Misgivings About Archetypes Feats


Prerelease Discussion


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I actually like the way the new archetypes are being implemented, but I do not like how the prerequisites are being use for the class feats. I'd much rather have the prerequisites for an archetype feat be to have x amounts of feats in the archetype than a specific feat. For example for Roll with the Ship I'd rather have: For this feat you need to have at least 2 Feats from the pirate archetype. And for a feat like Boarding Action you can add a caveat that if you have Rope Runner you can use this feat While swinging on a rope.

By doing it this way you can add player customability while still limiting acces to the more powerfull feats and so preventing people from just taking the archetype at high levels to get the more powerful feats


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed, but I also don't know why you'd need the "2 feats from the pirate archetype" even. Feats are already level limited, and sure, they want to design against dipping, but if dedications are already a thing, then you're already cutting back on the attractiveness of dipping. If archetypes are designed well enough, then they should only need to be as attractive as class feats, maybe a little less, by default, but a little more for certain situations or concepts, which means I don't see the reason for mandating full commitment to the archetype. There's power in a broader selection, but there's also already a cost to get that selection in the first place.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Tholomyes wrote:
Agreed, but I also don't know why you'd need the "2 feats from the pirate archetype" even. Feats are already level limited, and sure, they want to design against dipping, but if dedications are already a thing, then you're already cutting back on the attractiveness of dipping. If archetypes are designed well enough, then they should only need to be as attractive as class feats, maybe a little less, by default, but a little more for certain situations or concepts, which means I don't see the reason for mandating full commitment to the archetype. There's power in a broader selection, but there's also already a cost to get that selection in the first place.

That was just an example but I think that the more powerful feats should need a prerequisite to avoid someone at level 12-13 to just dip and get a feat that would be considered a capstone of the archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Biztak wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Agreed, but I also don't know why you'd need the "2 feats from the pirate archetype" even. Feats are already level limited, and sure, they want to design against dipping, but if dedications are already a thing, then you're already cutting back on the attractiveness of dipping. If archetypes are designed well enough, then they should only need to be as attractive as class feats, maybe a little less, by default, but a little more for certain situations or concepts, which means I don't see the reason for mandating full commitment to the archetype. There's power in a broader selection, but there's also already a cost to get that selection in the first place.
That was just an example but I think that the more powerful feats should need a prerequisite to avoid someone at level 12-13 to just dip and get a feat that would be considered a capstone of the archetype.

Then push that feat back until it is balanced. There is no reason to require other feats unless feats build off of each other.

Also, capstones are all level 20. Archetypes don't grant you earlier capstones.

I don't like the idea of these feats as described being "archetypes". They should just be universal class feats.


Biztak wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Agreed, but I also don't know why you'd need the "2 feats from the pirate archetype" even. Feats are already level limited, and sure, they want to design against dipping, but if dedications are already a thing, then you're already cutting back on the attractiveness of dipping. If archetypes are designed well enough, then they should only need to be as attractive as class feats, maybe a little less, by default, but a little more for certain situations or concepts, which means I don't see the reason for mandating full commitment to the archetype. There's power in a broader selection, but there's also already a cost to get that selection in the first place.
That was just an example but I think that the more powerful feats should need a prerequisite to avoid someone at level 12-13 to just dip and get a feat that would be considered a capstone of the archetype.

Fair point, but I'd have to see it in play to know whether it would be an issue. The only feat we've seen so far that's like that is Boarding action, which is basically just a more-situational-though-slightly-better Sudden Charge, which as far as we know doesn't have any requirements like that. Would it be broken to let someone dip two feats to get a slightly better version of a fighter feat? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. If capstone feats on the whole are better than that, I could see the point though.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Misgivings About Archetypes Feats All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion