Suggestion: All classes get 10 class feats


Classes


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Some classes are feat-starved, and some get ludicrous amounts of them. Sorcerers, for example, get only 6, whereas fighters get 11. We were sold on the fact that feats were being added so that we were provided with choices, and that doesn't seem to really be that true in many cases.

I'd suggest, perhaps even as part of the Playtest in a second go at this, that you simply make all the abilities gained at even levels feats and let people optionally take them. I can deal with 1st level being somewhat mandatory of a choice for some classes, but losing half of the rest of the feats just feels horrible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm fine with the distribution, though I could see changing it if they decide that proficiency increases no longer function as the feat/feature slot. That way, the 12th and 16th features of Spellcasting proficiency increases can come online in addition to feats, and the advanced and greater bloodline powers could simply become feats.

But if Fighters are out a class feature at 3rd, 13th and 19th for weapon proficiency, I'm fine if casters lose a feat at 12th and 16th for their proficiency increases.

As for Sorcerers, specifically, though, I do feel like bloodline powers (past the first) should be feats, which is what I thought they'd do, given that it always felt to me like in 1e Paizo made oracle revelations choosable from a list, because they felt like bloodlines were too rigidly set in what they grant, and it feels odd that they'd repeat this in 2e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Characters should get a class feat every level, for a total of 20. Of they're going to replace proper class features, we should at least get a lot of them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorcerers are really feat starved. I'd like to see 6th and 10th bloodine powers be feat options instead. That would greatly increase the variability of the class with no real raw increase in power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure, because martials aren't allowed to have any advantages whatsoever. Just give casters everything martials get on top of 10th level spells.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Sure, because martials aren't allowed to have any advantages whatsoever. Just give casters everything martials get on top of 10th level spells.

You realize it's only sorcerers that are really feat-starved, right? They get six (at levels 2, 4, 8, 14, 18, 20).

Wizards, Bards, Clerics, Druids all get 8 (levels 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 18, 20)

Alchemists, Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, all get 11 (levels 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20)

Sorcerers are missing the feats at 6th and 10th because of their Bloodline features. Barbarians pay this by selecting any feat, one that matches their bloodline (I mean, Totem) or not. Clerics get domain powers and pay for them using spell points, ditto Paladins.

Sorcerers are literally the only class that is shafted 2 feats (the other 3 are the cost of being a primary sorcerer and having spell power, but at least all primary casters suffer it equally).


7 people marked this as a favorite.

"Sorcerers should get as many class feats as the other casters" is a different and more acceptable argument than "every class should get the same number of class feats".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To someone converting from PF1e, both the races/ancestries and the classes can seem stripped down. You are often choosing from several abilities available your 1e character.

Myself, I don't mind it, but I know all of the players in my gaming group would complain.

If the goal is to create an improved PF1e, it probably be good to increase the frequency of feats. If the goal is to create a lower powered version of PF1e, the current feat progression for most classes, excepting perhaps sorcerers, is works.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am behind this 100%. Every class should have class feats progress at the same rate, with a feat at 2nd level and every 2 levels thereafter (with a few options at 1st level for certain classes). The current system overcomplicates things needlessly and (in my view) hinders the already-outclassed Sorcerer even more.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure we could give casters the same number of feats as martials, we just need to remove the features they gained at those levels and turn them into feats for those levels.

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Making feat progression more consistent across classes would be much more inclusive, and is more intuitive, for players.

As for the whole "Why can't martials have some advantage over casters?!" argument, maybe feats should just be a way of specializing within your class, not a measure of power. Why SHOULDN'T classes be getting an equal number of feats if feats are no longer entirely shared between classes? These class-unique abilities can, and should, be designed around the class taking them and their viability as accessible multi-classing options, and there's no reason to remove sorcerer customizability just because they get spells. Make feats consistent, and make feats cool.


Davor wrote:

Making feat progression more consistent across classes would be much more inclusive, and is more intuitive, for players.

As for the whole "Why can't martials have some advantage over casters?!" argument, maybe feats should just be a way of specializing within your class, not a measure of power. Why SHOULDN'T classes be getting an equal number of feats if feats are no longer entirely shared between classes? These class-unique abilities can, and should, be designed around the class taking them and their viability as accessible multi-classing options, and there's no reason to remove sorcerer customizability just because they get spells. Make feats consistent, and make feats cool.

Yeah, just change the fixed features they get at those levels to feats, and make legendary spellcaster only increase their proficiency by one step.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Effectively spellcasters are getting feats, they're just fixed.
Spellcasting proficiency (1st, 12, 16) is advancing as if it were a feat (except legendary, because reasons.. probably because most classes get a feature at 19th).

For sorcerers, their 6th and 10th level powers are eating those feats, severely limiting customization at levels where you can really feel it. This is fairly unfortunate, as they aren't nice things. They should really be options like advanced domain and advanced school powers.

Archetypes and multiclassing is just arbitrarily harder for sorcerers, and they get fairly terrible powers in return. (2 spell points to ignore difficult terrain and effectively a 2 action Stride and 2 more on top for invisibility, both just for a single round? You must be joking)


Voss wrote:

Effectively spellcasters are getting feats, they're just fixed.

Spellcasting proficiency (1st, 12, 16) is advancing as if it were a feat (except legendary, because reasons.. probably because most classes get a feature at 19th).

Right... and this is bad... because it limits character options and diversity. While I still made him, my goblin war cleric could give two licks about spellcasting proficiency: he only casts heal spells and spells to buff himself and others. I'd imagine there are sorceres out there that don't want to focus on their bloodline powers as well...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Have all classes get three ancestry feats at first level and replace the later ancestry feats with class feats. Give the sorcerer two more class feats on top of that.
That should be more work able and gets rid of the weird higher level ancestry strangeness.


Tholomyes wrote:
I could see changing it if they decide that proficiency increases no longer function as the feat/feature slot.

Weapon proficiencies don't count as class feats for weapon classes, so I don't see why spell proficiencies should for spell classes. It's also a massive pain for "mystic theurge" type builds who want to get a class feat at precisely that level.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Reynard-Miri wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
I could see changing it if they decide that proficiency increases no longer function as the feat/feature slot.
Weapon proficiencies don't count as class feats for weapon classes, so I don't see why spell proficiencies should for spell classes. It's also a massive pain for "mystic theurge" type builds who want to get a class feat at precisely that level.

The spellcasters have less class feats because spellcasting itself could be seen as a class features. By being able to cast spell, you gain a lot of utility that the martials cannot gain, or gain something similiar only by taking feats.

I'm totally fine with casters having less class feats than martials, but what it means is that multiclass/archetype feats currently require too big of an investment for casters when comparing with martials, and there probably should be casters only archetypes that require only 1-2 feats before being able to take an additional archetype.

On the sorcerer's side. The advanced and greater bloodline powers should be a feat and not mandatory.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is my two cents worth:

Give all classes 11 feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, etc.

Take nothing away from casters.

Give all martial classes unique abilities at those levels where casters get to upgrade their spellcasting/receive powers.

This way, feats are equal, casters don't lose out, and martials get something actually unique and cool.


Reynard-Miri wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
I could see changing it if they decide that proficiency increases no longer function as the feat/feature slot.
Weapon proficiencies don't count as class feats for weapon classes, so I don't see why spell proficiencies should for spell classes. It's also a massive pain for "mystic theurge" type builds who want to get a class feat at precisely that level.

Because martials get their weapon proficiencies on their odd levels as their class features, Spellcasters on the other hand get their spells as their class features on odd levels and their proficiencies on their even levels except for legendary caster (which would have to be changed to increase the spellcaster prof by one).

So spellcasters either have to give up their proficiency gain at those levels in order to counter for the fact that they're getting class feats at those levels now, or they don't get class feats at those levels in exchange for proficiencies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
"Sorcerers should get as many class feats as the other casters" is a different and more acceptable argument than "every class should get the same number of class feats".

What'd I'd suggest for full casters, is rather than progress spell proficiency, make increasing it a feat. If you'd rather do something else, then let you casting proficiency suffer.


Draco18s wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
"Sorcerers should get as many class feats as the other casters" is a different and more acceptable argument than "every class should get the same number of class feats".
What'd I'd suggest for full casters, is rather than progress spell proficiency, make increasing it a feat. If you'd rather do something else, then let you casting proficiency suffer.

I'd *really* prefer this. It should be within a caster's concept that they don't want to cast spells offensively, so don't want to focus on their progression on spell proficiency. Also, I believe doing this leads to essentially casters (minus Sorcerers, but that's a separate issue) actually getting feats at every even level.


The biggest argument for having all classes have the same amount of class feats hasn't even been brought up and that is multiclassing. Multiclassing right now is close to impossible on casterclasses. Especially on sorcerer. Melee classes have so many class feats to spend that for them it is no problem at all. This can't be right. Why would there be more fighter/sorcerer than sorcerer/fighter? It makes no sense.


I feel like casters already get a very powerful resource, which more than makes up for a reduced amount of feats.

Sure, Sorcerers probably should have the same number of feats as wizards, but there is a difference between giving casters and martials the same number of feats.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:

Here is my two cents worth:

Give all classes 11 feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, etc.

Take nothing away from casters.

Give all martial classes unique abilities at those levels where casters get to upgrade their spellcasting/receive powers.

This way, feats are equal, casters don't lose out, and martials get something actually unique and cool.

As long as what the martials receive is equal in power to the spellcasting that casters get, then I see no issues with this.

Sovereign Court

Yeah, I feel like sorcerers in particular are suffering with the feats (underwhelming bloodline tax). They seemed like the weakest class in our group's test session.


Totally agree with the thread title.

All classes should gain 10 class feats.

Maybe, some could gain 11 (an extra class feat at 1st level).

The way it is, it's unbalanced and not all characters have the same number of options to make (despite the spellcasters lot of spells). We really like all classes to be "modular, balanced, equal in options."


Every class should get as many class feats as the fighter, as many many skill feats and increases as the rogue, as many spell slots as the wizard, as large a channeling pool as the cleric, the saves of a monk, the resonance of an alchemist, a barbarian totem, a sorcerer bloodline, the weapon and armor proficiencies of a fighter and a paladin, a druidic order, a bardic muse, and hunt target for good measure.

For a more serious solution, give everyone a feat at each even level, but make "Increase Spellcasting Proficiency to Expert/Master/Legendary" cost a feat.


I love how many people in this thread don't understand what good game design is.

Scarab Sages

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Every class should get as many class feats as the fighter, as many many skill feats and increases as the rogue, as many spell slots as the wizard, as large a channeling pool as the cleric, the saves of a monk, the resonance of an alchemist, a barbarian totem, a sorcerer bloodline, the weapon and armor proficiencies of a fighter and a paladin, a druidic order, a bardic muse, and hunt target for good measure.

For a more serious solution, give everyone a feat at each even level, but make "Increase Spellcasting Proficiency to Expert/Master/Legendary" cost a feat.

Sure. As long as we give "Increase Weapon Proficiency to Expert/Master/Legendary" as a feat, too. :P


Davor wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Every class should get as many class feats as the fighter, as many many skill feats and increases as the rogue, as many spell slots as the wizard, as large a channeling pool as the cleric, the saves of a monk, the resonance of an alchemist, a barbarian totem, a sorcerer bloodline, the weapon and armor proficiencies of a fighter and a paladin, a druidic order, a bardic muse, and hunt target for good measure.

For a more serious solution, give everyone a feat at each even level, but make "Increase Spellcasting Proficiency to Expert/Master/Legendary" cost a feat.

Sure. As long as we give "Increase Weapon Proficiency to Expert/Master/Legendary" as a feat, too. :P

I view weapon proficiency increases similar to spell progression: no matter what type of Fighter/Caster you are, you're going to want it. If you can suggest a build where this isn't true (it might exist... I don't know) then maybe you're right.

This is definitely *untrue* for casters, who may want to build buffers or dedicated healers, and spell proficiency doesn't help at all in those categories.

I don't really personally care to make *everything* a feat, but I'd like to see every class have the same amount of customization to it. I'm willing to give on that special level 1 feat that some classes have. The difference between 10 and 11 is pretty minor, the difference between 6 and 11, or even 8 and 11, is pretty huge.


Asuet wrote:
The biggest argument for having all classes have the same amount of class feats hasn't even been brought up and that is multiclassing. Multiclassing right now is close to impossible on casterclasses. Especially on sorcerer. Melee classes have so many class feats to spend that for them it is no problem at all. This can't be right. Why would there be more fighter/sorcerer than sorcerer/fighter? It makes no sense.

I have to agree fully regarding multiclassing. If the objective is to balance out the different classes, promote flavor and restrict overpowering class builds I think this makes sense.


100% agree with the topic, and especially agree regarding Sorcerers. As it stands, they're far too restricted in their features and choices to be a competitive class.


I am not sure if anyone pointed this out, but sorcerers get Eshew Materials automatically where as Wizard has to pay for it. I do think there is a strong argument for making the 6th and 10th level powers feats as it would allow for better customization.

It is however a bad idea to give all classes the same number feats, unless it is Wizard and Sorcerer.


I think people are missing the elephant in the room when it comes to homogenizing progressions. (Hint: It starts with "4" and ends with "e".)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Renchard wrote:
I think people are missing the elephant in the room when it comes to homogenizing progressions. (Hint: It starts with "4" and ends with "e".)

Feat progression was homogenized for General Feats in PF1e: Everyone got one every 3 levels. I don't think this is much different than that, really. In 5e, progression is *close* to homogenized, though fighters get 7 rather than 5, and rogues get 6 rather than 5. This has nothing to do with editions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems to me that more care needs to be taken in insuring that there are plenty of good feat options as well.

Having all classes get the same number of class feats doesn't fix the lack of viable options or unique options some classes are suffering.


LordVanya wrote:

Seems to me that more care needs to be taken in insuring that there are plenty of good feat options as well.

Having all classes get the same number of class feats doesn't fix the lack of viable options or unique options some classes are suffering.

Oh I totally agree with that as well, but I feel like that's a tangential issue, no offense. For example, a bard with more feats isn't going to have many options for them anyway, but having more feats in general doesn't solve the issue that you don't actually get to choose very many of them. Point taken, however.


No offense taken.
And I agree that feat distribution needs to be more normalized for these classes in particular.


Renchard wrote:
I think people are missing the elephant in the room when it comes to homogenizing progressions. (Hint: It starts with "4" and ends with "e".)

That wasn't the problem with 4e. To quote my GM, "4th did something far worse than nerfing the wizard, they made it boring."

I do think casters should get the full 11 feats. So to make it up for martials, we should turn them all into Tome of Battle / Path of War classes.


See also here:
Black Dragon Gaming discussion on this


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So people think Spellcasters are somehow overpowered? Because I think they suck this edition. Spells can't compare to hitting stuff or even just skills usually.


Some people are in fact still saying spell casters are OP. Also you can find about half a dozen threads on it if you try.


Agree with this thread wholeheartedly. As it stands, having fewer feat choices for certain classes makes them feel less fun


Zman0 wrote:
Sorcerers are really feat starved. I'd like to see 6th and 10th bloodine powers be feat options instead. That would greatly increase the variability of the class with no real raw increase in power.

I take ten of this feat!


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Some people are in fact still saying spell casters are OP. Also you can find about half a dozen threads on it if you try.

In this version or in previous versions?

In previous versions I can agree (to a point; there are things that a party of 20th levels wizards CAN'T do; namely take more than two hits), but I think most people's problem was not that Wizards were OP but that martials were UP and that they needed a buff.

So I think the complaints here are that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Suggestion: All classes get 10 class feats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes