|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me first state that I love feats. I loved my Pathfinder companion subscription and I loved skimming through a few dozen new feats introduced to the game every month.
I greatly enjoy using Herolab and the "is valid" feature and keyword searching through thousands of feats, both as a GM and a player.
If I could make one change to 5e to make it better, I'd have allowed characters to pick up a feat every other level to enable better character customization.
From those of us that are still active on the forums here, I can see those of us still playing Pathfinder as the system of choice are here because of the feats. And I can see many folks when they open the Playtest book pump their fist and they are like "Yes! This is like three times the feats as the 1e Core Rulebook!".
However...
I've been chatting with various folks in my local gaming community (those who have faded away as our PFS scene has shrunk from 100 tables a month down to 2 Starfinder tables and a couple PFS tables) and have been asking "hey, are you going to be coming back and trying the Playtest?".
We've got a couple tables scattered at stores. One has 3 players signed up and one has 5, so there's some interest... but not a crazy backlog of interest.
So far, folks have said they've downloaded the PDF (so they wanted to possibly get hooked back in), but the one thing I've heard consistently is:
(roughly)
"Oh god, it's worse than original Pathfinder. I can't believe they put even more feats into the game."
So as I dig around here, I actually (to my surprise) discover that a lot of the local gaming community actually dislikes a feat-heavy system. This runs against my own personal sensibilities. Who wouldn't like the ability to customize their characters further?
But as I try to make the argument that Pathfinder is superior, I'm argued back against the "fatigue" they have with a "feat heavy system", especially one from a company that produces monthly books that keep adding more feats.
I've come to understand this perspective better, and it's actually hard to surmount.
There's 3 main segments I see in TTRPG participation:
1. Us, The Hardcore Forumites - who are here because we love the word feat, and love games that give us more of these.
2. Volunteer GMs - who as volunteers, directly make more tables available to play at each month. Those folks who are amazing narrative story tellers, who were so amazing we had to have a lottery system to play at their tables. The majority of these say they have no interest in PF2e because it looks "worse than PF1e" and its because to GM over a multi-year span they shudder at all the feats they'd have to adjudicate in organized play. They just prefer to "roleplay" where the collective majority doesn't need to memorize hundreds or thousands of feats.
3. Casual Players - these are the folks who'd never shell out for HeroLab or more than 1-3 books beyond the core player book. They tell countless stories about playing alongside us players that did shell out for all the books and how it was unsatisfying to always feel like they were missing out on something, and how in newer "mostly feat-less games" there's only maybe a dozen or two feats that they need to know about. Total.
Here's the rub..
This is all just packaging and perception. I counter back that "well PF2e has just put the label 'feat' on what other systems, like PF1e before it, called class features or class powers. So it's not like it has that many more.
But these folks, they twitch (really!) at the word feat like someone's mentioned their ex-girl/boyfriend's name. If someone had just run a global search & replace on the PF2e Playtest book and put the word 'Power' or 'Feature' in its place, they'd have had a totally different reaction. They don't care that there's a rational argument here that a system like 5e basically has 'class feats' hidden inside the class descriptions.
I have a decent sense that, at least in August, organized PF2e Playtest game attendance is low simply because of a perceived overuse of a single word in the rules along with some sort of irrational bias against that word 'feat'.
I'd think it's something to consider in a final printing - how to give those of us who want more options what we want, but at the same time acknowledge that there's a decent number of gamers who associate a stigma with a 'feat-heavy system'.
It's a strange thing but from my last weeks experience i think you might be onto something.
As neat and tidy as it is saying 'everything is a feat' it also makes the word over-used. And as you say, it doesn't have the best of associations with some.
In particular, having class abilities labelled as 'feats' stands out as the main culprit.
No mechanical / design change suggested, but would it be a bad thing to change them to 'class abilities?'.
It would also stop some confusion: the 'can I spend x feat on y etc? they're all feats etc' types of issues.
The problem is - and I agree with the OP, that from what I've seen on this forum alone 'Feats' is a trigger word for some...as is 'Options', come to think of it - what other word one can use to substitute it. 'Powers' has a negative connotation too, and brings those Vietnam-style 4E flashbacks with it, 'Abilities' is already in use for the main stats, 'Skills' has the same problem, 'Qualities' maybe?
'Talents' is not taken at this point.
|
|
'Feats' is a trigger word for some...
Yeah, "trigger word" is a concise way to phrase it.
Not me, I love feats. I'd buy a book called "Ultimate Feats" with 2500 feats in it along with the HeroLab download for it.
I'm not sure who Paizo seeks to solicit customerwise with the new edition, but the FLGS has a ton of folks who shudder at the word 'feat', claim that's 'why they quit Pathfinder Society' and actually like that they can play 5e and brag they did it "without feats".
Sadly, a survey on the Paizo forum would probably show 80% in favor of 'Moar Feats' whereas a door survey of the folks who quit PFS and moved to Adventurer's League would look quite the opposite.
If I could make one change to 5e to make it better, I'd have allowed characters to pick up a feat every other level to enable better character customization.
...
OFF TOPIC
That would be broken so quick, 5e feats are very strong. One thing i like about 5th edition feats is the decision between a feat or a stat upgrade. It is a difficult decision at times.
ON TOPIC
The problem with PF feats (either edition) is that having so many of them makes traps as inevitably, there will be weak feats. It also creates a hungry monster that wants more feats. MOAR!! And with more feats you start to get AP. Lastly, I do think it wears a bit of people, this feat, that feat, etc.
I think cutting back a bit on feats and adding class features may be a wise thing to do.
I also think renaming class feats to be specific to the class may do a good job on reducing feat fatigue. I like Rage powers, rogue talents, etc.