The new unified class structure and its results


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

So the new basic class structure in PF 2 is 10 class feats, 10 skill feats, around 20 skill proficiency ranks plus whatever you get from intelligence, 5 general feats and 5 ancestry feats. Also plus level to basically everything for everyone.
Notable stuff:
Class feats have level requirements up to 20 and those of the highest level seem more powerful.
20+ skill ranks equals to at least 5 skills at legendary and this combined with skill feats means skills will play a heavier role in this edition at least regarding the pc's power level.

All this means that all classes start with a pretty potent basis, contrary to former editions where some classes had weak basic stats like the wizard and others strong like the ranger.
But it also means that all that left to differenciate them are their class features (and the 10 class feats, but everybody gets those in some sense).
Hence now full casters get fewer spells because they basically get everything everybody else does and non casters have to get more stuff because, apart from more hp, their unique class features have to compete with 9th level spellcasting.

I think I can see this working. What do you think?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Has a very homogenized appearance, which could result in a not so fun game. Wont have an opinion until I can really kick the tires.


First of all yeah, having an informed opinion right now is impossible. This more like fun speculation really.

Having said that I think in a weird way its homogenised nature allows for more pronounced or maybe meaningful? differences between classes.
Also class feats seem to be quite different between classes so maybe me mentioning that in the class structure is a bit of misleading.


I'm really hoping that classes actually do still get class features beyond first level, not merely feats. We haven't really seen any indication of that yet other than the rogue's extra skill feats. Even 20th level capstone abilities are feats. It at first seemed like mutagens were a 5th level Alchemist feature, but it turned out that they are just formulas which start showing up on their "spell list" at 5th level. Even the Fighter's early weapon Proficiency advancement seems like it would probably be defined at 1st level as part of a single ability like the gnome's obsession feat.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The paladin preview included several class features. Righteous Ally at third, for instance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure its class feature every odd level. Casters are known to get more spell slots and higher level spells every odd level as their defining feature and Just looking at the rogue blog sneak attack at lvl 1, debilitating strikes at lvl 9, and master strike at lvl 19 are all called out as rogue abilities not class feats.

In general I like this design. As long as class features and feats are different enough I don't see why this would homogenize the classes in play but it would homogenize the level up system which I think is good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe 11 class feats is the base. It’s first level and every even level.


The 4-tiers of success thing is the big one, but yeah, with the +Level (-2 to +3 for proficiency) to everything, there will be a treadmill deal, but again, the 4-tiers of success will really utilise the big numbers. They also went for high level characters not being challenged by 12 average guards, unlike 5th Ed. Looks like high level characters will be able to pull off some seriously epic stunts.

I am still a bit cranky about so many things being called a feat, but I suppose I just need to see it all in more context.


A rogue's Sneak Attack seems like a class feature. Also, Armor Proficiency separates classes somewhat. And they've made a number of references to Alchemists having INT apply to resonance as well as being able to craft alchemical items better (or faster or cheaper; I don't remember which). Domain powers (clerics) and attacks of opportunity (fighters) also seem class-specific.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
I'm really hoping that classes actually do still get class features beyond first level, not merely feats. We haven't really seen any indication of that yet other than the rogue's extra skill feats. Even 20th level capstone abilities are feats. It at first seemed like mutagens were a 5th level Alchemist feature, but it turned out that they are just formulas which start showing up on their "spell list" at 5th level. Even the Fighter's early weapon Proficiency advancement seems like it would probably be defined at 1st level as part of a single ability like the gnome's obsession feat.

For some classes, like Fighters and Rogues, extra feats are their class features, but I agree with you. If absolutely everything is a feat, we should just go all in and put up some generic classes with various subclasses that are 20 or so class feats and a designated spell/powers list. We'e nearly there as it is.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I wonder how this structure affects multiclassing so that it does not lag behind in power level while also not becoming the de facto Go To solution for minmaxer builds


It looks very homogenized, much in the way that all Starfinder characters feel homogenized.


Brother Fen wrote:
It looks very homogenized, much in the way that all Starfinder characters feel homogenized.

I'm really hoping it doesn't feel that way, one of my biggest beefs with 4th Ed.


The Raven Black wrote:
I wonder how this structure affects multiclassing so that it does not lag behind in power level while also not becoming the de facto Go To solution for minmaxer builds

Ugh, I really hope i'm wrong, but I got this feeling they are doing either 4E hybrids or VMC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm personally wondering why they don't just take the next logical step and have a classless system. They already call everything a feat, they might as well let you pick and choose between the classes (have prerequisites for powerful abilities, obviously).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playing the Playtest during Paizocon, I noticed that many of the classes (specifically the martials) had TWO class feats at level 1. So that bumps it up to 12 class feats for martials. (I'm sure the spell casters got some type of recompense or something)

I have to concur that every class will get class features every odd level. Then Class Feats every even level to add flavour.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
I'm personally wondering why they don't just take the next logical step and have a classless system. They already call everything a feat, they might as well let you pick and choose between the classes (have prerequisites for powerful abilities, obviously).

Classless systems are hard to balance for GMs and can be a lot more difficult for new players to pick up. I think even if the classes could be mixed and matched in such a way that they are essentially classless I think that is best reserved for the GM to prevent unexpected OP combos and so that players have some sort of guidelines.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Playing the Playtest during Paizocon, I noticed that many of the classes (specifically the martials) had TWO class feats at level 1. So that bumps it up to 12 class feats for martials. (I'm sure the spell casters got some type of recompense or something)

You mean like, I don't know, spells.


Personally, I don't mind the classes having a fairly uniform model of progression, but do rather wish the designers had reduced the number of moving parts (class features, feats, etc). Sadly, however, Paizo's current policy seems to be going in the opposite direction...


I like the idea of balancing the classes with 10 class feats, 10 skill feats, around 20 skill proficiency ranks. It makes sense than any hero would have an equitable amount of feats and skills.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone having class feats doesn't lead to everyone being the same unless everyone pulls from the same list. That is very explicitly not the case.

What we're avoiding is the PF1 problem of every Paladin being exactly the same because that class had no meaningful build choices.


thflame wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Playing the Playtest during Paizocon, I noticed that many of the classes (specifically the martials) had TWO class feats at level 1. So that bumps it up to 12 class feats for martials. (I'm sure the spell casters got some type of recompense or something)
You mean like, I don't know, spells.

ah constant armor, constant high hitpoints, and constant attacks = spells (limited yet powerful)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I do really like that everybody gets to make lots of choices as they advance now. A lot of my favorite classes in PF1 got to choose from lists every other (or even every) level, and it's not like we couldn't differentiate the Kineticist from the Vigilante (a choice at every level) or the Magus from the Rogue (a choice every other level), so I'm not worried about homogeneity really.

If anything, since the majority of one's feats come from their class, we might end up with a lot less homogeneity since you may not be able to build a huge number of classes around the same suite of archery feats.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
It looks very homogenized, much in the way that all Starfinder characters feel homogenized.

Having GMed a Starfinder game for 9 months now, I really disagree with "all Starfinder characters feeling homogenized." The Diplomats, mechanics, Operatives, Technomancers, etc. all play quite differently from one another, down to not only round-to-round tactics, but what they do tactically interacting with one another. Even between two characters of the same class, the way they approach problems is quite different (other than the most basic difference, such as two soldiers attacking something each round.)

Compare this to a Great Weapon Fighter and two-weapon fighter in PF1, who literally stand rooted to one spot and slug it out via a fistful of attack rolls each round until the enemy is dead, then move to the next one and begin again.

By contrast, in out group, the Envoy has been the difference between life and death multiple times with attack bonuses and Stamina regen; the Soldier has proven quite versatile, not just taking punishment to save others from doing so, but dealing shocking amounts of raw damage. All I can say is just watching each player take their turn, everything down to how many rolls they're making each round are different.

If we can get that level of variety from PF2 characters, the job is a success in my opinion.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do really like that everybody gets to make lots of choices as they advance now. A lot of my favorite classes in PF1 got to choose from lists every other (or even every) level, and it's not like we couldn't differentiate the Kineticist from the Vigilante (a choice at every level) or the Magus from the Rogue (a choice every other level), so I'm not worried about homogeneity really.

If anything, since the majority of one's feats come from their class, we might end up with a lot less homogeneity since you may not be able to build a huge number of classes around the same suite of archery feats.

Me too, I also like the way class feats seem to work. You make a lot of choices over your career, but due to level gating you pick from a list of 3-4 each time, which helps avoid the analysis paralysis of too many options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I think that the classes and individual builds shape up to be meaningfully different at equal level, I am a bit worried by how much of the overall character/monster power comes directly from the level rather than ability scores/wealth/build/etc. It works very well when the player surroundings are level-appropriate, but I fear it may break down when the wider world is taken into account - e.g. if a lvl20 rogue can beat a host of lvl10 palace guards in open combat (since she would be critically hitting most of the time and they would be critically failing), why would she even need to bother sneaking past them to steal the crown jewels instead of just waltzing in and taking them?

In PF1 such narrative-breaking power was mostly concentrated on full casters, but now it seems everyone will be capable of completely ignoring NPCs and taking over the world on high levels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
CyberMephit wrote:

While I think that the classes and individual builds shape up to be meaningfully different at equal level, I am a bit worried by how much of the overall character/monster power comes directly from the level rather than ability scores/wealth/build/etc. It works very well when the player surroundings are level-appropriate, but I fear it may break down when the wider world is taken into account - e.g. if a lvl20 rogue can beat a host of lvl10 palace guards in open combat (since she would be critically hitting most of the time and they would be critically failing), why would she even need to bother sneaking past them to steal the crown jewels instead of just waltzing in and taking them?

In PF1 such narrative-breaking power was mostly concentrated on full casters, but now it seems everyone will be capable of completely ignoring NPCs and taking over the world on high levels.

The only reason to "need to" would be to maintain anonymity. But really, this isn't a problem with the system design so much as it is a problem of taking on dramatically level-inappropriate challenges. If all the palace can muster to guard those crown jewels is a bunch of level 10 guards, then the value of those crown jewels is probably below the notice of the level 20 rogue. She's probably more interested in swiping the artifact of doom from the demon lord's vault, or something. The logical consistency of the universe goes both ways. You don't see many legendary art thieves breaking into childrens' piggy banks in real life either.


Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

There's definitely still room to have encounters that are intended to be level-inappropriate. Looking at my hardcover, I'd say that those guards are there to provide a warm-up for the more dangerous things to come and a cathartic moment of "remember when we used to have trouble with these guys?"

It might take a resource or two in either system. The primary difference I can see is that in PF2 it's a lot less likely to go horribly sideways with anything less than catastrophic dice failure.


CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.

Or worse yet, imagine if the castle is protected by an anti-magic field and one of those level 16 characters is a wizard. What stops him from going full shaolin monk with his quarterstaff?


CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.

That was in PF1 and we cant assume adventure writing will be the same for PF2. Im with you tho on high level characters laying to waste packs of low level foes not feeling right, but thats intended for PF2, unfortunately...


12 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.
Or worse yet, imagine if the castle is protected by an anti-magic field and one of those level 16 characters is a wizard. What stops him from going full shaolin monk with his quarterstaff?

"Extremely overleveled wizard smashes low level mooks with a weapon" is just Gandalf.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
thflame wrote:
CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.
Or worse yet, imagine if the castle is protected by an anti-magic field and one of those level 16 characters is a wizard. What stops him from going full shaolin monk with his quarterstaff?

Isn't that better than the nothing at all that wizard could do before? And, realistically, if one assumes those level 9 guards are at least experts in armor and have decent armor you're probably looking at an AC in the neighborhood of 26-30. If the wizard is just trained in using a staff and hasn't felt the need to invest in strength to this point (many wizards don't), then you're looking at just that +16 to hit. so he's got a pretty good chance to hit, if we're being generous on their AC, for a probably small amount of damage. Hardly going all monk on them.

And if the wizard had invested in better proficiency or strength then they've earned the right to actively help in the clobbering of cannon fodder, despite being in a disadvantageous environment. I don't understand why that's more of a problem than the wizard sitting around on his thumb instead.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.
Or worse yet, imagine if the castle is protected by an anti-magic field and one of those level 16 characters is a wizard. What stops him from going full shaolin monk with his quarterstaff?

If the GM is using a castle-wide anti-magic field, they might as well give the level 9 guards anti-quarterstaff fields. I'm not getting the point of the hypothetical here… is it bad that the Wizard can do something against horribly under-leveled opponents even if the GM takes away all his class features?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.
That was in PF1 and we cant assume adventure writing will be the same for PF2. Im with you tho on high level characters laying to waste packs of low level foes not feeling right, but thats intended for PF2, unfortunately...

I feel that high level PCs should be able to lay waste to packs of low level foes. But I like my Pathfinder more like Dynasty Warriors than Dark Souls and I know that isn't everyone's cup of tea.


Arachnofiend wrote:
thflame wrote:
CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.
Or worse yet, imagine if the castle is protected by an anti-magic field and one of those level 16 characters is a wizard. What stops him from going full shaolin monk with his quarterstaff?
"Extremely overleveled wizard smashes low level mooks with a weapon" is just Gandalf.

Read up on LotR lore. Gandalf is basically a Solar. He would be closer to a Gestalt sorcerer/fighter, if he was even human. I would expect a high level divine magical beast to be able to take on mid-tier guards.

Merlin would be more like a high level Pathfinder Wizard, and if he doesn't get his butt kicked in the above situation, I call hax.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And yet he does the most damage stabbing things and most of his observed magic is through items he picked up. Gandalf may be high-level, but a wizard he isn't.


QuidEst wrote:
thflame wrote:
CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.
Or worse yet, imagine if the castle is protected by an anti-magic field and one of those level 16 characters is a wizard. What stops him from going full shaolin monk with his quarterstaff?
If the GM is using a castle-wide anti-magic field, they might as well give the level 9 guards anti-quarterstaff fields. I'm not getting the point of the hypothetical here… is it bad that the Wizard can do something against horribly under-leveled opponents even if the GM takes away all his class features?

Yes. Yes it is.

First of all, these aren't "horribly under-leveled NPCs. These are the king's elite guards. If I was talking about a level 20 Wizard vs a level 1 town guard(or even a small group of them), then the wizard beats him with experience easily. An army of level 9 fighters with the best weapons and armor the king can afford should tear any full caster to shreds if they don't have access to their spells.

Next, the wizard's shtick is that he can cast reality bending spells that auto win half the time, and still be objectively better that anything martials can do the other half the time, then they can go sit in the corner when they run out of spells.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
thflame wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
thflame wrote:
CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.
Or worse yet, imagine if the castle is protected by an anti-magic field and one of those level 16 characters is a wizard. What stops him from going full shaolin monk with his quarterstaff?
If the GM is using a castle-wide anti-magic field, they might as well give the level 9 guards anti-quarterstaff fields. I'm not getting the point of the hypothetical here… is it bad that the Wizard can do something against horribly under-leveled opponents even if the GM takes away all his class features?

Yes. Yes it is.

First of all, these aren't "horribly under-leveled NPCs. These are the king's elite guards. If I was talking about a level 20 Wizard vs a level 1 town guard(or even a small group of them), then the wizard beats him with experience easily. An army of level 9 fighters with the best weapons and armor the king can afford should tear any full caster to shreds if they don't have access to their spells.

Next, the wizard's shtick is that he can cast reality bending spells that auto win half the time, and still be objectively better that anything martials can do the other half the time, then they can go sit in the corner when they run out of spells.

There is no reasonable interpretation that suggests that the wizard in an anti-magic field is going to be objectively better at combat that the martial characters. And while an army of level 9 fighters might be impressive at one stage in a campaign, they are decidedly not so impressive when the party is level 16 - King's elite guard or not. And even then, the wizard has to invest in fighting capabilities (presumably at the expense of spell casting capabilities) in order to be more than barely competent in this situation. A level 16 wizard is probably not going to solo a gaggle of level 9 fighters with just his staff unless that wizard was magus-like. Even if the eventual outcome is that the wizard (7 levels higher than any of the individual guards) inevitably wins, it's probably going to take a long time at 1 or 2 d6 of damage a round.

His floor has been raised from ::shrug:: to at least still being able to help finish this easy fight a round or two sooner, then start figuring out what (if anything) can be done to overcome the anti magic field.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Playing the Playtest during Paizocon, I noticed that many of the classes (specifically the martials) had TWO class feats at level 1. So that bumps it up to 12 class feats for martials. (I'm sure the spell casters got some type of recompense or something)

I have to concur that every class will get class features every odd level. Then Class Feats every even level to add flavour.

For the record, I suspect this is due to extraneous variables (specifically, I bet it's Merisiel's 'Forlorn' Ancestry Feat giving a bonus Class Feat and some other people using a Human Ancestry Feat to do the same).

.
.
.
On the subject of level 9 Fighters vs. a level 20 Wizard, both without magic or magic items, let's examine what that looks like:

The Fighters will likely have Str 19, Dex 14, Con 14 (maybe a bit more Dex or Con), Chainmail for about +4 AC, and have Master in their weapon, a Master Quality weapon, and likely Expert in their armor. They have a +17 to hit for 1dX+4 damage, and an AC of 26. He has 116 HP (or so).

A 20th level Wizard, meanwhile, has Str 10, Dex 18, Con 18 in all likelihood. He has Trained in staff and in unarmored defense. He will have a +20 to hit for 1dX damage, an AC of 34 and 208 HP.

I'm pretty sure he can take one 9th level Fighter. He may, with luck, even beat up two of them. I'm pretty sure three or more can take him. So saying he can take 'armies' of them is deeply unlikely. He probably can't even take the number of king's guards in the throne room. Heck, if the guard has a shield, he can probably beat the Wizard one on one, simply because the Wizard can't hurt him at all.

If you make it a 10th level Fighter vs. a 17th level Wizard, the Fighter goes up to +19 to hit vs. an AC of 31 and the Wizard is attacking at +17 vs. AC 28. At that point it's almost a fair fight and two Fighters will definitely take out the Wizard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
CyberMephit wrote:
Well admittedly it's a made-up example to stretch the system, but for example in CoCT castle Korvosa is guarded by lvl 9 guards when the PCs are recommended to be lvl 16. So similar fights do happen. I have no issues with the legendary rogue sneaking past them unseen or picking them off from the shadows like Batman, but it would feel strange if she is able to easily beat them on their own terms.
That was in PF1 and we cant assume adventure writing will be the same for PF2. Im with you tho on high level characters laying to waste packs of low level foes not feeling right, but thats intended for PF2, unfortunately...

Or fortunately - depending on your perspective! I want level 20 guys to lay waste to low level mooks. I want to feel like I'm actually getting somewhere when I level.

If I want low level foes to still be a threat 8 levels after they really should - I'm going to play another system that caters to that. PF2 needs to hold on to a PF1 feel and this is part of it.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Playing the Playtest during Paizocon, I noticed that many of the classes (specifically the martials) had TWO class feats at level 1. So that bumps it up to 12 class feats for martials. (I'm sure the spell casters got some type of recompense or something)

I have to concur that every class will get class features every odd level. Then Class Feats every even level to add flavour.

For the record, I suspect this is due to extraneous variables (specifically, I bet it's Merisiel's 'Forlorn' Ancestry Feat giving a bonus Class Feat and some other people using a Human Ancestry Feat to do the same).

Nah, man. I'm talking about Fumbus, Seelah, and Merisiel all having two class feats. In fact, I know that Seelah had 4 feats in total. One human, one from her background called Pickpocket, then two Paladin Class feats. Which I'm pretty sure she could not obtain a class feat through Ancestry feats...

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Playing the Playtest during Paizocon, I noticed that many of the classes (specifically the martials) had TWO class feats at level 1. So that bumps it up to 12 class feats for martials. (I'm sure the spell casters got some type of recompense or something)

I have to concur that every class will get class features every odd level. Then Class Feats every even level to add flavour.

For the record, I suspect this is due to extraneous variables (specifically, I bet it's Merisiel's 'Forlorn' Ancestry Feat giving a bonus Class Feat and some other people using a Human Ancestry Feat to do the same).
Nah, man. I'm talking about Fumbus, Seelah, and Merisiel all having two class feats. In fact, I know that Seelah had 4 feats in total. One human, one from her background called Pickpocket, then two Paladin Class feats. Which I'm pretty sure she could not obtain a class feat through Ancestry feats...

I can only remember the one that increased her lay on hands. What was the other class feat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Playing the Playtest during Paizocon, I noticed that many of the classes (specifically the martials) had TWO class feats at level 1. So that bumps it up to 12 class feats for martials. (I'm sure the spell casters got some type of recompense or something)

I have to concur that every class will get class features every odd level. Then Class Feats every even level to add flavour.

For the record, I suspect this is due to extraneous variables (specifically, I bet it's Merisiel's 'Forlorn' Ancestry Feat giving a bonus Class Feat and some other people using a Human Ancestry Feat to do the same).
Nah, man. I'm talking about Fumbus, Seelah, and Merisiel all having two class feats. In fact, I know that Seelah had 4 feats in total. One human, one from her background called Pickpocket, then two Paladin Class feats. Which I'm pretty sure she could not obtain a class feat through Ancestry feats...
I can only remember the one that increased her lay on hands. What was the other class feat?

Warded Touch- Simplified her Lay on Hands, so that it wasn't a manipulate action anymore. Thereby allowing her to Lay on Hands with a Heavy Steel Shield!!

(My heart went pitter-patter when I found this feat, I've been dreaming about a sword and board Pal for a while... sigh...)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Setting aside the actual math of the wizard vs king's guard scenario that shows it is overblown, especially considering Deadmanwalking's scenario assumes no magical weapons and doesn't touch on the Fighters having a bunch of feats devoted to fighting... Were people cool with the high level wizard getting stabbed by these guys a whole lot before dropping? Because that's what hit points scaling meant in the old game. Even if you use the stamina/plot armor/luck as HP scaling, your wizard is basically dodging his way through a blade storm.

+Level to stuff just seems to be bringing other parts of the character in line with this.

Crayon wrote:
Personally, I don't mind the classes having a fairly uniform model of progression, but do rather wish the designers had reduced the number of moving parts (class features, feats, etc). Sadly, however, Paizo's current policy seems to be going in the opposite direction...

For the life of me, I don't know what you mean here. If you by number of moving parts you mean different kinds of moving parts, then they absolutely have reduced it. Rage powers/ki points/rogue talents/exploits/discoveries/slayer talents/investigator talents/mercies/etc will all now just be class feats. Also, you list class features, but they don't seem to qualify as moving parts since they remain constant. Different limited usage abilities seem to all be moving under the spell point umbrella. Skills have also been consolidated.

If you mean the pool of choices at a given level, that seems substantially reduced as well. You get lots of feats, but they are always broken up into distinct buckets which seem easier to parse. You aren't bothering to look at Ancestry or General feats for 4 out of every 5 levels, for example.

If you just mean the sheer number of choices... Maybe? Compared to a no-archetype character of certain classes in PF1, I guess so. Bards maybe. But it generally feels like a lateral move. Even without getting into stuff like the vigilante, even classes like the rogue, fighter, or barbarian had you making a feat equivalent choice every level in addition to class features. Clerics will have more choices for feats, but less low level spell slots they need to fill. Ancestry feats seem simpler than alternate racial traits, if only because they are spread over the course of the character's life. We don't have traits anymore, and probably no favored class bonus. Skill Feats and Skill Improvements are slightly more distinct than just Skill Ranks, but it looks like you will get a lot less of those combined than you got for skill ranks over the course of the character's life.

The only way I think you can support this statement is if you mean "number of moving parts which meaningful build impacts." Because a lot of the PF1 moving parts were pretty marginal, and the goal for PF2 seems to be making it so your choices matter more. I get more for improving my proficiency in a skill than I do for putting a PF1 rank into it.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
Setting aside the actual math of the wizard vs king's guard scenario that shows it is overblown, especially considering Deadmanwalking's scenario assumes no magical weapons and doesn't touch on the Fighters having a bunch of feats devoted to fighting...

Well, magic weapons presumably don't work in an anti-magic field (which was the scenario). As for Feats, yeah, those'd definitely help but I couldn't add too many just because we only know a couple.

Besides, I think I proved my point. :)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Setting aside the actual math of the wizard vs king's guard scenario that shows it is overblown, especially considering Deadmanwalking's scenario assumes no magical weapons and doesn't touch on the Fighters having a bunch of feats devoted to fighting...

Well, magic weapons presumably don't work in an anti-magic field (which was the scenario). As for Feats, yeah, those'd definitely help but I couldn't add too many just because we only know a couple.

Besides, I think I proved my point. :)

Doh! Yeah, good point on the magic items. My point was just that you were being pretty generous even with that... and level already made a wizard weirdly physically tough in PF1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am absolutely in favor of Wizards being somewhat capable of hitting someone with a stick. Based on the numbers I've seen, they're just about exactly where I'd expect them to be.

Levels have always meant more than simply getting better at your job. As Captain Morgan mentioned, increasing HP alone indicates this. You're tougher, luckier, more cunning, more experienced, more capable to such a degree that the people who ask you for help go from barkeeps to kings to gods.

A high level wizard being able to school a fighter half their level without magic is essentially required.

Furthermore, I've always disliked games where the basic attack disappears after the first level. If you have a big stick, once in a while it should be reasonable to expect you could clock someone with it.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do really like that everybody gets to make lots of choices as they advance now. A lot of my favorite classes in PF1 got to choose from lists every other (or even every) level, and it's not like we couldn't differentiate the Kineticist from the Vigilante (a choice at every level) or the Magus from the Rogue (a choice every other level), so I'm not worried about homogeneity really.

If anything, since the majority of one's feats come from their class, we might end up with a lot less homogeneity since you may not be able to build a huge number of classes around the same suite of archery feats.

I can only disagree on this point. Adding new mechanical gimmicks every level is, at best, boring and tend to result in players being saddled with abilities they don't want, can't use, or are thematically inappropriate to their character.

More concerning to me, is that the modular approach seems diametrically opposed to Paizo's stated design objectives of making the game easier to learn and play - which to me at least, would point towards an exception-based system.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
I can only disagree on this point. Adding new mechanical gimmicks every level is, at best, boring and tend to result in players being saddled with abilities they don't want, can't use, or are thematically inappropriate to their character.

That's only true if you add the same kind of mechanical addition every level. Adding varying kinds (which is what PF2 does) keeps it much more fresh.

Crayon wrote:
More concerning to me, is that the modular approach seems diametrically opposed to Paizo's stated design objectives of making the game easier to learn and play - which to me at least, would point towards an exception-based system.

Why would it be diametrically opposed? They've cleaned up and simplified basically all the base mechanics. That means they can make a much more expansive list of individual Feats (or more accurately, several different lists of Feats, each shorter than the weird grab-bag that was PF1 Feats) and the game remains easier to learn and play anyway, since all the complexity is back loaded into Feats.

Hardcore optimizers will need to learn just as much to properly make the Mechanically Best Character (tm) since they need to learn every Feat. But if you want to play an Elf Ranger your list of options is suddenly very finite indeed and even a casual gamer can probably achieve a good understanding of how that particular combination works pretty readily since they need to learn only a tiny subset of the rules, for the most part.

I mean, at 1st level you need to look over less than 20 Feats (probably more like 15), and that expands at a relatively reasonable rate.

1 to 50 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / The new unified class structure and its results All Messageboards