been very situational and more often than not I forgot that I had it. Every archetype for barbarians never discarded it as a feature. This reinforces my believe that the game designers felt it was of little value either and was thrown in more as window dressing than an actual game mechanic that gave a solid benefit. If a loss of these meh abilities are a price to pay for PF2 I will gladly pay it
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No matter how much high levels are improved in playability, that is not gonna make levels 1-5 less important. Yes, many people avoid high levels cause they're messy, but the reason they don't get played is just that campaigns end and games dissolve before reaching the double digits at all.
If APs and Modules keep starting at level 1, people will continue to favor the low levels (more game starts than they end), so it is imperative that this experience is not made less enjoyable than PF1. It was already hard to get mages and DEX builds through it, so I would hope they get MORE stuff to use this time around.
I'm all for front-loading as much as possible! Even if it's a very weak version of the ability to deter dipping. This shall be my focus during the playtest.
Being able to play the character concept that you want to play straight out of the gate, from 1st level, is a stated design goal of PF2.0.
This doesn't mean that you need to have all the bells and whistles already ringing at 1st level.
Fully agree. For a simplified example, let's say that you can't get your halfling to be lucky and sneaky and fearless at level 1 - you need to choose 1 or maybe 2 of these things and wait for a couple of levels to get all 3. I don't see why that would be a problem. All of these special capabilities can develop over the course of aventuring. The halfling is born with a talent for all three, but it doesn't mean they all blossom at level 1.
So, this spreading of feats isn't necessarily detrimental to differentiation between ancestries.
In PF2, I expect ancestry feats to be somewhat balanced against each other, while in PF1 many were very minor or situational (especially alternate racial traits) while others were equal or even superior to a feat. I also expect them to come with upgrades at higher levels. Spreading them across levels makes sense.
No matter how much high levels are improved in playability, that is not gonna make levels 1-5 less important. Yes, many people avoid high levels cause they're messy, but the reason they don't get played is just that campaigns end and games dissolve before reaching the double digits at all.
If APs and Modules keep starting at level 1, people will continue to favor the low levels (more game starts than they end), so it is imperative that this experience is not made less enjoyable than PF1.
I 100% agree with this as well. It's the designers' job to ensure this is the case even as they cut down on front-loading.
|
Level 1 play wasn't as much fun to play because of low health, and "make a single attack" combats. Between boosted starting health and the new action economy, I think level 1 PF2 will be much more enjoyable, with or without fancy class abilities.
Compare a level 1 fighter in each edition. The PF2 version has much more interesting combat decisions, and more capability outside of combat than their PF1 counterpart.
Even without abilities, the feel of the game at low levels is very much improved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level 1 play wasn't as much fun to play because of low health, and "make a single attack" combats. Between boosted starting health and the new action economy, I think level 1 PF2 will be much more enjoyable, with or without fancy class abilities.
Compare a level 1 fighter in each edition. The PF2 version has much more interesting combat decisions, and more capability outside of combat than their PF1 counterpart.
Even without abilities, the feel of the game at low levels is very much improved.
Fighter isn't a great example, since they never really got abilities in PF1. Though any half-way well built one would be a total battlefield beast in the early levels anyways. That class was already fun for new players for kicking ass.
Was thinking more like Alchemist, Cleric (gets base form of every ability they'll have entire game at 1), anything Gnome (buncha SLA), Magus, Monk, Inquisitor, Warpriest... These classes are very front-loaded and already feel "unique" from level 1.
I wonder how much of "we want you to be able to play your character at level 1" is going to take the form of "we're not going to print feat chains and character abilities that make you wait a while to do the cool thing" rather than "you can be a magus fighting with a shield and a reach weapon using spell combat at level 1 instead of 9 or whatever".
If so, I wonder how long that approach where "the feat that lets you do your thing is a 1st level one with no prereqs" is going to last.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how much of "we want you to be able to play your character at level 1" is going to take the form of "we're not going to print feat chains and character abilities that make you wait a while to do the cool thing" rather than "you can be a magus fighting with a shield and a reach weapon using spell combat at level 1 instead of 9 or whatever".
If so, I wonder how long that approach where "the feat that lets you do your thing is a 1st level one with no prereqs" is going to last.
Lasts until there is a counter-example of a level 1 PF1 character that can do it while the PF2 one can't.
I mean, "you can do your thing at level 1" presumably assumes that you aren't relying on synergy between two abilities that could individually be taken at level 1, but not together.
My problem with high levels isnt too many character options. Its gonzo math with uncapped stats and treadmill game design. I have zero issues with CRB dipping, few with APG, and then several with later splats. Its annoying that the dipping problems came about during the Paizo era of 3E and now they want to kill the concept in PF2.
To answer the question, (which I think the premise is faulty) no its not a deal breaker.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd very much prefer for just about any concept not revolving around raw power (ie: best swordsman in the world) to be available at 1st level. That doesn't mean all mechanics should necessarily be available then, but the bare bones of things should be conceptually (ie: you want to do mind control there should at least be charm person or command, you want to fight with a bow you should be able to, you want buff spells there should be something, etc.).
That said, the only essential Class Feature we've seen moved later than that thus far is Mutagen, and it's possible that the new alchemical items enable that concept (if not the precise mechanic) from level one as well. Which would be fine with me. Everything else you still seem to get the essential stuff at 1st.
So...I'm really not sure this thread is necessary, y'know?
Being able to play the character concept that you want to play straight out of the gate, from 1st level, is a stated design goal of PF2.0
Do you remember where this was said? I can't seem to find it.
I'd very much prefer for just about any concept not revolving around raw power (ie: best swordsman in the world) to be available at 1st level. That doesn't mean all mechanics should necessarily be available then, but the bare bones of things should be conceptually (ie: you want to do mind control there should at least be charm person or command, you want to fight with a bow you should be able to, you want buff spells there should be something, etc.).
I guess where I'm not sure is if it's better if the shield and dorn-dergar skirnir magus (which is awesome, but it comes online at like level 9) is a thing you can do at level 1 or a thing you can't do at all.
Being able to play the character concept that you want to play straight out of the gate, from 1st level, is a stated design goal of PF2.0Do you remember where this was said? I can't seem to find it.
I'm sure I've also seen it said, and it was said pretty early in the history of the public announcement of Pathfinder 2 and its playtest, but I don't remember where. I'm wanting to say it was a reply from a Paizo representative in the discussion attached to the announcement?
If it is an official design goal, hopefully someone from Paizo will see this and add it to the FAQ? (I don't think it's already there - if it is, I missed it when looking a moment ago....)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to take a moment and talk a bit about the a concern I am seeing here with some frequency, and that is that characters will be streamlined and not customizable. I get that we are using some terms that may lead you to think we are going with a similar approach to some other games, but that is simply not the case.
Characters in the new edition have MORE options in most cases than they did in the previous edition. You can still make the scholarly mage who is the master of arcane secrets and occult lore, just as easily as you can make a character that goes against type, like a fighter who is skilled in botany. The way that the proficiency system works along with skill feats gives you plenty of choices when it comes to skills, allowing you to make the character you want to make.
Beyond skills, every class now has its own list of feats to choose from, making them all pretty different from one another and allowing for a lot of flexibility in how you play. And just wait until you see what Archetypes can do...
Next Monday we will be looking at the way that you level up, and the options that presents. Next Friday (March 16th), we will investigate the proficiency system, and how that impacts your choices during character creation and leveling.
Stay tuned folks... we have a lot of great things to show you
Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design
I believe this quote is the one we're thinking of, and it's found here, in the comment/discussion for the playtest announcement in the Paizo Blog:
http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkl9&page=4?First-Look-at-the- Pathfinder-Playtest#discuss|
|
Level 1 play wasn't as much fun to play because of low health, and "make a single attack" combats. Between boosted starting health and the new action economy, I think level 1 PF2 will be much more enjoyable, with or without fancy class abilities.
Compare a level 1 fighter in each edition. The PF2 version has much more interesting combat decisions, and more capability outside of combat than their PF1 counterpart.
Even without abilities, the feel of the game at low levels is very much improved.
Fighter isn't a great example, since they never really got abilities in PF1. Though any half-way well built one would be a total battlefield beast in the early levels anyways. That class was already fun for new players for kicking ass.
Was thinking more like Alchemist, Cleric (gets base form of every ability they'll have entire game at 1), anything Gnome (buncha SLA), Magus, Monk, Inquisitor, Warpriest... These classes are very front-loaded and already feel "unique" from level 1.
I thought the alchemist came out ahead from the preview. Elemental bombs and infusion discoveries from level one sounds pretty helpful.
We will have to see about the others when the blog comes.
I thought the alchemist came out ahead from the preview. Elemental bombs and infusion discoveries from level one sounds pretty helpful.
We will have to see about the others when the blog comes.
The problem there, is that the majority of Alchemist builds were meleers rather than bombers >.> Now I understand Why they wanted to move Mutagen back (to stop dipping into Alchemist for it still), but to those who liked Melee Alchemists, yeah....
The problem there, is that the majority of Alchemist builds were meleers rather than bombers >.> Now I understand Why they wanted to move Mutagen back (to stop dipping into Alchemist for it still), but to those who liked Melee Alchemists, yeah....I thought the alchemist came out ahead from the preview. Elemental bombs and infusion discoveries from level one sounds pretty helpful.
We will have to see about the others when the blog comes.
This seems to completely viable from what we've seen so far. All you have to do is use all your free alchemical items for buffs instead of bombs, there will definitely be extracts available at level 1 that buff you melee combat skill.
The problem there, is that the majority of Alchemist builds were meleers rather than bombers
Were they? My experience was the opposite, but I don't have data, just anecdotes.
I felt the aesthetic appeal was something closer to "a nerd that blows stuff up and goes on adventures" rather than "the hulk."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering I find low-levels of 1e doesn't give characters enough to define themselves, and normally start my games at level 4 at the lowest, I'm probably going to have to start my PF2e campaigns at level 8.
|
|
Most Alchemists who were melee went Vivisectionist, though. And archetypes still very much exist.
It's particularly notable that Erik Mona did an informal survey of what Archetypes were people's favorite from all the classes that are going to be in the corebook and Vivisectionist came in in the top 5...so I'd be legitimately shocked if the final book didn't have an archetype trading bomb stuff for melee stuff. Heck, given that there was a clear 'top 10' feel to the collating he did of that survey, I wouldn't even be surprised if it's one of the Archetypes in the playtest book (along with others from the Top 10).
For example, if we get one Archetype per class, plus maybe half a dozen generic ones (for less than 20 total) I'd be shocked if Vivisectionist wasn't the Alchemist one.
|
|
Considering I find low-levels of 1e doesn't give characters enough to define themselves, and normally start my games at level 4 at the lowest, I'm probably going to have to start my PF2e campaigns at level 8.
There's really basically no evidence that anyone but Alchemist (and maybe not even them, as I note above) is getting anything delayed like this. At all. Indeed, Rogue and Fighter seem to distinctly not be doing this...so I think all this panic about it is premature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience getting to high level play is actually more rare due to real life and the players/GM, than because of any balance issue PF1 might have.
Things just come up and people stop playing here and there eventually during long, long tables. One of the reasons APs take a miracle to finish.
It remains to be seen how this system will play out, since there is no proof it will actually be slower. Granted the high level stuff didnt seem super amazing until now, but that might not mean everyone is just worse, just that the numbers changed all around. If the games die often before you reach a decent character build often, well that is something to take into account also to me, while true it might not be a problem for paizo devs.
Most Alchemists who were melee went Vivisectionist, though. And archetypes still very much exist.
It's particularly notable that Erik Mona did an informal survey of what Archetypes were people's favorite from all the classes that are going to be in the corebook and Vivisectionist came in in the top 5...so I'd be legitimately shocked if the final book didn't have an archetype trading bomb stuff for melee stuff. Heck, given that there was a clear 'top 10' feel to the collating he did of that survey, I wouldn't even be surprised if it's one of the Archetypes in the playtest book (along with others from the Top 10).
For example, if we get one Archetype per class, plus maybe half a dozen generic ones (for less than 20 total) I'd be shocked if Vivisectionist wasn't the Alchemist one.
I've been posting like crazy since that collating because I felt like I was asleep at the wheel and didn't get counted. Of course, my ideas are all kind of crazy so I would have just added a tick on the Bard (Archaeologist), which was already the clear winner. I just love the archaeologist because it is so easy to provide a plot hook for, regardless of the Bard's alignment. Plus, it looks fun to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience getting to high level play is actually more rare due to real life and the players/GM, than because of any balance issue PF1 might have.
Things just come up and people stop playing here and there eventually during long, long tables. One of the reasons APs take a miracle to finish.
It remains to be seen how this system will play out, since there is no proof it will actually be slower. Granted the high level stuff didnt seem super amazing until now, but that might not mean everyone is just worse, just that the numbers changed all around. If the games die often before you reach a decent character build often, well that is something to take into account also to me, while true it might not be a problem for paizo devs.
I feel blessed to have been able to play with the same dude for 20 years. Others have come and gone, but one is enough to keep a campaign going. We did manage to get through three campaigns with pretty much the same group, two of which were Pathfinder. During those three campaigns we lost one of a married couple because of divorce and it seemed pointless for them to make up for the sake of the gaming group. :) That group of 5-then-4 was awesome for many years, though.
|
|
While I do generally agree, the Fighter and Rogue were already fairly modular classes and lack any truly class-defining abilities for them to 'push back' or remove.
Totally true!
However, given that we know that full casters get spells at 1st level (and Kyra certainly seemed to get Domains there as well in demo games), and Paladins actually get Lay on Hands at 1st instead of 2nd (something else we know from demo games)...what abilities even are there to get pushed back in Core Classes?
I mean, I guess Paladin might get Smite Evil or Divine Grace (assuming it still exists) slightly later, but I can't think of a single other Class or Concept defining ability that even can get pushed back too much. They could do this to Bard or Barbarian, I guess, but both really only have one defining Class Feature at 1st (Rage and Inspire Courage) and I doubt they're leaving them with none.
I am a little worried too about the push back of important class abilities some levels. Is not only the alchemist class; do not forget that the rogue Debilitating Strike goes from level 4 to 9. 5 levels are an eternity. Maybe is not a defining ability, but is a important one.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a little worried too about the push back of important class abilities some levels. Is not only the alchemist class; do not forget that the rogue Debilitating Strike goes from level 4 to 9. 5 levels are an eternity. Maybe is not a defining ability, but is a important one.
Debilitating Strike in PF1 was necessary because of the terrible to-hit bonus of Rogues (due to being only mid BAB with no other bonuses to hit). Adding it on top of a Class whose to-hit is probably within one point of the Fighter's is pretty certain to be overkill.
I'd also argue that, while cool, Debilitating Strike was never thematically necessary, only ever mechanically.
You are right on the BAB front and that the necesity was more mechanical that thematic. Is just that I'm bit worried that this can be a general trent. We do not know so many details of classes, and we already have some cases of that.
There's really basically no evidence that anyone but Alchemist (and maybe not even them, as I note above) is getting anything delayed like this. At all. Indeed, Rogue and Fighter seem to distinctly not be doing this...so I think all this panic about it is premature.
I was not trying to create a panic. I am in favor of characters having a wider development arc, and for lower levels to be more about exploring basic game mechanics and to introduce powers that change that dynamic over the course of time. I also agree that it is early for anyone to know exactly how the entire game is going to work, and all of this is just speculation.
With five ancestries in the blog, and no indication that anyone is going to get more than 2 ancestry feats at first level, it is pretty clear that ancestry has scaled back 1st level access to abilities. This was also pretty inevitable if they were going to try to make ancestry something that continues to develop, and be about the same level of character customization as race is in 1st edition pathfinder, it had to start lower, since race, with rare exceptions, was static after 1st level.
As far as class balance goes, in first edition, the paladin was always the more useful character to have in a party than a fighter. There is no 1st level feat that even comes close the the utility of smite evil. Yes it is only usable one time a day, and against specific kinds of enemies, but when you need a melee character that ignores DR in the early levels, it is almost always against a foe that could TPK the party if you don't have a character that can just flat out ignore DR. The limitations to smite were primarily role playing and campaign setting based, it was otherwise always a mechanically stronger power than +1 bonus feat, and it scales with level.
Between the Alchemist and the investigator, the Rogue was also pretty much blown out of the water in the first edition of Pathfinder. Even with the changes added by the unchained rogue, bot the Rogue and the Fighter were classes that needed a boost to get anywhere close to the power level of many other classes, so it is definitely premature to judge classes as a whole for having scaled back power access, although the alchemist preview has shown us that this is the case for at least this class.
The big unknown with classes, for me, is magic. It is the most powerful ability to gain access to in the game and it scales dramatically with level. Clerics, Druids, oracles, wizards, and Sorcerers got rather powerful additional first level scaling class abilities that stacked on to spell casting in ways that made it very difficult to compete with these classes at higher levels. I don't have a problem with the martial power balance scale being front loaded a little and the caster power balance scale being weighted towards the higher levels, but I do think balancing access to feats and proficiencies with access to the versatility of vancian spell casting is a real challenge and I am interested to see what the developers come up with to do this, but I acknowledge their work is cut out for them. Pathfinder magic is pretty awesome and magical. That is a good thing, but the difficulty of higher level pathfinder revolves mostly upon how good the spell casters are at maximizing what spells "solve" the challenges of an adventure without slogging through the dungeons. Attempts to balance this as a GM, always felt more like undermining your PCs than empowering them to think creatively and use the breadth of options their high level characters had.
I do believe that a lot of fairly serious changes are in store for PF2 and holding on to the idea that it is magically going to be a system where everything is exactly the same but better, is not going to be the best attitude to have when considering whether the new game is fun and enjoyable. For me, I'd rather have levels 12-20 (or even just 12-15) be more fun and playable, than be able to replicate the exact same game experience I get from playing levels 1 and 2 of the existing system. If I eventually get tired of exploring the mechanics of low level play in the new system, I want to know that higher level play is well balanced and fun, and something that I can explore as well. For the current edition, high level play has been more fun to think about than to actually play, because every character's turn could easily take 30+ minutes of looking up rules, bonus types, and other minutiae that create massive slogs and if either side enters into combat with an obvious advantage, then the other sides clearest tactical decision is to teleport away and let the other side's buffs all expire.
With five ancestries in the blog, and no indication that anyone is going to get more than 2 ancestry feats at first level, it is pretty clear that ancestry has scaled back 1st level access to abilities. This was also pretty inevitable if they were going to try to make ancestry something that continues to develop, and be about the same level of character customization as race is in 1st edition pathfinder, it had to start lower, since race, with rare exceptions, was static after 1st level.
We don't even know if we get two ancestry feats, or just one.
Besides, I was hoping to have stronger feats at higher levels. Like a dwarven 'One with the mountain' giving some nice DR, or outright immunity to poisons, something like that.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not sold on needing to start with no racial abilities to justify the ancestry feats. I was hoping for, well, exactly what they promised: higher level ancestry feats making you a dwarfier dwarf. Not just letting you evolve from a low level blob shaped like a dwarf, into an actual dwarf.
Still going to argue for /at least/ 2 ancestry feats at 1st level (one heritage feat and one culture feat), and preferably 3 (which can be either).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not sold on needing to start with no racial abilities to justify the ancestry feats. I was hoping for, well, exactly what they promised: higher level ancestry feats making you a dwarfier dwarf. Not just letting you evolve from a low level blob shaped like a dwarf, into an actual dwarf.
Still going to argue for /at least/ 2 ancestry feats at 1st level (one heritage feat and one culture feat), and preferably 3 (which can be either).
Yeah I also figured they'd be like the racial feats that already exist in PF1, such as Hard-Headed and Cleave-Through for Dwarves. Not that I would need to spend them on things like Stonecunning that they have always had for free.
The Dwarf that has native poison resistance and then takes a feat to double the bonus or allow double-save is cool, the one that doesn't even have poison-resistance at all is not even a full dwarf yet. So this system seems counter-producive unless they get A LOT of feats at chargen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not sold on needing to start with no racial abilities to justify the ancestry feats. I was hoping for, well, exactly what they promised: higher level ancestry feats making you a dwarfier dwarf. Not just letting you evolve from a low level blob shaped like a dwarf, into an actual dwarf.
Still going to argue for /at least/ 2 ancestry feats at 1st level (one heritage feat and one culture feat), and preferably 3 (which can be either).
Yeah I also figured they'd be like the racial feats that already exist in PF1, such as Hard-Headed and Cleave-Through for Dwarves. Not that I would need to spend them on things like Stonecunning that they have always had for free.
The Dwarf that has native poison resistance and then takes a feat to double the bonus or allow double-save is cool, the one that doesn't even have poison-resistance at all is not even a full dwarf yet. So this system seems counter-producive unless they get A LOT of feats at chargen.
Yeah, I always thought the PF1 racial feats were cool but it was usually impossible to justify them in the face of alternatives like Rapid Shot, Craft Wondrous Item, and so on. At least until higher levels after your build had come online. I thought the whole point of the ancestry feats being granted as a separate track on the level table was to finally allow people to take cool stuff like that.
But, it's possible they have been so cagey about how many ancestry feats you get because they haven't settled it internally yet. Kind of like how they have been so cagey about magic, which is clearly in Flux internally. So hopefully in watching the forums they see that we want to feel like our chosen ancestry from 1st levels, give us say two heritage and two culture feats at first level for a total of 4 (my actual ideal over 2 3 or 5, it's a nice balance), and then the higher level ancestry feat slots can be allowed to shine.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of starting with two ancestry feats. Different combinations of choices represent a little more diversity between individuals. Any more than two just starts to feel piled on, though. Your first feats should represent what impacted you most from your heritage.