Suggestion for Martials: A "Combat" feat pool


Classes


15 people marked this as a favorite.

First, to explain the problem.

A ton of very generic combat feats like quick draw and power attack have been class locked, including the basic lines for each weapon, and generic maneuvers which could be learned by anyone with sufficient combat training, like I mentioned above.

To solve this, my suggestion is adding a new feat pool, Combat Feats.

Characters with a martial class (Rogue, Monk, Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin) would be able to freely spend a class feat to take any one of these combat feats. (Existing pre-requisites would remain, of course.)

Characters who multiclass into one of those classes would also gain the ability to do this as part of their Archetype Dedication feat.

This leaves the ACTUAL class feat design space for things which interface directly with the class' features or flavour.

And, most importantly, this approach doesn't arbitrarily prevent people from making a Sword & Board Ranger or an Archer Paladin, or any similar flavours which might be slightly less common than your generic dual-wielding rangers or whatever, but is no less valid despite that.

It's definitely possible to create a solid class identity for every class without randomly gating off certain playing styles just because they're not the most common.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Elvenoob wrote:

First, to explain the problem.

This leaves the ACTUAL class feat design space for things which interface directly with the class' features or flavour.

And, most importantly, this approach doesn't arbitrarily prevent people from making a Sword & Board Ranger or an Archer Paladin, or any similar flavours which might be slightly less common than your generic dual-wielding rangers or whatever, but is no less valid despite that.

It's definitely possible to create a solid class identity for every class without randomly gating off certain playing styles just because they're not the most common.

Yes, yes, yes. And do the same for casters, too. Leave the class feat design space for interacting with and creating unique class features. I think this is emblematic of why so many people see the general feats as being kind of lackluster — there isn’t enough design space for them when you make all of the interesting and useful feats class feats.

The theme of PF2E to me is modularity, but the current ruleset doesn’t go far enough to embrace that idea, it just tips its toe in.


Whirling Dervish wrote:


Yes, yes, yes. And do the same for casters, too.

Oh, like, your Metamagics and whatnot!? Yeah, actually, that'd really do wonders for making everything a bit more neat, streamlined and customisable. Love it.


I think there should just be a ‘general’ class fest pool- that way, a martial-inclined Wizard can take a combat feat or two without multiclassing, and Paladins and other partial casters can benefit from a bit of a magical power boost. Why be restrictive? Throw the gates wide open!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly. Make class feats for unique features, and create pools of feats for more common uses. If you want to restrict them for casting classes for some reason, do it based on spell list. “Must have access to Arcane or Occult spell list”, for example. If you want to restrict them for certain martial classes, give it “Key ability: Dex” as a requirement or “Key ability: Str” as a requirement. Although then you’d want to make sure each class has a choice of which stat is their Key ability.

As an aside, I’d say another thing to do for these combat feats is to create more that add action options, in the vein of Sudden Charge. Creating new opportunities is what makes for a fun feat.


I'd have to disagree there, Daedalus, in that, that's 3 pools of feats you're talking now, one low-level curated pile of everything, which has to now find a name which isn't confused with general feats themselves, and then a more advanced martial and caster pool of feats...

At that point I feel it's diminishing returns, you're adding a ton of complexity and not getting much customisation in return.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the best way to do it, rather than tie the prereqs to classes, or some sort of martial label, which would be iffy, would be to give all martials Expert in a group of weapons at 1st (or maybe the ability to count as expert in a group of weapons for feat prereqs), and have the prereqs be "Expert in at least one weapon" (or maybe specify the weapon group for certain combat styles, like "Expert in at least one crossbow" for crossbow ace) or "Trained in Arcane, Divine, Occult or Primal spellcasting"

But overall, I like the idea. Cut down on page space used to reprint feats, allowing for more class-unique options, and expand options to more classes both sound like wins to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ooooh, I like that idea Tholomyes...

So, just one pool of generic "trade for class feats" feats, but pre-requisite gated; "The ability to cast spells", or "Expert with (Relevant item)"

That could definitely work, yeah, though the Dedications would also need to get a slight buff, from making you Trained in weapons, to Expert, in order to enable access to said feats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Fighter already has a cool new thing it can focus on if they leaned into it, the stance and combo system. They can build the fighter's special stuff around that and becoming more proficient in more gear more quickly than other classes. They can also bring in Starfinder Soldier or 5E Fighter "subclasses," sort of like PF2 druidic orders, where you can get stuff like being a warlord tactician or a duelist or the like. Then all the generic combat feats can be opened up again, instead of being fighter locked.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
The Fighter already has a cool new thing it can focus on if they leaned into it, the stance and combo system. They can build the fighter's special stuff around that and becoming more proficient in more gear more quickly than other classes.

God yes, that would be fantastic. Right now the Open/Press system feels like it was designed to be more of a restriction than an option. Making Fighters feel more dynamic by making it more of a focus of design would be great IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elvenoob wrote:

First, to explain the problem.

A ton of very generic combat feats like quick draw and power attack have been class locked, including the basic lines for each weapon, and generic maneuvers which could be learned by anyone with sufficient combat training, like I mentioned above.

To solve this, my suggestion is adding a new feat pool, Combat Feats.

Characters with a martial class (Rogue, Monk, Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin) would be able to freely spend a class feat to take any one of these combat feats. (Existing pre-requisites would remain, of course.)

Characters who multiclass into one of those classes would also gain the ability to do this as part of their Archetype Dedication feat.

This leaves the ACTUAL class feat design space for things which interface directly with the class' features or flavour.

And, most importantly, this approach doesn't arbitrarily prevent people from making a Sword & Board Ranger or an Archer Paladin, or any similar flavours which might be slightly less common than your generic dual-wielding rangers or whatever, but is no less valid despite that.

It's definitely possible to create a solid class identity for every class without randomly gating off certain playing styles just because they're not the most common.

Interestingly, I was gonna suggest something similar. I really, REALLY like this idea and I think the system would benefit a lot from it. Once I get home I'll try to elaborate my ideas a little better, but just to be clear, I am very on board with this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
The Fighter already has a cool new thing it can focus on if they leaned into it, the stance and combo system. They can build the fighter's special stuff around that and becoming more proficient in more gear more quickly than other classes.
God yes, that would be fantastic. Right now the Open/Press system feels like it was designed to be more of a restriction than an option. Making Fighters feel more dynamic by making it more of a focus of design would be great IMO.

What I think would be great is if instead of one feat per one maneuver, and each maneuver being locked into open, press or finale, they did one of the following:

  • Each feat lets you select several maneuvers off a level appropriate list; OR
  • One feat per maneuver but the maneuvers are much more flexible, able to be used with different effects as either an opener, press or finale; OR
  • Go all the way, give a "maneuver progression" by level where you select them according to your desires like a caster chooses spells. Maneuver class feats here are used to get extra maneuvers beyond your progression or to open maneuvers for a new style / weapon family beyond what you started with, as well as stances of course.

As long as they don't go animu they can capture everything good about the Book of Nine Swords without turning people off. (Disclaimer: I actually like animu warriors, I'm just mindful of prevailing opinion, so they should avoid that feel at least until a splat book.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
The Fighter already has a cool new thing it can focus on if they leaned into it, the stance and combo system. They can build the fighter's special stuff around that and becoming more proficient in more gear more quickly than other classes.
God yes, that would be fantastic. Right now the Open/Press system feels like it was designed to be more of a restriction than an option. Making Fighters feel more dynamic by making it more of a focus of design would be great IMO.

What I think would be great is if instead of one feat per one maneuver, and each maneuver being locked into open, press or finale, they did one of the following:

  • Each feat lets you select several maneuvers off a level appropriate list; OR
  • One feat per maneuver but the maneuvers are much more flexible, able to be used with different effects as either an opener, press or finale; OR
  • Go all the way, give a "maneuver progression" by level where you select them according to your desires like a caster chooses spells. Maneuver class feats here are used to get extra maneuvers beyond your progression or to open maneuvers for a new style / weapon family beyond what you started with, as well as stances of course.

As long as they don't go animu they can capture everything good about the Book of Nine Swords without turning people off. (Disclaimer: I actually like animu warriors, I'm just mindful of prevailing opinion, so they should avoid that feel at least until a splat book.)

Exactly this, couldn’t agree more. The reason casters are powerful is that they have options. Anything that increases players’ options and sense of agency is going to make a class more fun.


On to elaborate my ideas:

As the OP proposed, Combat feats could all be pooled together into a group of feats that could be selected as class feats by all (or almost all, see below) martial classes. For the purpose of this post, I'll call those feats "weapon style feats".

Anytime a martial class (i.e.: Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin and maybe even Rogue) could select a class Feat, it can select a "Weapon Style" Feat instead. Some could even be class locked, if so desired. For instance, 2-handed weapon style feat would be restricted to Fighters, Rangers, Barbs and Paladins, but not accessible to Rogues. Barbarians could only access Dual Wielding and 2-Handed Style, etc.

Weapon style feats would be grouped around a theme. The main Groupings of feats could be:

** 1-Handed ("duelist") style (1 hand weapon + free off-hand).
** 2 Handed style (wields a 2-hander) - those would incorporate
** 1-Hand and Shield style
** Dual Wielding
** Crossbow
** Archery

This would increase the versatility of martial classes and open the possibility of non-standard class options (as stated previously, an archer Paladin, Two-handed Ranger, etc.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
The Fighter already has a cool new thing it can focus on if they leaned into it, the stance and combo system. They can build the fighter's special stuff around that and becoming more proficient in more gear more quickly than other classes.
God yes, that would be fantastic. Right now the Open/Press system feels like it was designed to be more of a restriction than an option. Making Fighters feel more dynamic by making it more of a focus of design would be great IMO.

What I think would be great is if instead of one feat per one maneuver, and each maneuver being locked into open, press or finale, they did one of the following:

  • Each feat lets you select several maneuvers off a level appropriate list; OR
  • One feat per maneuver but the maneuvers are much more flexible, able to be used with different effects as either an opener, press or finale; OR
  • Go all the way, give a "maneuver progression" by level where you select them according to your desires like a caster chooses spells. Maneuver class feats here are used to get extra maneuvers beyond your progression or to open maneuvers for a new style / weapon family beyond what you started with, as well as stances of course.

As long as they don't go animu they can capture everything good about the Book of Nine Swords without turning people off. (Disclaimer: I actually like animu warriors, I'm just mindful of prevailing opinion, so they should avoid that feel at least until a splat book.)

My one worry is that this becomes a bit too complex to the point that it slows down play. With the three action system, having to have different effects for each of the actions then asking players on the fly to choose which open they want to use, which press they want to use (which might depend on the effects of their open) and which finale they want to use (which might depend on the effects of their open and press), if they have several to choose from seems like it could make high level play grind to a halt. Maybe a good way to do something like this, though, could be that instead of open/press/finale being keywords that tell you when you can use a maneuver, they're keywords that give extra effects when used in those times. Not too many that it becomes overwhelming, but enough to add some dynamism and a little more complexity, without the combination of options becoming too numerous.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed; dynamism and complexity is exactly what martials need a little more of, and the three action system is perfect for giving them that. I don't know if it would end up slowing down play *that* much; casters are already in the same position in terms of "which spell should I cast, or should I just cantrip".


Whirling Dervish wrote:
Agreed; dynamism and complexity is exactly what martials need a little more of, and the three action system is perfect for giving them that. I don't know if it would end up slowing down play *that* much; casters are already in the same position in terms of "which spell should I cast, or should I just cantrip".

True, but they can only cast 1 spell in a turn, barring certain 1 action spells. If the fighter has a number of 1 action abilities for each of open [first action] press [second or third action] and finale [presumably third action] as well as ones which are untyped [any action], as fuzzypaws was suggesting in his bullet points (which correct me if I'm off base), then that's more than just "which spell do I cast, and do I move or use my shield cantrip?" I like most parts of the idea in theory, but I think it needs to be designed with these at-the-table considerations in mind.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tholomyes wrote:
Whirling Dervish wrote:
Agreed; dynamism and complexity is exactly what martials need a little more of, and the three action system is perfect for giving them that. I don't know if it would end up slowing down play *that* much; casters are already in the same position in terms of "which spell should I cast, or should I just cantrip".
True, but they can only cast 1 spell in a turn, barring certain 1 action spells. If the fighter has a number of 1 action abilities for each of open [first action] press [second or third action] and finale [presumably third action] as well as ones which are untyped [any action], as fuzzypaws was suggesting in his bullet points (which correct me if I'm off base), then that's more than just "which spell do I cast, and do I move or use my shield cantrip?" I like most parts of the idea in theory, but I think it needs to be designed with these at-the-table considerations in mind.

Since a Fighter actually has fairly limited options as a result of the current feat design, it might not be too bad at any given table.

Also, I feel like having more options gets a bad rap. It might be more intimidating at the start, sure, but a new player can choose one set of options and run with it forever, and if those options stop working they're not locked into bad choices they made several levels ago. Especially for a Fighter who doesn't need to worry about resources.


Elvenoob wrote:
Whirling Dervish wrote:


Yes, yes, yes. And do the same for casters, too.
Oh, like, your Metamagics and whatnot!? Yeah, actually, that'd really do wonders for making everything a bit more neat, streamlined and customisable. Love it.

Yeah, my suggestion was to do all of this similar to the way it's done for skills, and gating access on proficiency. Most things can be trained, but higher level weapon feats and casting feats can be gated on having master proficiency with the weapon/spell you're casting.

I'm fine with these feats coming from the "Class Feat" pool, just, similar to what is done for archetypes, split them out from the classes and allow anyone to take them.


Alchemaic wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
Whirling Dervish wrote:
Agreed; dynamism and complexity is exactly what martials need a little more of, and the three action system is perfect for giving them that. I don't know if it would end up slowing down play *that* much; casters are already in the same position in terms of "which spell should I cast, or should I just cantrip".
True, but they can only cast 1 spell in a turn, barring certain 1 action spells. If the fighter has a number of 1 action abilities for each of open [first action] press [second or third action] and finale [presumably third action] as well as ones which are untyped [any action], as fuzzypaws was suggesting in his bullet points (which correct me if I'm off base), then that's more than just "which spell do I cast, and do I move or use my shield cantrip?" I like most parts of the idea in theory, but I think it needs to be designed with these at-the-table considerations in mind.

Since a Fighter actually has fairly limited options as a result of the current feat design, it might not be too bad at any given table.

Also, I feel like having more options gets a bad rap. It might be more intimidating at the start, sure, but a new player can choose one set of options and run with it forever, and if those options stop working they're not locked into bad choices they made several levels ago. Especially for a Fighter who doesn't need to worry about resources.

As it is now, I agree 100%. My response, initially was to fuzzypaw's suggestion that fighter feats either each grant an open press and finisher option or that fighters gain those options or each maneuver is gained in a spell like progression. That removes the "limited options" part of the equation, which is why I stated that worry. The fighter needs something, yes, but I think any solution must consider the experience at the table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

100% agree with the OP.

Having a pool of Combat Feats for Martials solves more than half the initial problems I see people having with the Playtest rule set.

Having a similar set of Metamagic feats for all casters removes needless repetition and restores some of the customization that was lost despite the theme of this rule set being customization in the first place.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if I agree. I feel like the reason feats are class locked is to get people to play a multitude of classes. If combat feats become a pool what's the use of a fighter; if I can build a barbarian or whatever that's 100% better because it has better class feats and the option of combat feats. I just feel like it might make the fighter obsolete if we give out his feats to every other class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the suggestion is that all combat oriented feats should be in a pool. Just that most basic ones should be available to all martials. More advanced feats or more specialized feats should definitely remain class locked.

Honestly, if it were up to me, all martials would have access to the Combat Style feature from 1e's Ranger Class. You then gain access to appropriate lines of combat feats for your selected style. Fighters would get a greater variety of options and maybe the ability to select a second style. The other martials would have a more narrow selection with unique higher level feats than the Fighter gets.

Just an idea off the top of my head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ItsJustAce wrote:
Not sure if I agree. I feel like the reason feats are class locked is to get people to play a multitude of classes. If combat feats become a pool what's the use of a fighter; if I can build a barbarian or whatever that's 100% better because it has better class feats and the option of combat feats. I just feel like it might make the fighter obsolete if we give out his feats to every other class.

There's also the option of making a Fighter more worthwhile to play by just making the class more worthwhile to play. Paizo did it before. There's Combat Stamina, there's AWT and AAT, there's tons of archetypes they could take ideas from, there's feats in PF1e that were only available to Fighters in addition to feats that only worked for specific Fighter class features. Fighters in PF1e currently have a significant amount of options available to them beyond just getting the most bonus combat feats in the game, there's no reason to throw all that out in favor of just taking combat feats and shoving them in as class features.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's also the option to let fighters get MORE of those feats. E.g. "any time a fighter selects a Fighter feat he may instead choose a Combat feat" (and then include 3-5 other options exclusive to the fighter as well). Other classes would be restricted to selecting them only at certain levels (e.g. Barbarian gets "Feat: a Combat feat" in his list of 1sts, 6ths, and 14ths--They're Barbarian feats that grant a Combat feat, so they can't be taken more than once).

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Suggestion for Martials: A "Combat" feat pool All Messageboards

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