Feats - the new Level?


Prerelease Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the AD&D 1e DMG, there's a paragraph or two that discuss the different ways "level" is used in the game - at the time, you had character level, dungeon level, spell level, and monster level. It basically said "We could have used different terms for these, such as character rank, spell power, dungeon level, and monster tier. But we didn't, so learn to live with it."

I think "feat" is running a very real risk of becoming the new "level" - a term used for numerous things that are sort of related but not interchangeable. In PF2, it seems we will have general feats, ancestry feats, skill feats, class feats, and possibly something I'm missing. It is my understanding that these are all siloed from one another - you get X general feats, Y ancestry feats, Z class feats, and so on, with no interchangeability between them (though I would not be surprised to see a general feat letting you take a feat of another kind, similar to the way PF1 has a bunch of feats like Extra Talent, Extra Revelation, and so on).

While the ship has already sailed regarding the playtest version, I think it would be nice if the different types of feats used different nomenclature - e.g. general feats, ancestral traditions, class talents, and skill tricks. I think this would reduce the confusion that currently seems to surround the concept, plus it would reduce the sense that many seem to have that "everything nifty is a feat now." That may be technically true (well, either a feat or a spell), but using different nomenclature makes them feel different.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Isn't that exactly what the whole 'feat' thing was planned to stop? If asked what a feat is, I can just say "a build choice for what your character can do", and then the prefix defines what type of build choice that is, ie. skill, general, class. If you have it separated like that, then you have a bunch of things that are all similar, but have different names.

This really isn't the same as level vs spell level, as those two really have no correlation, nor does dungeon level. (Again, I'm going to suggest spell tier for 2E, but that's a different topic.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally feel like making them different terms would lead to more confusion, rather than less. The different things with level can be confusing especially to new people, simply because they refer to things that don't really align with one another. With feats, all feats are basically the same concept, but are designated into different groups by what they pertain to. I think it will be easy to understand "Ok, I get a Skill feat at this level, so let's look at the skill feats I can choose from" and have that carry over to "Ok, I get a class feat at this level, let's look at the class feats I can choose from." If you start naming them different things, I don't think it would be too confusing, but definitely more hectic to remember what they're all called, and it doesn't really add anything to the game.

Sovereign Court

1 person 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

“Are the class options called talents or are those the skill options?”

Using feats for all the ability choices you make when you level makes sense.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
In the AD&D 1e DMG, there's a paragraph or two that discuss the different ways "level" is used in the game - at the time, you had character level, dungeon level, spell level, and monster level. It basically said "We could have used different terms for these, such as character rank, spell power, dungeon level, and monster tier. But we didn't, so learn to live with it."

Nitpick: It was the AD&D 1e Players Handbook. Although it might also be in the DMG; I don't have it on hand to check.

Players Handbook wrote:
It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

General feats vs class feats vs skill feats vs ancestry feats is less like dungeon level vs character level vs spell level and more like wizard spells vs cleric spells vs druid spells. Should PF1 have had wizard spells, cleric prayers, and druid... doodles instead?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

While I'm fine with feats for everything, one name I do think would benefit from being changed is for Spell Point powers to be called, well, Powers. Ki Strike being a spell is weird.

You can have a flat rule saying:

"Powers, such as are granted by abilities which consume Spell Power Points, are magic spells for all purposes under the rules, including casting actions and interaction with effects such as Dispel Magic. However, powers cannot be cast with spell slots nor can spells be cast with Spell Power Points, except as specifically allowed by a feat or ability that says otherwise, such as the cleric's Channel Energy class ability."


Fuzzypaws wrote:

While I'm fine with feats for everything, one name I do think would benefit from being changed is for Spell Point powers to be called, well, Powers. Ki Strike being a spell is weird.

You can have a flat rule saying:

"Powers, such as are granted by abilities which consume Spell Power Points, are magic spells for all purposes under the rules, including casting actions and interaction with effects such as Dispel Magic. However, powers cannot be cast with spell slots nor can spells be cast with Spell Power Points, except as specifically allowed by a feat or ability that says otherwise, such as the cleric's Channel Energy class ability."

Agreed, but just a nitpick, the Cleric's Channel ability isn't based on spell points. It allows you to cast Heal/Harm 3+Cha times per day, without spending a spell slot. It's Domains that use Spell points for the cleric. So not even Clerics, as far as we've seen, spend spell points on existing spells.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

While I'm fine with feats for everything, one name I do think would benefit from being changed is for Spell Point powers to be called, well, Powers. Ki Strike being a spell is weird.

You can have a flat rule saying:

"Powers, such as are granted by abilities which consume Spell Power Points, are magic spells for all purposes under the rules, including casting actions and interaction with effects such as Dispel Magic. However, powers cannot be cast with spell slots nor can spells be cast with Spell Power Points, except as specifically allowed by a feat or ability that says otherwise, such as the cleric's Channel Energy class ability."

I was going to make some snark about "should powers have their own section of the book distinct from spells, even though..." (insert minitirade about how they're basically the same thing except for how you cast them), but I realize I feel mighty stupid if Powers turned out to have their own chapter after all, so I'll not. Although if they do, cantrips should too.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

While I'm fine with feats for everything, one name I do think would benefit from being changed is for Spell Point powers to be called, well, Powers. Ki Strike being a spell is weird.

You can have a flat rule saying:

"Powers, such as are granted by abilities which consume Spell Power Points, are magic spells for all purposes under the rules, including casting actions and interaction with effects such as Dispel Magic. However, powers cannot be cast with spell slots nor can spells be cast with Spell Power Points, except as specifically allowed by a feat or ability that says otherwise, such as the cleric's Channel Energy class ability."

I was going to make some snark about "should powers have their own section of the book distinct from spells, even though..." (insert minitirade about how they're basically the same thing except for how you cast them), but I realize I feel mighty stupid if Powers turned out to have their own chapter after all, so I'll not. Although if they do, cantrips should too.

For cantrips, I don't know about their own chapter, but I would appreciate if they were exempt from the alphabetization of spells. So still in the spells chapter, but not mixed in with other spells.

As for powers, I suspect that we'll see most be tied to only one feat or feature that grants them, so I don't see the purpose in separating them from the feat or feature that grants it, in layout.


Tholomyes wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

While I'm fine with feats for everything, one name I do think would benefit from being changed is for Spell Point powers to be called, well, Powers. Ki Strike being a spell is weird.

You can have a flat rule saying:

"Powers, such as are granted by abilities which consume Spell Power Points, are magic spells for all purposes under the rules, including casting actions and interaction with effects such as Dispel Magic. However, powers cannot be cast with spell slots nor can spells be cast with Spell Power Points, except as specifically allowed by a feat or ability that says otherwise, such as the cleric's Channel Energy class ability."

Agreed, but just a nitpick, the Cleric's Channel ability isn't based on spell points. It allows you to cast Heal/Harm 3+Cha times per day, without spending a spell slot. It's Domains that use Spell points for the cleric. So not even Clerics, as far as we've seen, spend spell points on existing spells.

Ugh, I forgot that they made Channel its own weird thing. Why would you introduce this awesome new universal Spell Power Point system and then immediately undercut it with an exception-based ability XD


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

While I'm fine with feats for everything, one name I do think would benefit from being changed is for Spell Point powers to be called, well, Powers. Ki Strike being a spell is weird.

You can have a flat rule saying:

"Powers, such as are granted by abilities which consume Spell Power Points, are magic spells for all purposes under the rules, including casting actions and interaction with effects such as Dispel Magic. However, powers cannot be cast with spell slots nor can spells be cast with Spell Power Points, except as specifically allowed by a feat or ability that says otherwise, such as the cleric's Channel Energy class ability."

Agreed, but just a nitpick, the Cleric's Channel ability isn't based on spell points. It allows you to cast Heal/Harm 3+Cha times per day, without spending a spell slot. It's Domains that use Spell points for the cleric. So not even Clerics, as far as we've seen, spend spell points on existing spells.
Ugh, I forgot that they made Channel its own weird thing. Why would you introduce this awesome new universal Spell Power Point system and then immediately undercut it with an exception-based ability XD

Yeah, that sort of bugged me. It's like they Ctr-F'ed domains and school specialization abilities, ect, and then forgot about channeling, and made it it's own thing. I understand the logic that you want clerics not to have to devote to healing, which might happen if their neat other abilities competed with keeping the party alive, but I feel like there's a better way to do it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tholomyes wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

While I'm fine with feats for everything, one name I do think would benefit from being changed is for Spell Point powers to be called, well, Powers. Ki Strike being a spell is weird.

You can have a flat rule saying:

"Powers, such as are granted by abilities which consume Spell Power Points, are magic spells for all purposes under the rules, including casting actions and interaction with effects such as Dispel Magic. However, powers cannot be cast with spell slots nor can spells be cast with Spell Power Points, except as specifically allowed by a feat or ability that says otherwise, such as the cleric's Channel Energy class ability."

I was going to make some snark about "should powers have their own section of the book distinct from spells, even though..." (insert minitirade about how they're basically the same thing except for how you cast them), but I realize I feel mighty stupid if Powers turned out to have their own chapter after all, so I'll not. Although if they do, cantrips should too.

For cantrips, I don't know about their own chapter, but I would appreciate if they were exempt from the alphabetization of spells. So still in the spells chapter, but not mixed in with other spells.

As for powers, I suspect that we'll see most be tied to only one feat or feature that grants them, so I don't see the purpose in separating them from the feat or feature that grants it, in layout.

I certainly hope they aren't that restricted. Quoting myself because why repeat myself?

AnimatedPaper wrote:

For example, take the "Artistic flourish" power in the domain blog. Totally appropriate for creation domain, but also for creation school wizards, metal oracles, basically anyone that would have creation in their portfolio. But it could also be given to a rogue or bard archetype that focus on running cons or counterfeiting goods. Having the ability to pull a "priceless artifact" out of nowhere to sell or having the right clothing to enter any event would be pretty handy for them, and it has a totally different flavor than the domain power while not needing to change a word of the power itself.

There's a couple other ablities I can see applying to multiple classes, like a claws power or fire bolt power, that it might save space if the class feat said "you get access to this power" and the power is listed elsewhere. That said, I can also see the same thing happening for class feats themselves, so perhaps not.


I don't really follow the concern, since Feats in PF1 already had a lot of different categories: combat feats, crafting feats, style feats, metamagic feats, weapon mastery feats, etc.

If something granted a feat in a given category all we had to do was consult the appropriate list, and if we wanted to see if a feat fit in a specific category all we had to do was check to see if the feat had the appropriate tag.

So I'm not really clear on what has changed except "one makes feat choices more often." I mean, the last edition of Pathfinder maintained a distinction between "an attack action" and "a standard action used to attack" so I think we can tell the difference between a skill feat and a rogue feat and an elf feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They don't want to make it too easy to lose Channel healing completely, they want reliable party healing baseline.
I think better approach is to simply add "bonus Spell Points only usable for Channel Powers".
That allows mechanical alignment, and reasonable trade-off in Domain Power/Channel usage, while 'protecting' baseline of Channel healing.
(OFC it is also for Channel Harm, but the Healing function is what IMHO is driving it's special treatment)
Channel Feats could add to "Channel-only Points", while Power Feats otherwise add to generic Point pool. (also Channel usable)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think it's more they wanted clerics to have a reason to invest in Cha beyond resonance, as spell points would have been based on Wis.

Depending on how multiclassing works, keeping Channeling separate but alongside might have had implications.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They actually specifically noted why the separated Channel off:

Domain and other Spell Point powers are not as good as your highest level spells (though they'll almost certainly scale to remain relevant and better than cantrips).

Channel Energy Heal spells are as good as your highest level spells. Indeed, that's what they are: Heal spells of your highest level.

Therefore, having them be part of the same pool has all the same issues you'd expect having a pool to have if it let you cast either a 6th level spell or a 4th level spell. In short, the lower level spell will seldom be cast, and people will get annoyed at you for 'wasting' points if you do cast it.

They didn't want those things to happen to Spell Point/Domain stuff.


Quandary wrote:
(OFC it is also for Channel Harm, but the Healing function is what IMHO is driving it's special treatment)

Not to derail or anything but do we know how Harm works? Like, is it just a case reversed version of Heal, or will it probably be something else?

The mental image of bap-bap-bap pew pew pew clerics is amusing, yet makes the prospect of being in a locked room with one terrifying.


Elleth wrote:
Quandary wrote:
(OFC it is also for Channel Harm, but the Healing function is what IMHO is driving it's special treatment)

Not to derail or anything but do we know how Harm works? Like, is it just a case reversed version of Heal, or will it probably be something else?

The mental image of bap-bap-bap pew pew pew clerics is amusing, yet makes the prospect of being in a locked room with one terrifying.

They have been oddly silent on what Harm does. I've been tempering my expectations that it will be basically the hurting undead version of Heal-- which is to say, scaling slower than the actual Healing. But there is part of me that is optimistic it will be a little better, because I always found found inflict wounds so suboptimal before.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Quandary wrote:
(OFC it is also for Channel Harm, but the Healing function is what IMHO is driving it's special treatment)

Not to derail or anything but do we know how Harm works? Like, is it just a case reversed version of Heal, or will it probably be something else?

The mental image of bap-bap-bap pew pew pew clerics is amusing, yet makes the prospect of being in a locked room with one terrifying.

They have been oddly silent on what Harm does. I've been tempering my expectations that it will be basically the hurting undead version of Heal-- which is to say, scaling slower than the actual Healing. But there is part of me that is optimistic it will be a little better, because I always found found inflict wounds so suboptimal before.

I mean even if that, it maxes out at a 9d8 + 6 damage touch attack for one action right? Ignoring any sort of shenanigans we don't know yet. So like 127.5 damage if you nova, which is possibly a reasonable chunk of health damage for something that doesn't compete with your other resources. Bap-bap-bap.

Harm specific metamagics can probably up it a bit too (though they might request specific actions.


Also, not that this will be necessarily taken into account, but they have suggested that negative energy isn't supposed to fuel the shambling abominations that are the undead, rather being hijacked for that from its initial wholesome purpose of like, devouring reality or something. So like, if you want some reason to be optimistic I guess there is some lore precedent at least.

Also, to get back to the main subject a little, I'm personally happy with everything being called a feat. But I'm coming from 5e so I already assume a "feat" is "a nifty little module you slot in to do fun stuff" and on top of that I quite like everything feeling standardised so I can homebrew easier (one of my big issues in 5e was how frustratingly opaque certain balance decisions were, like with classes), but I guess I can see the frustration. It's possibly a relic of the devs streamlining how they actually think about the game working, and so if it's to be renamed it might not have super high priority in the playtest anyways (ship sailed or not). Also IIRC there actually is some transferability between feat types (it has been a while but I think humans are said to be able to general feat as a ancestry feat, and in some cases general feats can be pumped into certain skill related things, though I can't recall if they're skill-feats or not).


Feat burnout was already a thing in pathfinder 1e, although not as much as class burnout (which i admittedly didn't have), so we'll have to see if it becomes overwhelming in 2e. For me personally it comes down to seeing the same thing over and over again, after some splat books filled with more and more feats, I know I'm going to say no more feats anything else but another feat.

But, others seem to be fine with it so who knows maybe paizo's crew is on to something.


Elleth wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Quandary wrote:
(OFC it is also for Channel Harm, but the Healing function is what IMHO is driving it's special treatment)

Not to derail or anything but do we know how Harm works? Like, is it just a case reversed version of Heal, or will it probably be something else?

The mental image of bap-bap-bap pew pew pew clerics is amusing, yet makes the prospect of being in a locked room with one terrifying.

They have been oddly silent on what Harm does. I've been tempering my expectations that it will be basically the hurting undead version of Heal-- which is to say, scaling slower than the actual Healing. But there is part of me that is optimistic it will be a little better, because I always found found inflict wounds so suboptimal before.

I mean even if that, it maxes out at a 9d8 + 6 damage touch attack for one action right? Ignoring any sort of shenanigans we don't know yet. So like 127.5 damage if you nova, which is possibly a reasonable chunk of health damage for something that doesn't compete with your other resources. Bap-bap-bap.

Harm specific metamagics can probably up it a bit too (though they might request specific actions.

Triple attacking with it would accrue penalties though, and I'm not sure if holding the charge is a thing in 2e or not.

But if you slay a touch target with the first harm, you can use 2 actions to blast a ranged target with no penalty.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Quandary wrote:
(OFC it is also for Channel Harm, but the Healing function is what IMHO is driving it's special treatment)

Not to derail or anything but do we know how Harm works? Like, is it just a case reversed version of Heal, or will it probably be something else?

The mental image of bap-bap-bap pew pew pew clerics is amusing, yet makes the prospect of being in a locked room with one terrifying.

They have been oddly silent on what Harm does. I've been tempering my expectations that it will be basically the hurting undead version of Heal-- which is to say, scaling slower than the actual Healing. But there is part of me that is optimistic it will be a little better, because I always found found inflict wounds so suboptimal before.

I mean even if that, it maxes out at a 9d8 + 6 damage touch attack for one action right? Ignoring any sort of shenanigans we don't know yet. So like 127.5 damage if you nova, which is possibly a reasonable chunk of health damage for something that doesn't compete with your other resources. Bap-bap-bap.

Harm specific metamagics can probably up it a bit too (though they might request specific actions.

Triple attacking with it would accrue penalties though, and I'm not sure if holding the charge is a thing in 2e or not.

But if you slay a touch target with the first harm, you can use 2 actions to blast a ranged target with no penalty.

Oh yeah, thanks! I completely forgot.

Dark Archive

As I see it, "Feat" just means "selectable option".

Maybe we should take it further:

"Clerics get the 'Basic Domain' Feat at first level."

Basic Domain CLERIC 1
Choose a domain represented by your deity. You gain the Initial power from that domain.
Special: You may take this feat up to three times. Each time you take it, choose a different domain.

"Clerics get a 'Channelling' feat at first level."

Channel Positive Energy CHANNELLING 1
You may cast heal 3+cha mod times per day, as a spell of the highest level you can cast.

"Clerics receive one 'Deity' feat at first level."

Deity: Shelyn DEITY 1
....


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:
Feat burnout was already a thing in pathfinder 1e

For me, the whole "feat burnout" thing was mostly an issue of having the feat categories much too large to wrap your head around. Like the new player companion has a Dwarf Bard archetype (wis-based!) which trades Inspire Courage for "you can give your allies some of your combat feats" so I go "great, what are some good generally applicable combat feats" and pull up the list of "combat feats" and my eyes glaze over before we get through 'b' in the alphabet.

By making the lists much smaller: e.g. "Fighter Feats" or "Acrobatics (Skill) Feats" or "Dwarf Feats" it's going to be easier to get through the whole list. Since if you're building an acrobatic dwarf fighter you don't care about wizard feats or elf feats.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Phantasmist wrote:
Feat burnout was already a thing in pathfinder 1e

For me, the whole "feat burnout" thing was mostly an issue of having the feat categories much too large to wrap your head around. Like the new player companion has a Dwarf Bard archetype (wis-based!) which trades Inspire Courage for "you can give your allies some of your combat feats" so I go "great, what are some good generally applicable combat feats" and pull up the list of "combat feats" and my eyes glaze over before we get through 'b' in the alphabet.

By making the lists much smaller: e.g. "Fighter Feats" or "Acrobatics (Skill) Feats" or "Dwarf Feats" it's going to be easier to get through the whole list. Since if you're building an acrobatic dwarf fighter you don't care about wizard feats or elf feats.

This has been my thought as well. Even once PF2 has the same number of feats as PF1, just the fact that it will be broken into like 100 smaller lists by ancestry / class / skill instead of 5 giant lists will make it infinitely more manageable, and easier to look for the relevant thing that you are searching for.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, the only differentiation I want is that anything restricted to one class only (and/or perhaps one ancestry only) is to be a "talent" and everything else that multiple kinds of PCs could have is a feat. Very Restricted=talent; everything else=feat.

I always indeed felt that a 1e feat restricted to a class shouldn't be a feat, it should have been something folded into a class option, because it's frustrating to read through a big list of feats and realize you can only be a fighter or monk or whatever to take the feat. To me a feat is an option most people have if they want it, and it makes it easier to explain to new players what the difference is.

I also like "talent" from d20 Modern days, and while the system had many issues, the class talent system was not one of them and made the classes and their particular abilities easy to teach. You could use a word other than talent, but that's where I'm pulling it from.

I do agree if we start differentiating everything it gets silly, but I think making all the option terms the same is too much the other extreme. There is a happy medium.

I'll report back when the playtest comes out on how my players feel on it as well.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
DeathQuaker wrote:

Personally, the only differentiation I want is that anything restricted to one class only (and/or perhaps one ancestry only) is to be a "talent" and everything else that multiple kinds of PCs could have is a feat. Very Restricted=talent; everything else=feat.

I always indeed felt that a 1e feat restricted to a class shouldn't be a feat, it should have been something folded into a class option, because it's frustrating to read through a big list of feats and realize you can only be a fighter or monk or whatever to take the feat. To me a feat is an option most people have if they want it, and it makes it easier to explain to new players what the difference is.

I also like "talent" from d20 Modern days, and while the system had many issues, the class talent system was not one of them and made the classes and their particular abilities easy to teach. You could use a word other than talent, but that's where I'm pulling it from.

I do agree if we start differentiating everything it gets silly, but I think making all the option terms the same is too much the other extreme. There is a happy medium.

I'll report back when the playtest comes out on how my players feel on it as well.

Thats what the Class or Archetype preface to Feat signifies. All changing them to talents means is you have to write out a section describing Talents and whenever you previously could reference feats in a rules manner you have to say feats and talents.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Malk_Content wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:

Personally, the only differentiation I want is that anything restricted to one class only (and/or perhaps one ancestry only) is to be a "talent" and everything else that multiple kinds of PCs could have is a feat. Very Restricted=talent; everything else=feat.

I always indeed felt that a 1e feat restricted to a class shouldn't be a feat, it should have been something folded into a class option, because it's frustrating to read through a big list of feats and realize you can only be a fighter or monk or whatever to take the feat. To me a feat is an option most people have if they want it, and it makes it easier to explain to new players what the difference is.

I also like "talent" from d20 Modern days, and while the system had many issues, the class talent system was not one of them and made the classes and their particular abilities easy to teach. You could use a word other than talent, but that's where I'm pulling it from.

I do agree if we start differentiating everything it gets silly, but I think making all the option terms the same is too much the other extreme. There is a happy medium.

I'll report back when the playtest comes out on how my players feel on it as well.

Thats what the Class or Archetype preface to Feat signifies. All changing them to talents means is you have to write out a section describing Talents and whenever you previously could reference feats in a rules manner you have to say feats and talents.

I stand by my statement as written. I would prefer additional distinction than qualifying the term "feat" allows for.


I thought "feat burnout" occurred when a PC perform a certain action, but a feat printed somewhere allowed characters to perform that action. And because the PC didn't have the feat, they weren't able to perform the action.

And this only turns up ingame, when someone who does know about that feat brings it up.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Feats - the new Level? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion