Mandatory class features

[tivadar27]

PF1e allowed for a lot more flexibility with archetypes than does 2e. The fact is, half of the things we get are completely open to swapping out (feats), and the other half is completely fixed (features). With no true multiclassing, this means that half of your class abilities are fully determined from level 1, and that's not a lot of fun if you want to play an alchemist who doesn't poison, or a cleric who doesn't cast offensive spells.

I'd be nice if many or all features beyond level 1 came with the option of swapping them out for another level-appropriate class feat.

[Lyee]

Indeed, it seems they've gone 90% of the way to making everything a class gets into a feat, and then picked a couple things that each class always gets. Rangers always have hunt target and some of its progression, for instance. I imagine a homebrew variant could be easily made that got rid of classes entirely and gave us a generic chassis and put the last class features into feats.

But removing classes would be one sacred cow too far for... 95% of people. I am absoloutely not recommending they go that route, just musing on how they've nudged in its direction.

I am considering homebrewing a type of feat called 'options' that don't take up your usual feat slots and act more like PF1 archtypes to replace the PF2 mandatory features.

[Mergy]

I'm a bit confused by the examples you provided.

Alchemists don't have to take the poison feats. They also don't have to craft poison. If your cleric doesn't want to cast offensive spells, just don't prepare them.

[tivadar27]

Mergy wrote:

I'm a bit confused by the examples you provided.

Alchemists don't have to take the poison feats. They also don't have to craft poison. If your cleric doesn't want to cast offensive spells, just don't prepare them.

Sorry, alchemist was the wrong side of the example. Alchemists get "empower bombs", so if you want to be a non-bomber alchemist, you're getting wasted class abilities. Clerics, on the other hand, get increased mastery in their spellcasting, which only matters for offensive spells, so that is another wasted class ability. That help?

[kaid]

Also note the initial archetypes are the more generic variety which are basically class feats. But they did talk about class specific archetypes which could be designed to change base class abilities. For the initial book and for basic playtesting the more generic ones are a good way to test the system without worrying you are accidentally breaking a class by taking away a key power and then try to balance around it.

[Mergy]

Empower bombs does stick out slightly, so perhaps a welcome change would allow some form of empowering on all crafted items.

As for increased mastery in spellcasting, spell rolls also apply to things like dispelling. I guess if you are being entirely pacifistic, you might not benefit much, but I also find it hard to believe you will be casting no spells with a saving throw for your entire career.

[Infinityshift]

It's important, at least for the playtest, that the classes have mandatory features. These are abilites that lend to the core identity of a class and Paizo wants to get feedback on them to make sure they get it right.

It's important to remember that we are playtesting the core rulebook and nothing else. 1e didn't even have archetypes at the beginning and getting a solid base helps make it easier to make splat book later.

[tivadar27]

Mergy wrote:

As for increased mastery in spellcasting, spell rolls also apply to things like dispelling. I guess if you are being entirely pacifistic, you might not benefit much, but I also find it hard to believe you will be casting no spells with a saving throw for your entire career.

Then you don't have a very good imagination. I've built 1e clerics who have done exactly that. Buffing clerics are totally a thing.