Semi-Complete List of Things that Used to be Available to Everyone that are Now Class Locked


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

24 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

As the Title Says:

Bull Rush (Dwarf- Boulder Roll or Fighter Brutish Shove or Monk Knockback Strike)

Charge (Barbarian & Fighter- Sudden Charge)

Cleave (Barbarian)

Great Cleave (Barbarian)

Whirlwind Attack (Whirlwind Strike- Barbarian, Fighter)

Reach Spell (NOT Bards)

Command Undead (Cleric)

Selective Channel (Selective Energy- Cleric)

Elemental Channel (Cleric)

Warrior Priest (Cleric)

Widen Spell (NOT Clerics & Bards)

Attack of Opportunity (Fighter & Paladin)

Double Slice (Fighter & Ranger)

Furious Focus (Fighter)

Point Blank Shot (Fighter)

Power Attack (Fighter)

Shield Bash (Aggressive Shield- Fighter)

Rapid Shot (Double Shot- Fighter)

Using one handed weapon 2 handed and removing a hand as a free action (Dual-Handed Assault- Fighter)

Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Exotic Weapon Training- 6th level fighter!!)

Blind-Fight (Fighter)

Combat Reflexes (Fighter)

Spring Attack (Fighter)

Crane Style (Monk)

Dragon Style (Monk)

Stunning Fist (Monk)

Tiger Style (Monk)

Deflect Arrow (Monk)

Snatch Arrow (Arrow Snatching)

Quick Draw (Monk & Rogue)

Rapid Reload (Running Reload- Ranger & Rogue)

Mobility (Rogue)

Counterspell (Sorcerer & Wizard)

Quicken Spell (Quickened Casting- Sorcerer & Wizard)

Magical Striker (Arcane Strike- Sorcerer & Wizard)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Attack of opportunity


Alsolomir wrote:
Attack of opportunity

He's got that listed


15 people marked this as a favorite.

nice to see a proper list coming together. I still dont see why these were made exclusive in the first place, since all it does is harm other class' diversity and give the illusion of that class' choices.


35 people marked this as a favorite.

This is really frivolous.

Being "available for everyone" is not a good thing. Sometimes it's better some things are closed off.

For example, Point-Blank Shot was a stone-cold tax feat that everyone wanted to skip, but everyone was burdened with.

Your post doesn't serve to advance a conversation, it seems like griping onto PF1 when, in terms of market share and accessibility, the game needs an update.

Now, a wholly different argument would be saying "hey, without Attacks of Opportunity, a lot of classes don't have an use for reactions, and combat feels like a constant chase", or "I don't have a lot of ways to make a more warrior-like Bard other than Fighter MC, and maybe I just want the dueling talents".

Focusing on what's different between two editions as though as it were inherently bad/good without looking at the system is disingenuous.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Bull Rush = Shove
Charge = Stride, Stride, Strike, doesn't need to be in straight line
Exotic Weapon Proficiency is in Weapon Proficiency

Things that are available to everyone:
Improved Combat Maneuvers
Improved Unarmed Strike

Edit: The actual 1E Double Slice is also available to everyone by default.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Blind-Fight (Fighter)

It's also a 6th lvl Rogue feat.


24 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:

This is really frivolous.

Being "available for everyone" is not a good thing. Sometimes it's better some things are closed off.

For example, Point-Blank Shot was a stone-cold tax feat that everyone wanted to skip, but everyone was burdened with.

Your post doesn't serve to advance a conversation, it seems like griping onto PF1 when, in terms of market share and accessibility, the game needs an update.

Now, a wholly different argument would be saying "hey, without Attacks of Opportunity, a lot of classes don't have an use for reactions, and combat feels like a constant chase", or "I don't have a lot of ways to make a more warrior-like Bard other than Fighter MC, and maybe I just want the dueling talents".

Focusing on what's different between two editions as though as it were inherently bad/good without looking at the system is disingenuous.

Now instead of Point Blank Shot being a "straight feat tax", there's a debilitating penalty added to bow users and they are taxed multiple feats to multi-class into Fighter and pick it up.

My list is mostly just presented without comment, but if you're complaining about feat taxes- locking feats behind class walls is much, much worse.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's be real though, did anybody ever want to take Stunning Fist on a non-Monk? Like, how many non-clerics could actually make effective use of elemental channel in PF1?

A lot of these were options I never wanted on classes in the intersection of "classes that do not currently have access to it" and "classes that currently exist" (since, like, a new class might have access to any of these.)

On one hand there are reasonable observations like "the rules don't really support an archer paladin, or a lightly armored fighter, or a strength rogue" and on the other hand there's "my sorcerer can no longer take furious focus or stunning fist."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Cool, but putting the cleric channeling feats that nobody else would qualify to use may hurt it a bit.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:


Now instead of Point Blank Shot being a "straight feat tax", there's a debilitating penalty added to bow users and they are taxed multiple feats to multi-class into Fighter and pick it up.

So the problem is that you need a feat tax to use bows due to Volley 50, NOT the fact that only Fighter's get PBS. That's indeed a feat tax.

Making threads like this obscures the real problems.

Like complaining about Shield Bash, when in this edition you don't lose the ability to gain bonuses from your shield when you use it as a weapon.

Like complaining about Rapid Reload, when NOBODY could use crossbows well in the past edition save for very specific classes.

And yeah, you posted this list without comment, but that's a pretty chickenpoop excuse. We've been blessed with the magical power of inference, so if you are gonna write, be prepared to be read.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
Cool, but putting the cleric channeling feats that nobody else would qualify to use may hurt it a bit.

Paladins qualified in PF1. . . The way channel works now, since it just affects a version of the Heal spell, other classes could theoretically qualify.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


Now instead of Point Blank Shot being a "straight feat tax", there's a debilitating penalty added to bow users and they are taxed multiple feats to multi-class into Fighter and pick it up.

So the problem is that you need a feat tax to use bows due to Volley 50, NOT the fact that only Fighter's get PBS. That's indeed a feat tax.

Making threads like this obscures the real problems.

Like complaining about Shield Bash, when in this edition you don't lose the ability to gain bonuses from your shield when you use it as a weapon.

Like complaining about Rapid Reload, when NOBODY could use crossbows well in the past edition save for very specific classes.

And yeah, you posted this list without comment, but that's a pretty chickenpoop excuse. We've been blessed with the magical power of inference, so if you are gonna write, be prepared to be read.

You're right- if the bow wasn't absolutely unusable by anyone without PBS then PBS being a fighter only feat wouldn't matter.

But it is, so it is.

They effectively class locked the use of a long bow to fighters only. That's a HUGE problem.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:


So the problem is that you need a feat tax to use bows due to Volley 50, NOT the fact that only Fighter's get PBS. That's indeed a feat tax.

That's not true at all. You can use a bow without point blank shot, and it's pretty effective. It's better than a crossbow in most circumstances, actually, thanks to adding half your strength, being able to shoot multiple times per round and being Deadly. The volley property is a mechanism to balance bows with other long range projectile weapons. They are still a fine weapon.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


So the problem is that you need a feat tax to use bows due to Volley 50, NOT the fact that only Fighter's get PBS. That's indeed a feat tax.
That's not true at all. You can use a bow without point blank shot, and it's pretty effective. It's better than a crossbow in most circumstances, actually, thanks to adding half your strength, being able to shoot multiple times per round and being Deadly. The volley property is a mechanism to balance bows with other long range projectile weapons. They are still a fine weapon.

The volley property is stupid, makes no sense, is ahistorical, and is less realistic than Wizards casting fireballs.

That's just not how bows work.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I sort of figured that Volley exists to make people consider shortbows, which nobody ever chose to use in PF1 as long as they had longbow proficiency.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Volley 10 or 20 would be enough of a penalty, 50 feet is way too much for most battlemaps.

Not to mention it's totally unrealistic...

Dark Archive

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

This is really frivolous.

Being "available for everyone" is not a good thing. Sometimes it's better some things are closed off.

For example, Point-Blank Shot was a stone-cold tax feat that everyone wanted to skip, but everyone was burdened with.

Your post doesn't serve to advance a conversation, it seems like griping onto PF1 when, in terms of market share and accessibility, the game needs an update.

Now, a wholly different argument would be saying "hey, without Attacks of Opportunity, a lot of classes don't have an use for reactions, and combat feels like a constant chase", or "I don't have a lot of ways to make a more warrior-like Bard other than Fighter MC, and maybe I just want the dueling talents".

Focusing on what's different between two editions as though as it were inherently bad/good without looking at the system is disingenuous.

First please don't speak for everyone. I liked point-blank shot. The system should allow people to play the styles of characters they want. As it is now I can't play an Elven ranger with a bow as he never will have any options for his bow unless he decides to take fighter dedication. Which means that is a feat tax and because the way the "multi classing" works I am behind on feats in number and in power.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

As the Title Says:

Bull Rush (Dwarf- Boulder Roll or Fighter Brutish Shove or Monk Knockback Strike)

Charge (Barbarian & Fighter- Sudden Charge)

Cleave (Barbarian)

Great Cleave (Barbarian)

Whirlwind Attack (Whirlwind Strike- Barbarian, Fighter)

Reach Spell (NOT Bards)

Command Undead (Cleric)

Selective Channel (Selective Energy- Cleric)

Elemental Channel (Cleric)

Warrior Priest (Cleric)

Widen Spell (NOT Clerics & Bards)

Attack of Opportunity (Fighter & Paladin)

Double Slice (Fighter & Ranger)

Furious Focus (Fighter)

Point Blank Shot (Fighter)

Power Attack (Fighter)

Shield Bash (Aggressive Shield- Fighter)

Rapid Shot (Double Shot- Fighter)

Using one handed weapon 2 handed and removing a hand as a free action (Dual-Handed Assault- Fighter)

Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Exotic Weapon Training- 6th level fighter!!)

Blind-Fight (Fighter)

Combat Reflexes (Fighter)

Spring Attack (Fighter)

Crane Style (Monk)

Dragon Style (Monk)

Stunning Fist (Monk)

Tiger Style (Monk)

Deflect Arrow (Monk)

Snatch Arrow (Arrow Snatching)

Quick Draw (Monk & Rogue)

Rapid Reload (Running Reload- Ranger & Rogue)

Mobility (Rogue)

Counterspell (Sorcerer & Wizard)

Quicken Spell (Quickened Casting- Sorcerer & Wizard)

Magical Striker (Arcane Strike- Sorcerer & Wizard)

Bull Rush works for anyone with athletics. They changed the name to shove. Brutish Shove is more akin to 1E's Pushing Assault. Boulder Roll is its own thing, similar to Overrun but without prone being a thing.

Charge works for anyone with a charge weapon, Sudden Charge is it's own thing more similar to a slightly weaker pounce (You can move twice your speed and get 2 attacks).

Fighters get Swipe, which is analogous to cleave (moreso than barbarian cleave, since that only works if you drop a foe).

1E's Double Slice is a feature of the game, doesn't take a feat. 2E's double slice is more akin to two-weapon fighting, but is less of a penalty than 1E's two-weapon fighting because fighting with two weapons is viable (if you can afford it economically) with 0 feat investment, leading with a strong weapon and following up with an agile weapon.

Power Attack is more akin to 1E's Vital Strike than Power Attack. Can't really find anything analogous to 1E's Power Attack.

Aggressive Shield is more akin to Shield Slam from 1E, the Shield Bash attack is an option for everyone. And functions like Improved Shield Bash.

Spring Attack as it existed in 1E is available to everyone by the 3-action system. You can move, attack, and move. You do trigger reactions, but as you mentioned AoO is fighter/paladin-locked so this is less of a problem. New Spring Attack doesn't seem terribly analagous to anything I've seen in 1E, it lets you move with your second or third attack to get it off on another foe.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency is available as a general feat to anybody who is willing to pursue it. Weapon Proficiency gives you simple, then martial, than exotic weapon training (you get one step above what you had before).

Mobility is available to anybody who is willing to pay the feat tax, just like it was in 1E. The feat tax's prerequisite is higher.

Shield Bash Slam is available to anyone willing to pay the feat tax, just like in 1E. The feat tax's prerequisites might be higher (you can get it at a lower level, and need fewer feats, but a higher ability score).

EDIT: Bull Rush Pushing Assault is also available to anyone willing to pay the feat tax like it was in 1E. The tax's prerequisites are higher.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Bull Rush - Everyone can Bull Rush straight from level 1, it just requires Athletics training

Charge - Everyone can still do this as well, by taking two stride actions and then attacking.

Cleave - You can get it by multiclassing

Great Cleave - See above

Whirlwind Attack - I'll give this one to you BUT I would argue that Whirlwind Attack was so heavily feat taxed in the P1E that almost no one but the fighter was able to acquire it easily.

Reach Spell - It can be gained by multiclassing

Command Undead - You had to have the Channel negative energy class feature, so you pretty much had to be a Cleric to begin with.

Selective Channel - See above

Elemental Channel - See above

Warrior Priest - This feat was basically for Clerics or Oracles

Widen Spell - You can get it by multiclassing

Attack of Opportunity - True. But the devs had said they wanted to get rid of AoO because it was bogging down combat and limiting options. So I'm fine with it.

Double Slice - You can get it by multiclassing, also it's not nearly as critical as last edition since essentially everyone can TWF from lvl 1

Furious Focus - This doesn't work the same as it used to. Same name different thing. You can also get it by multiclassing

Point Blank Shot - This doesn't work the same way as it used to at ALL. Same name different thing. You can also get it by multiclassing

Power Attack - This doesn't work the same way as it used to. Same name different thing. You can also get it by multiclassing.

Shield Bash - If you're talking about improved shield bash then that isn't needed anymore because can you just attacking with your weapon, then shield, and then raise your shield.

Rapid Shot - Everyone can do this from lvl 1 with the new action economy

Using one handed weapon 2 handed and removing a hand as a free action - I'll have to give you this one although they changed the way that worked completely.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency - You can get it multiclassing BUT I'm not sure that it should be because ANYONE should be able to train themselves to use an exotic weapon. Should be a general feat. Or maybe something that can learned during downtime from someone who knows how to use the weapon?

Blind-Fight - I'll give this one to you

Combat Reflexes - I'll give you this one too but because of the change to AoO it makes sense.

Spring Attack - I'll give you this one

Crane Style - You can get it by multiclassing. Also why would anyone who wasn't a monk take these feats?

Dragon Style - See above

Stunning Fist - See above

Tiger Style - See above

Deflect Arrow - You can get it by multiclassing

Snatch Arrow - You can TECHNICALLY get it by multiclassing but your level would be so high it wouldn't exactly be worth it.

Quick Draw - I'll give you this one. I believe this should be a general feat.

Rapid Reload - I'll give you this one. I believe this should be a general feat.

Mobility - Because of the difference in AoO this isn't needed anymore. You can also get it by multiclassing

Counterspell - You can get it by multiclassing

Quicken Spell - I'll give you this one.

Magical Striker - Do you mean Arcane Strike? If so then yes. It's also way cooler in this version. You can also get it by multiclassing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
brad2411 wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

This is really frivolous.

Being "available for everyone" is not a good thing. Sometimes it's better some things are closed off.

For example, Point-Blank Shot was a stone-cold tax feat that everyone wanted to skip, but everyone was burdened with.

Your post doesn't serve to advance a conversation, it seems like griping onto PF1 when, in terms of market share and accessibility, the game needs an update.

Now, a wholly different argument would be saying "hey, without Attacks of Opportunity, a lot of classes don't have an use for reactions, and combat feels like a constant chase", or "I don't have a lot of ways to make a more warrior-like Bard other than Fighter MC, and maybe I just want the dueling talents".

Focusing on what's different between two editions as though as it were inherently bad/good without looking at the system is disingenuous.

First please don't speak for everyone. I liked point-blank shot. The system should allow people to play the styles of characters they want. As it is now I can't play an Elven ranger with a bow as he never will have any options for his bow unless he decides to take fighter dedication. Which means that is a feat tax and because the way the "multi classing" works I am behind on feats in number and in power.

You do know that video that guy posted from Youtube isn't a Longbow. And he's also not in the heat of battle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

Volley 10 or 20 would be enough of a penalty, 50 feet is way too much for most battlemaps.

Not to mention it's totally unrealistic...

That is absolutely a short bow lol. But I get what you're trying to say.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:

Bull Rush - Everyone can Bull Rush straight from level 1, it just requires Athletics training

Charge - Everyone can still do this as well, by taking two stride actions and then attacking.

Cleave - You can get it by multiclassing

Great Cleave - See above

Whirlwind Attack - I'll give this one to you BUT I would argue that Whirlwind Attack was so heavily feat taxed in the P1E that almost no one but the fighter was able to acquire it easily.

Reach Spell - It can be gained by multiclassing

Command Undead - You had to have the Channel negative energy class feature, so you pretty much had to be a Cleric to begin with.

...

"you can get this by multiclassing" is a bad excuse imo, since now you're even more feats behind (and therefore can't actually start on following though on your character's initial design) until even later in your career. edit: and this is even assuming you can fit it in between or instead of other class feats you get from your now-higher level.

"yeah this is legolas! he'll be an archer in--" *looks at calendar for planned sessions* "--two months, if we don't have to delay or cancel any." (this is also being generous assuming at least one game a week with a decently productive party, or two a week with less productive sessions)

-----

Secret Wizard wrote:

Volley 10 or 20 would be enough of a penalty, 50 feet is way too much for most battlemaps.

Not to mention it's totally unrealistic...

not nearly as revolutionary as he seems to tout himself, and certainly didn't rediscover anything

that doesn't mean he's not still incredibly talented and deserves praise for his training and skill in trickshots.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

As the Title Says:

Bull Rush (Dwarf- Boulder Roll or Fighter Brutish Shove or Monk Knockback Strike)

Charge (Barbarian & Fighter- Sudden Charge)

Cleave (Barbarian)

Great Cleave (Barbarian)

Whirlwind Attack (Whirlwind Strike- Barbarian, Fighter)

Reach Spell (NOT Bards)

Command Undead (Cleric)

Selective Channel (Selective Energy- Cleric)

Elemental Channel (Cleric)

Warrior Priest (Cleric)

Widen Spell (NOT Clerics & Bards)

Attack of Opportunity (Fighter & Paladin)

Double Slice (Fighter & Ranger)

Furious Focus (Fighter)

Point Blank Shot (Fighter)

Power Attack (Fighter)

Shield Bash (Aggressive Shield- Fighter)

Rapid Shot (Double Shot- Fighter)

Using one handed weapon 2 handed and removing a hand as a free action (Dual-Handed Assault- Fighter)

Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Exotic Weapon Training- 6th level fighter!!)

Blind-Fight (Fighter)

Combat Reflexes (Fighter)

Spring Attack (Fighter)

Crane Style (Monk)

Dragon Style (Monk)

Stunning Fist (Monk)

Tiger Style (Monk)

Deflect Arrow (Monk)

Snatch Arrow (Arrow Snatching)

Quick Draw (Monk & Rogue)

Rapid Reload (Running Reload- Ranger & Rogue)

Mobility (Rogue)

Counterspell (Sorcerer & Wizard)

Quicken Spell (Quickened Casting- Sorcerer & Wizard)

Magical Striker (Arcane Strike- Sorcerer & Wizard)

*Homer drool*

Personally, it's great to see a class based game embracing compartmentation.


A lot of this could be greatly fixed if the number of classes were reduced to something like Warrior, Expert, Spellcaster (or Arcane Spellcaster+Divine Spellcaster) and multiclassing was in. The resulting Warrior could have trees called Fighter (Armor training+Weapon Training subtrees), Barbarian (Rage+Totem subtrees), Monk (Ki+Martial Arts subtrees), Ranger (Archery) and Paladin (Holy Warrior) with the other classes working the same. The no-class-features but talents every other level thing doesn't really work with 12 classes: there's a reason all the other d20 systems (Unearthed Arcana's generic classes, d20 modern, Saga Edition) that do this used only 3-6 base classes.

Of course you have to fix that most talents are garbage on their own, but you have to do that anyways.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I sort of figured that Volley exists to make people consider shortbows, which nobody ever chose to use in PF1 as long as they had longbow proficiency.

mounted combat, tight space, you can shoot shorbow while kneeling.

volley would be great is it were 10-15ft range.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

If they wanted to encourage people to use shortbows, they should do it the same way they encourage people to use 1d6 melee weapons: make it agile.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:
If they wanted to encourage people to use shortbows, they should do it the same way they encourage people to use 1d6 melee weapons: make it agile.

Excelent idea.

Longbows have range and initial damage
Shortbows have more precice miltiattack and mounted combat.

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

A lot of the class gated feats are pretty easy to get by multiclassing, the level you can get them will be higher but this seems to be a trend ofth epf2 game.

As for volley. I too think the range is too large, best way to address this? Jump of the feedback aurveys and say so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Cat-thulhu wrote:

A lot of the class gated feats are pretty easy to get by multiclassing, the level you can get them will be higher but this seems to be a trend ofth epf2 game.

As for volley. I too think the range is too large, best way to address this? Jump of the feedback aurveys and say so.

Yes, you can pay a steep feat tax by multiclassing into them- but I thought we all universally agreed that feat taxes were bad design?

Just because you now have to use multiclass archetype class feats instead of just additional general feats doesn't make the feat tax less punishing or better design.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like it if they'd do with weapon proficiencies what they're doing with skills. Lines of "weapon group feats" that have levels of proficiency as their prerequisite. That way it could actually mean something if you're an "Expert" or a "Master" with a weapon, instead of just a measly bonus that can in no way compete with just having a magic weapon. Also, it could differentiate weapons more substantially. Classes could still have specific closed-off feats to maintain class identity.


I can see making the case that a given class feat might really belong in the general feat pool. But the implicit argument being made here -- something that wasn't "class-locked" in 1E becoming so in 2E is inherently problematic -- is specious.

The system is class-based for a reason.

Finally, "locked" is a bit of an overstatement given the class dedication feats.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

This is really frivolous.

Being "available for everyone" is not a good thing. Sometimes it's better some things are closed off.

For example, Point-Blank Shot was a stone-cold tax feat that everyone wanted to skip, but everyone was burdened with.

Your post doesn't serve to advance a conversation, it seems like griping onto PF1 when, in terms of market share and accessibility, the game needs an update.

Now, a wholly different argument would be saying "hey, without Attacks of Opportunity, a lot of classes don't have an use for reactions, and combat feels like a constant chase", or "I don't have a lot of ways to make a more warrior-like Bard other than Fighter MC, and maybe I just want the dueling talents".

Focusing on what's different between two editions as though as it were inherently bad/good without looking at the system is disingenuous.

Someone providing a handy list of what options are now gated behind certain classes is not disingenuous; I find your post to be.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

I can see making the case that a given class feat might really belong in the general feat pool. But the implicit argument being made here -- something that wasn't "class-locked" in 1E becoming so in 2E is inherently problematic -- is specious.

The system is class-based for a reason.

Finally, "locked" is a bit of an overstatement given the class dedication feats.

personally, i still cant approve of additional taxes for what used to be considered taxes previously.

especially when many of them are simply for basic competence in a field, rather than going above and beyond (y'know, things one would ususally spend class feats on).

if you make a character intending to use a certain weapon that doesn't come online until you're three feats in, your character isn't the character you want to play until roughly 1/3rd of the way through their entire adventuring career (level 6). with forced multiclassing involved, that's almost 1/2 of the way through (level 8), assuming you start building for just those feats from the start and completely disregarding any new or interesting feats that may become available along the way.
and that's solely for the [using your weapon] aspect of your character.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:

personally, i still cant approve of additional taxes for what used to be considered taxes previously.

especially when many of them are simply for basic competence in a field, rather than going above and beyond (y'know, things one would ususally spend class feats on).

if you make a character intending to use a certain weapon that doesnt come online until you're three feats in, your character isn't the character you want to play until roughly 1/3rd of the way through their entire adventuring career. with forced multiclassing involved, that's almost 1/2 of the way through, assuming you start building for just those feats from the start and completely disregarding any new or interesting feats that may become available along the way.

It sounds like you've got the start of a good case for moving some feats back into the general pool. :)

It's the knee-jerk "this is different that 1E, and therefore bad" reaction which is implied by the act of posting such a list in the first place that I personally find less-than-useful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

personally, i still cant approve of additional taxes for what used to be considered taxes previously.

especially when many of them are simply for basic competence in a field, rather than going above and beyond (y'know, things one would ususally spend class feats on).

if you make a character intending to use a certain weapon that doesnt come online until you're three feats in, your character isn't the character you want to play until roughly 1/3rd of the way through their entire adventuring career. with forced multiclassing involved, that's almost 1/2 of the way through, assuming you start building for just those feats from the start and completely disregarding any new or interesting feats that may become available along the way.

It sounds like you've got the start of a good case for moving some feats back into the general pool. :)

It's the knee-jerk "this is different that 1E, and therefore bad" reaction which is implied by the act of posting such a list in the first place that I personally find less-than-useful.

as it is currently, the list by itself is helpful for general character-building (either as a list of where to get them, or what class you've gotta play to do so if there isn't a MC option for them at present), especially for people coming in from 1e, since they may try to build a character with something in mind (such as a TWF rogue, one of the more iconic designs) and hit a bit of a snag attempting to locate the usual go-to's for such a build.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

The game is beeing heavly tuned down.

All classes had they unique things and feats. Now most unique things are gone and feats were split among classes.

No, thank you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
As it is currently, the list by itself is helpful for general character-building (either as a list of where to get them, or what class you've gotta play to do so if there isn't a MC option for them at present), especially for people coming in from 1e, since they may try to build a character with something in mind (such as a TWF rogue, one of the more iconic designs) and hit a bit of a snag attempting to locate the usual go-to's for such a build.

True; I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps because I'm trying (not always succeeding, but trying) to judge 2E as its own game (rather than jumping straight to comparing it with 1E).

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Re: Volley - Just use a composite shortbow, and don't worry about the average loss of 1 point of damage.

Or, and this is important:

Houserules.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:

I can see making the case that a given class feat might really belong in the general feat pool. But the implicit argument being made here -- something that wasn't "class-locked" in 1E becoming so in 2E is inherently problematic -- is specious.

The system is class-based for a reason.

Finally, "locked" is a bit of an overstatement given the class dedication feats.

Pretty much what I was thinking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

Cool, but putting the cleric channeling feats that nobody else would qualify to

Anyone whou could channel could use those feats.

Oracles and Witches both come to mind. use may hurt it a bit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


So the problem is that you need a feat tax to use bows due to Volley 50, NOT the fact that only Fighter's get PBS. That's indeed a feat tax.
That's not true at all. You can use a bow without point blank shot, and it's pretty effective. It's better than a crossbow in most circumstances, actually, thanks to adding half your strength, being able to shoot multiple times per round and being Deadly. The volley property is a mechanism to balance bows with other long range projectile weapons. They are still a fine weapon.

The volley property is stupid, makes no sense, is ahistorical, and is less realistic than Wizards casting fireballs.

That's just not how bows work.

I give you a 6/10 in the melodrama scale. Not bad effort, but need more consistency


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I like that a lot of what had been grab-bag Weapon feats are now Fighter-only feats. It means something that if you want to be an absolute paragon with the bow, that you have to dedicate your life to it (ie be a fighter). Others can pick up some tricks for shooting better (multiclass Fighter), but being an absolute master of weapons should be the Fighter’s niche and not something that just anyone can do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is an idea for Paizo. Change the names. If Power attack was called "mortal strike" and had same mechanics (2 a ions, etc) nobody would say it is "something every body used to do and is now class locked", because the mechanic has nothing to do with what hsracterd used to do


6 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
It's the knee-jerk "this is different that 1E, and therefore bad" reaction which is implied by the act of posting such a list in the first place that I personally find less-than-useful.

This change removes player agency from the character design process by restricting selection to a much smaller sub-set of characters.

This is a bad thing, regardless of edition or game system. If a character is willing to devote resources to stepping outside the box, that option should be available.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like the Volley mechanic. I want every weapon on the table to be desireable. For a weapon to take up space on there and never get used (like the PF1 shortbow) is just an illusion of choice, not actual choice. You can absolutely play a viable archer without the fighter feats, as long as you choose your weapon appropriately.

This whole thread is committing a oft-done sin of viewing PF2 through a PF1 lens. This is a different game, and stands alone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
It's the knee-jerk "this is different that 1E, and therefore bad" reaction which is implied by the act of posting such a list in the first place that I personally find less-than-useful.

This change removes player agency from the character design process by restricting selection to a much smaller sub-set of characters.

This is a bad thing, regardless of edition or game system. If a character is willing to devote resources to stepping outside the box, that option should be available.

Always? Then why uses classes at all?

Besides...as has been pointed out, in most cases that option is available, albeit with a different level of investment than 1E.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
Personally, I like that a lot of what had been grab-bag Weapon feats are now Fighter-only feats. It means something that if you want to be an absolute paragon with the bow, that you have to dedicate your life to it (ie be a fighter). Others can pick up some tricks for shooting better (multiclass Fighter), but being an absolute master of weapons should be the Fighter’s niche and not something that just anyone can do.

my stance is that the fighter should be an exemplar of the skill--able to do things completely unique or better than others, rather than simply being the only one allowed to be competent at it (and by hoarding all the general feats to themselves in the edition change, no less).

i feel the design currently is a disservice to the fighter, as they get nothing standout--they're still at 'ground level' for 1e, they just dragged everyone else lower to seem better by comparison. i want them to be worth choosing as a class by their own merits rather than nefarious design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Cool, but putting the cleric channeling feats that nobody else would qualify to

Anyone whou could channel could use those feats.

Oracles and Witches both come to mind. use may hurt it a bit.

Sure, but the point is that no class currently in PF2 can channel except for the Cleric, so when they get around to printing a second class who can channel (if they do; witches and oracles might be pretty different) they can just give them that same feat, much like how two classes have Sudden Charge.

It's sort of like how Druid feats which pertain to wild shaping do not need to anticipate the return of the Shifter class years before it would happen. Druids are the only people who can wild shape (right now) so no one else needs access to wild shaping feats.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:


Always? Then why uses classes at all?

Certain selections obviously work better for some classes than others.

This is not the same as telling a class that he simply cannot do something. He just may not be quite as good at it, unless used in an innovative way.

Current rules lock characters into specific fighting styles, removing player agency from the build process. For example, building a paladin of Erastil using his diety's favored weapon, the bow, is simply not viable. Why? because for some reason paladin's no longer have access to bow feats. They still get proficiency, but have access to none of the abilities that make bows worthwhile.

1 to 50 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Semi-Complete List of Things that Used to be Available to Everyone that are Now Class Locked All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.