A Request to Stop Calling Everything Feats

[doc the grey]

So, I've been moving my way through the playtest and though I have things I both like and dislike about this book, one of the things I really want to see changed is the over reliance on the distinction of "feat" for everything. As it stands now you have feats, class feats, ancestry feats, heritage feats... it feels like the list goes on and on and is a chore for long term players like myself to keep straight.

For new players, this level of overuse is more likely to be overwhelming than it is to be helpful, and I know that handing players a core rulebook with 3-4+ sections of options called "feats" that's nearly as big as the old spell section is likely to turn them off from the game through sheer concussive force of selection than it is to get them to join in.

I suggest 2nd ed goes back to what was used in the previous system. Call Alchemist feats discoveries, rogue feats talents, Oracle revelations, etc. I know they are essentially balanced like feats and that many of us figure that out eventually, but keeping them discrete and separated as such helps new players keep them separate in their mind and doesn't run the risk of overwhelming them as much when they go to look up "class feats" or "ancestry feats" for the first few times.

Keep the naming separate and lessen the risk of losing new players to a raised skill floor of memorization and learned distinction. And help long term players avoid having to pick through ever expanding "feat" chapters looking for that one ancestry feat that could just be separated into it's own space with ancestral options or alchemist class feat we could just stick in the section with all the other alchemist options like we currently have in 1st ed.

[shroudb]

the way pf (in general, not just 2nd ed) is going, i'm surpised we don't have a poop feat line yet. something along the lines of you poop faster and have less downtime during exporation mode.

but seriously:

LESS STUFF ON FEATS-> MORE POWER ON SKILLS

[WhiteMagus2000]

I was going to mention this myself. I think it would be better to call ancestral and background feats, traits. And call class feats, talents. I would prefer that "feats" be reserved for non-class specific options, like in 3.x and PF1. Currently it feels very cumbersome and confusing when you are using feats as a blanket term for at least 4 different things.

[David Silver - Ponyfinder]

doc the grey wrote:

I suggest 2nd ed goes back to what was used in the previous system. Call Alchemist feats discoveries, rogue feats talents, Oracle revelations, etc. I know they are essentially balanced like feats and that many of us figure that out eventually, but keeping them discrete and separated as such helps new players keep them separate in their mind and doesn't run the risk of overwhelming them as much when they go to look up "class feats" or "ancestry feats" for the first few times.

Keep the naming separate and lessen the risk of losing new players to a raised skill floor of memorization and learned distinction.

Please no. Just, no.

If you want to call class feats class 'talents', sure, I'm for that. But making each class's thing be something else? This benefits no one.

Ultimately, I am not bothered my feats.

[deuxhero]

D20 Modern and Saga Edition called them talents, so Paizo going with the terrible name "class feats"/"fighter feat" is inexplicable.

[evilginger]

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

I was going to mention this myself. I think it would be better to call ancestral and background feats, traits. And call class feats, talents. I would prefer that "feats" be reserved for non-class specific options, like in 3.x and PF1. Currently it feels very cumbersome and confusing when you are using feats as a blanket term for at least 4 different things.

This is what i would prefer as well.

[doc the grey]

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

I was going to mention this myself. I think it would be better to call ancestral and background feats, traits. And call class feats, talents. I would prefer that "feats" be reserved for non-class specific options, like in 3.x and PF1. Currently it feels very cumbersome and confusing when you are using feats as a blanket term for at least 4 different things.

Agreed. I can see people being annoyed with using the old system but switching from a dozen different terms to 1 specific term maintains the same problem of overwhelming the player. It just means now you have to get to the feats section and then remember what each separate subheading means.

I'm down for classes having "talents", ancestries having "lineages", and feats being "feats" or "training" or whatever they want to call it.

Just for the love of god, don't stick us with a book with a feat section as big as the spell section and then having to explain the difference to every new player while trying to also convince them, "No, this is not as complicated as it sounds". It's super complicated, because it front loads a bunch of nuanced distinction behind a giant umbrella term.

[Vic Ferrari]

deuxhero wrote:

D20 Modern and Saga Edition called them talents, so Paizo going with the terrible name "class feats"/"fighter feat" is inexplicable.

Yes, I would prefer they called class feats, Talents, like SWSE.

[Greylurker]

The entire execution of Class Feats has been bad. They should have looked at the Talented Class books from Rogue genius instead of 4E

[Paradozen]

My only issue with everything being a feat is the layout of them. The name itself I am ambivalent towards. First, the overlap eats wordcount just to repeat yourself. This wasn't as much a problem in PF1, abilities would often just point you somewhere else for overlap when it happened, I'd like to see that. Next, powers aren't with their associated feats. They clutter up the spells chapter by including them with spells, and make trying to read a class harder because I need to flip back and forth between the class and the spell section (extra annoying on a pdf reader). Finally, class feats are in the class entry (powers aside), ancestry feats are in the ancestry section, skill feats should be in the skill section and not mixed with general feats. I know they are general feats usually (always?) which muddles the issue, but I feel like there is a better solution.

Name is the least of my issue with feats. I really don't care what they pick for that. Go ahead, go back to PF1 where we had bloodline powers and rage powers and ki powers and alchemist discoveries and arcane discoveries. No confusion based on having a bunch of different abilities with similar names but slightly different tags, right?

[Rek Rollington]

What doesn’t help is that we have a feats section that mixes general and skill feats together. Forget the fact that this section doesn’t include ancestries or class feats as that would make it worse.

Skill feats should be in the skills section. Then the feats section can be called general feats. If general feats allow you to take skill feats, just state so and refer to the skill feats on page 1xx.

Edit: was Ninja’d by Paradozen. But agree with powers too. Take them out of the spells and make a domain section where you can explain the gods, their domains and what their domain powers do.

[Secane]

The play test, as is, feels like programming language. It make sense from a system coding point of view, but the end user may not understand or use it well.

This means the system really don't look nice to readers as is.

PF2 needs to sell the story too and not the just the math.

[ikarinokami]

I agree

ancestral feats - should be traits
class feats should be talents
and general feats should be feats

[technarken]

Class Talents
Skill Unlocks
Ancestry Traits
Feats

[Pandora's]

I'm a bit confused as to what is so hard to explain to new players.

"A feat is a new ability that you pick from a list of options. You get some feats from your class, some from your ancestry, some that modify how you use skills, and a few that do general stuff like increase proficiencies. Your class's table tells you what levels you pick feats of each type."

Those three sentences seem like enough for me. Am I missing something?

[Tithron]

I agree that tacking the word Feat on everything seems a bit silly. Ideally I would enjoy something like this:
Class Feats = Talents
Skill Feats = Trainings
Ancesty Feats = Lineage
General Feats = Feats

I would avoid traits simply because items have traits now and giving each word a single in game use is kind of the point of this.

I like them having seperate names and then you could put each in its own section. None of this mixing General Feats and Skill Feats into one huge list. Still gets the modularity, but you have clearer language.

[Corwin Icewolf]

Pandora's wrote:

I'm a bit confused as to what is so hard to explain to new players.

"A feat is a new ability that you pick from a list of options. You get some feats from your class, some from your ancestry, some that modify how you use skills, and a few that do general stuff like increase proficiencies. Your class's table tells you what levels you pick feats of each type."

Those three sentences seem like enough for me. Am I missing something?

Agreed, and I also don't understand what makes"You have four different types of abilities. Lineages are from your ancestry, trainings(I don't care for this term, btw.) modify your skills, talents give you new class abilities, and feats do general stuff like increase proficiencies," any easier.

If anything, I would think it would make things more complicated because now our hypothetical new player has four terms to remember without an umbrella term to link them all together.
Maybe it's just the way I think. I find it easier to remember several different terms when they're all grouped under a single category. Maybe it's different for some of the poster's here.

[Joe Mucchiello]

And level should not be overloaded either.

Spells will have circles. Magic Missile is a circle 1 spell.
Powers will have ranks.
Monsters will be noted by frights. A green hag is a fright 4.
Magic Items will have thaums. "That's a 9 thaum sword, that's at least +2!!"
Feats will have prowess. "I can't decide which prowess 7 feat to pick."
Hazards will have yikes. "That ceiling collapse is a 10 yikes hazard."
And I suppose class can have level.

After all, if you use level for all those things, it would just be confusing.