Prove me wrong: BAB was a really elegant way of gating universally accessible feats.

[tivadar27]

So this occurred to me: Part of the problem with PF2 is that feats are hidden behind class walls, rather than having universal lists that any class can take from. It turns out, PF1e did this right. They measured your fighting prowess based on a single number, that advanced at different rates for different classes, and accounted for multiclassing, and they used this number to gate combat-type feats. Namely, PF1e used BAB.

Yes, BAB gets a lot of hate, big tables of numbers that make things unreadable. But what it did behind the scenes was enable the ability to make generic feat lists where they didn't need to list level requirements on a per-class basis.

The same *could* be said for Caster Level, but the problem with that is that it didn't handle multiclassing properly/at all.

So... how do we enable this sort of thing in PF2? We want flatter proficiency modifiers, and that's fine, but the problem is, the levels of training are too coarse to really be useful in feat gating. Casters get absolutely no training in weapons, so it'd be impossible for them to get combat feats as things are currently organized. Rogues gain Expert, but only at level 13, which is pretty high. Fighters *start* at expert and rapidly gain master. Basically, there's no rhyme or reason to it, and everything is organized as granting a particular level of mastery, rather Mthan increasing your currently level of mastery.

MAYBE something like this could be done in PF2, but it would require serious re-thinking of both weapon proficiency and likely spell proficiency (if we want to make metamagic globally accessible as well). I likely think this is a good idea, as it's both less lists to maintain, and less feat names to duplicate among the classes and when adding new classes. But I'm curious what others think as well.

[PossibleCabbage]

One thing I really hated was all the various ways 3.x tried to say "level" without actually saying the word.

One problem that gating by BAB caused was to encourage people to dip into a full BAB class solely to qualify for a feat earlier, then retrain out that class entirely (e.g. a Dwarf Magus trains 1 level of fighter to have BAB 4 at level 5 to take Dorn-Dergar master, then later retrains that back to another level of magus.) I felt really terrible doing this when planning a character, so I'm happy to see it gone.

[Davor]

I'm going to disagree a bit here: Putting most feats behind class walls is a really elegant solution to the sprawl of feats available to characters in PF1. I actually agree with some of the decision making here.

For example, let's take "Improved Critical" from PF1. Requires Weapon Focus, and BAB +8. This requirement makes it so that 3/4 BAB classes can pick it up around 13th level if they want (which is fine), and 1/2 BAB classes can't until around level 16.

But here's the thing: No 1/2 BAB class by itself is going to pick up Improved Critical. Even for touch attacks it's basically worthless. In fact, with the way feat investment worked, many 3/4 BAB classes couldn't easily fit such a feat into their repertoire. Sometimes even full BAB classes didn't. And that's a relatively simple feat. Let's not even get into feat chains, feat taxes, and feats that required certain ability scores and class features being listed as General Feats that most characters would never even consider taking. Discordant voice, for example, requires Bardic Performance and Perform ranks, but is listed as a general feat. Why? Well, partially because class features got bandied around by archetypes a LOT, and partially to say "This is a bard feat. Bards should take this". Why shouldn't stuff like that just be a bard thing and be done with it? Especially with the way they're doing multiclassing (which I fully agree with by the way), there's no reason to leave something like Discordant Voice out in the middle of nowhere for the majority of players to see and not use.

Now, I will agree that some feats should be more generic (several martial feats fall under this category), but the idea of saying "This is an X level Wizard/Sorcerer Feat" isn't REALLY any different than saying "Requires ability to cast X level Arcane Spells". It's just codified to not encourage someone to take Power Attack when their class isn't built for it, etc. This is a good thing, but only if the codified options are interesting and engaging.

[tivadar27]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

One thing I really hated was all the various ways 3.x tried to say "level" without actually saying the word.

One problem that gating by BAB caused was to encourage people to dip into a full BAB class solely to qualify for a feat earlier, then retrain out that class entirely (e.g. a Dwarf Magus trains 1 level of fighter to have BAB 4 at level 5 to take Dorn-Dergar master, then later retrains that back to another level of magus.) I felt really terrible doing this when planning a character, so I'm happy to see it gone.

I feel like this was more an issue with how retraining worked rather than how the specific gating worked. Retraining was a fairly "late" addition into Pathfinder, so for a long time, that simply wasn't possible.

That being said, I don't think you *can* train out of classes in 2e, and retraining on feats specifically states it has to be something you qualified for at the time. I'm not seeing how this would add any issues, though I understand your point about it *being* an issue in 1e with the retraining rules.

[tivadar27]

Davor wrote:

I'm going to disagree a bit here: Putting most feats behind class walls is a really elegant solution to the sprawl of feats available to characters in PF1. I actually agree with some of the decision making here.

I could debate this, but the fact is I think we just fundamentally disagree on what's "best" here. That's understandable and will happen, but my argument was made on the premise that gating feats behind class walls is bad (and there are a lot who agree with this, though also plenty who disagree as well). If you don't accept that premise, then I suppose there's not much for me to argue here :).

[Vic Ferrari]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

One thing I really hated was all the various ways 3.x tried to say "level" without actually saying the word.

Total, it was pretty obvious - ooh, don't take this PrC until you are 5th level in a full BAB class (or amounts to from multi-classing just right), but not until a bit later if some of your classes arbitrarily have some annoying 3/4 or 1/2 BAB deal.

[PossibleCabbage]

Another issue with BAB is that it's sufficiently abstract as to be nearly meaningless in a way that "expert proficiency with weapons" is not.

[Azih]

2e has restricted universally accessible feats so whether it was elegant or not in 1e is a bit moot for the playtest.

Universally accessible feats in and of themselves were kind of a huge problem though. I know the biggest hurdle I had as a neophyte Pathfinder player was picking feats as there were so many of them and I was kinda scared of picking the 'wrong' one.

I think gating by training level is fine if necessary.

[Forseti]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Another issue with BAB is that it's sufficiently abstract as to be nearly meaningless in a way that "expert proficiency with weapons" is not.

And ironically, the effect of being an expert instead of just trained is nearly meaningless.

[tivadar27]

Forseti wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Another issue with BAB is that it's sufficiently abstract as to be nearly meaningless in a way that "expert proficiency with weapons" is not.

And ironically, the effect of being an expert instead of just trained is nearly meaningless.

Agree with this. Proficiency, outside of trained, doesn't have a whole lot of meaning in PF2e. If an approach was taken similar to what they've done with skills, where combat abilities were gated behind them, then it might make a difference. As it is... +1 means very little.

[Davor]

tivadar27 wrote:

I could debate this, but the fact is I think we just fundamentally disagree on what's "best" here. That's understandable and will happen, but my argument was made on the premise that gating feats behind class walls is bad (and there are a lot who agree with this, though also plenty who disagree as well). If you don't accept that premise, then I suppose there's not much for me to argue here :).

I think there is healthy room for compromise. I definitely agree that far too many feats are class-walled, and this is a real shame. It's important, however to think of "Feats" in PF2 as being more like "Talents" in PF1. I would never complain about a Rogue Talent being Rogue-only, so a Rogue Feat being Rogue-only isn't much different other than verbage.

What I DO think is that the idea of what is worthy of a feat needs to be brought up, and feats need to be more independent of each other. If something is going to be a Class Feat, and not a generic feat, I need to be wow'd every time I see one, or think "That's a weird feat" that I'll understand upon learning more later. As it is, it's too easy for a concept to be called a class feat (I'm looking at you, Power Attack).

[tivadar27]

@Davor: Agreed. I'd never suggest opening up *all* feats to all classes, but we are used to combat styles (ie Two-Handed fighting with Power Attack, Dual Wield with Double Slice, Archery with Double Shot) being generically accessible. I don't think it needs to be a lot of feats, but I'd like to see these opened up and probably gated on proficiency a bit more, with the higher level stuff being gated on those higher proficiencies.

That being said, that still allows things like Hunt Target and Favored Aim to allow specific classes to specialize further in their style of choice.

[master_marshmallow]

Not only do proficiency modifiers need to scale up, but they need to distribute more over the coarse of a 20 level character to really have actual results at the table.

Barbarians swing at the same bonus as casters until level 13 I think.

It needs to scale more, and at set increments based on how combat oriented your class is.

[Cyouni]

I'd rather see them be gated by weapon proficiency, if anything.

[Irontruth]

tivadar27 wrote:

Yes, BAB gets a lot of hate, big tables of numbers that make things unreadable. But what it did behind the scenes was enable the ability to make generic feat lists where they didn't need to list level requirements on a per-class basis.

I bolded the operative word.

I don't like "generic" lists. I'd rather have more flavorful options that are tailored to my character. I'd rather find combinations of feats/abilities that are available to me. The problem with a giant generic list available to everyone is that they aren't unique to my character.

There are a couple of other games that go down this path of specialization and niche protection much better. In Dungeon World, if you're playing The Fighter, you are THE Fighter. No one else can play, The Fighter, because YOU are playing The Fighter. You can't have a party of Fighters. A group can certainly change this rule of the game, but I think everyone playing the same class would notice way too much overlap.

There are benefits to a class-centric approach versus a generic approach to feats. You get to push the envelope of what that class can do. One of the core problems with the Fighter in PF1 was that the class was based on bonus feats. All the feats you could take though, 98% of them were open to anyone from any class though. Sure, you got more of them, but any specific feat you had was eligible to be taken by another class. PF1 developed some more fighter only options later in the game's life span, but early on it was entirely generic.

The nice thing about generic options is that you get to put your own spin on it and try to twist it slightly so that it is uniquely yours. The problem though, is that if you don't want to put in that effort, all of your options are generic and everything will feel bland. The other thing is that if you're good at putting your own spin on generic options, you're also good at putting your own spin on more flavored options specific to different classes. It is the same skill.

[tivadar27]

For example, something that *could* work if they rethought how classes get trained/expert in weapons:

Generally available feats for Trained Proficiency:
Archery: Point-Blank Shot
Two-Handed: Furious Focus
One-Handed: (Maybe) Nimble Dodge but only while single wielding.
Sword and Board: (Maybe) Reactive Shield
Dual Wielding:

Expert:
Archery: Double Shot
Two-Handed: Power Attack
One-Handed: Dueling Parry
...

Master:
(All) Critical Specialization.

Note that while you could access these feats when you had the appropriate proficiency, they'd only be available when you were using a weapon at the proficiency.

I'm not even really tied to the specifics here, but having weapon proficiency mean something, and having fighting styles be available without splashing classes, is something I hope makes it into the final edition.

[Rysky]

I made just a thread on this topic :3