| 26 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me start off by saying that my group and I had not played a game in about 3 years until shortly before the Pathfinder 2 announcement. We were excited to be able to participate in an edition transition from the company that rescued us from the nightmare that we found in 4th ed.
I followed all of the previews for the Playtest, and shared them with my group as we took up a 'world-changing' campaign in our home brew setting, as is our tradition leading up to an edition change. We were so excited to run the playtest that we actually put a pause on our ongoing campaign to run through the system, despite being worried about some of the mechanical changes that we weren't quite sure what to make of.
When we started the playtest, we were a little underwhelmed by how the system played. It felt very scripted, as though the encounters were coming straight out of a video game. We got through the first chapter, but we could not motivate ourselves to continue with the next portion of the test. We will continue to monitor the changes and updates, and perhaps will give the final product a go, but for now, we're going back to our current campaign.
I'd like to leave some feedback before I mostly go into observation mode on the forums, I'll start with some things we liked, then get into the stuff that made us run away.
1. Character creation. Creating the characters without rolling the dice was an interesting option, and a written in mechanic to avoid the issue with tanked stats on a point buy was wonderful.
2. Conceptually, not having one 'initiative' stat was refreshing. Unfortunately the exploration to combat transitions tarnished this somewhat.
3. Not rolling hit points was nice (for most of us, one player actually liked the random concept of HP).
4. Spell progression changes, as well as the metamagic changes. The concept of casting a spell at a higher level, and having scaling cantrips is a favorite. This will likely move into our house rules for future 1st ed games. Even with the reduced number of spells per day, the casters felt as though they would be able to be useful in the 'minor' combat situations.
Now to transition to the less pleasant feedback.
--- Class feats were advertised as a way to create customized characters to play any character we wanted. Instead we have limitations on which class abilities we have access to, and those limitations come with situational benefits that are often underwhelming. Other options are nearly required for good party play.
--- Class locked character concepts. Want to get the benefits for dual wielding? Better pick the correct class. We were really hoping for feat options that were more akin to the 'mythic adventures' options. A general pool, some 'role-specific' pools. Options, rather than restrictions.
--- Action economy and critical hits. The action economy seems to work well to remove some restrictions on movement and attacking. It also, in it's current form, allows for potentially super-lethal combat. I've never knocked out half a group of players with 4 goblins before. This one was key to our lack of enjoyment. Monsters with low hit points and high damage are not interesting in a narrative. Combat is short and deadly, even in some situations where it should not be at low level. The slime in the first area nearly knocked a character out.
--- The change from 'Race' to 'Ancestry' again advertised a way to make your dwarf unique and interesting. Instead we have situational options that lack any new flavor and options that were previously granted to any member of a race gated behind racial feats.
--- There are multiple threads already on the 'exploration' mode, so I'm going to keep this short - the transitional rules from combat to encounter mode being so strictly defined make for a far more 'game like' experience, rather than a seamless narrative.
--- Signature skills - from a narrative standpoint this is telling people what they can and cannot let their character concept be. This is also saying that a good general is not also likely to be a skilled negotiator. All kingdoms must send bards or rogues to negotiate for them at high level. That trusted knight can just sit and listen.
--- Resonance. Conceptually, the idea of removing the need to fill each slot with the best magic item is one we actually really liked.
The concept, however, was used as a tool to seemingly 'fix' something that is only broken if a GM allows it to be.
I would instead do something along these lines. Equally less popular with the spam crowd, but more engaging in a narrative game.
-Tie potions to constitution modifier. Current 'overspend' rules can still apply. You're drinking magic.
-Tie wands to the 'resonance pool' just like staves. No cost per use, but you can only have your casting modifier in 'spell items' bound per day. Staves and wands have casting modifier charges per day. The device has been optimized to power spells, but still needs a bit of your energy to work.
-Scrolls would tie to the casting modifier for the scroll, limiting the number used per day, same 'overspend' rules as currently exist. You are reading out words of overwhelming power.
-Remove the 'activation cost' from all items. Other items are simply bound. Including weapons. No 'pass the magic sword' during combat. Magic items should indeed be special, part of the magic being that a character has become comfortable with investing part of their energy into the item, or some similar narrative concept.
-The trick magic item feat would allow a character to 'invest' in a spell casting item, and use it as per the modifier that allowed them to 'trick' the item.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I found many of the same things that you found, especially:
Critical hits: Level 0 creatures hitting too often. Their attack bonus is 2 points too high.
Ancestry feats: As you level up you become more like your race? Why does it take level 13 for a PF2 Elf to have the same racial traits as a PF1 Elf?
Signature skills: Too restrictive.
Resonance: I'm not a fan of resonance, I'd prefer if they came up with a difference solution and I posted about it here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with many of your points. Of your list, my biggest concerns are:
- Use of signature skills. I think the mechanic isn't necessary and should just go.
- Class feats and character concepts. My group didn't look favorably on the choice limitations within the classes. One example being the variance of skill proficiency limits by class.
- Ancestry builds. I prefer some choice being granted at level one, but make choices meaningful and applicable from level one forward.
- Oddly enough, resonance hasn't really come up as an issue yet. Conceptually, I think a different solution should be used, but I have no test data to back it up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly agree, though I think Signature Skills are fine. We just need a way to easily gain more for characters who want to specialize outside their usual roles, for example via a skill feat.
"Pick two Skills that are not on your list of Signature Skills. Those Skills become Signature Skills for you."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly agree, though I think Signature Skills are fine. We just need a way to easily gain more for characters who want to specialize outside their usual roles, for example via a skill feat.
"Pick two Skills that are not on your list of Signature Skills. Those Skills become Signature Skills for you."
They stated the intent of Signature Skills was role protection of sorts. If we're giving two free signature skills away, then the original intent is moot.
Basically, I see no reason why they need to exist if the plan is to simply give them away for free anyways.
PC's do not get enough Skill Increases (even the Rogue) for Signature Skills to be anything other than limiting in a conceptually exclusive way.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly agree, though I think Signature Skills are fine. We just need a way to easily gain more for characters who want to specialize outside their usual roles, for example via a skill feat.
"Pick two Skills that are not on your list of Signature Skills. Those Skills become Signature Skills for you."
They stated the intent of Signature Skills was role protection of sorts. If we're giving two free signature skills away, then the original intent is moot.
Basically, I see no reason why they need to exist if the plan is to simply give them away for free anyways.
PC's do not get enough Skill Increases (even the Rogue) for Signature Skills to be anything other than limiting in a conceptually exclusive way.
Here's a concrete example of how Signature Skills are overly limiting. The Cleric in my group has the Gladiator Background. Her story was that she was captured and kept as a slave gladiator, and she met a Cleric of Sarenrae that had been pressed into the games as well. The character learned the basics of Sarenrae from the veteran Cleric, and when that Cleric died, the character escaped, praying to dedicate herself to healing the injured and bringing hope as had been done for her. This PC Cleric isn't well read or formally trained, and due to game circumstances she is unlikely to encounter any official churches in the near future. Neither is she well skilled in polite conversation or persuasion. Both of those don't really make sense with her Background. Additionally, despite the Gladiator Background giving a Performance feat, gladiatorial combat doesn't appear to be covered under Performance. So, out of the Signature Skills she gets, three are completely inappropriate for her, one is superfluous (why bother with mundane Medicine when one has divine healing on tap?), and only one kind of makes sense (Survival, from deity choice). The Cleric ended up multi-classing Fighter at lv 2, which gives Athletics as signature, interestingly a skill the player had already chosen as trained. Due to the limitations of Signature Skills, the player will likely only ever have one or two skills at Master or higher, and probably use most skill increases to either boost character appropriate non-signature skills to expert or just broaden her trained skill base.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly agree, though I think Signature Skills are fine. We just need a way to easily gain more for characters who want to specialize outside their usual roles, for example via a skill feat.
"Pick two Skills that are not on your list of Signature Skills. Those Skills become Signature Skills for you."
They stated the intent of Signature Skills was role protection of sorts. If we're giving two free signature skills away, then the original intent is moot.
Basically, I see no reason why they need to exist if the plan is to simply give them away for free anyways.
PC's do not get enough Skill Increases (even the Rogue) for Signature Skills to be anything other than limiting in a conceptually exclusive way.
'Role protection' is actually another point that we really didn't enjoy. Slowly as editions have marched on the RPG has gone the way of balance in all the classes.
Some people may disagree - but to some of us old timers - each class is intended to have a different function than the others. It is becoming harder and harder to see the differences between the classes when you strip away the descriptors and get down to the math. This is good, if your goal is to create a balanced computer game. This is awful if you are trying to get a group at the table to resemble a group of heroes in a story.
I want the fighter to have a different role than the cleric and the wizard. I want the damage to be different...I want the weaknesses to be different. I do not want to change the descriptive words on the abilities I use and suddenly be a fighter when I am playing a bard.
The old systems did tend to favor the caster classes at higher level. There was a solution in 3.5 that was a lot of fun to play with - 'The Book of Nine Swords'. If you just HAD to have melee characters that could keep up with the damage on a sneak attack or fireball, you could pick that book up and run with it. I've been meaning to do a conversion on it to balance it out to PF1, suppose I'll get started on that for my next campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly agree, though I think Signature Skills are fine. We just need a way to easily gain more for characters who want to specialize outside their usual roles, for example via a skill feat.
"Pick two Skills that are not on your list of Signature Skills. Those Skills become Signature Skills for you."
They stated the intent of Signature Skills was role protection of sorts. If we're giving two free signature skills away, then the original intent is moot.
Basically, I see no reason why they need to exist if the plan is to simply give them away for free anyways.
PC's do not get enough Skill Increases (even the Rogue) for Signature Skills to be anything other than limiting in a conceptually exclusive way.
'Role protection' is actually another point that we really didn't enjoy. Slowly as editions have marched on the RPG has gone the way of balance in all the classes.
Some people may disagree - but to some of us old timers - each class is intended to have a different function than the others. It is becoming harder and harder to see the differences between the classes when you strip away the descriptors and get down to the math. This is good, if your goal is to create a balanced computer game. This is awful if you are trying to get a group at the table to resemble a group of heroes in a story.
I want the fighter to have a different role than the cleric and the wizard. I want the damage to be different...I want the weaknesses to be different. I do not want to change the descriptive words on the abilities I use and suddenly be a fighter when I am playing a bard.
The old systems did tend to favor the caster classes at higher level. There was a solution in 3.5 that was a lot of fun to play with - 'The Book of Nine Swords'. If you just HAD to have melee characters that could keep up with the damage on a sneak attack or fireball, you could pick that book up and run with it. I've been meaning to do a conversion on it to...
It was already basically remade for PF1 as Path of War.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Path of War is fun.
Edit: Specifically, it's fun in the wild way that you can get with PF1/D&D spellcasters, but can't with PF1 fighters and pretty much anything in PF2.
Oh. See, I don't play for a couple years, and a sneaky variation shows up I haven't tried yet.
Though, I will admit, the recharge stuff on there is a bit much usually, if it follows what was in 3.5
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been having a lot of player bleed in 2E, also. Between my 4 games, having had a total of 12 sessions, I've had 6 players give up due to the quality of the rules & Doomsday Dawn.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Role protection' is actually another point that we really didn't enjoy. Slowly as editions have marched on the RPG has gone the way of balance in all the classes.
Some people may disagree - but to some of us old timers - each class is intended to have a different function than the others. It is becoming harder and harder to see the differences between the classes when you strip away the descriptors and get down to the math. This is good, if your goal is to create a balanced computer game. This is awful if you are trying to get a group at the table to resemble a group of heroes in a story.
I want the fighter to have a different role than the cleric and the wizard. I want the damage to be different...I want the weaknesses to be different. I do not want to change the descriptive words on the abilities I use and suddenly be a fighter when I am playing a bard.
The old systems did tend to favor the caster classes at higher level. There was a solution in 3.5 that was a lot of fun to play with - 'The Book of Nine Swords'. If you just HAD to have melee characters that could keep up with the damage on a sneak attack or fireball, you could pick that book up and run with it. I've been meaning to do a conversion on it to...
While I can understand the concern for role protection, applying that concept to something as ubiquitous as skills is a bad idea in my eyes.
I was able to clearly classify all of the melee classes into respective and unique "melee" roles:
- Fighter - Damage/Weapon Fighting (aka standard)
- Paladin - Protection Fighting
- Barbarian - Forced-Attention Fighting (can't ignore)
- Monk - Disrupter/Debuffer Fighting
- Ranger - Battlefield Control Fighting
Now some of those roles can bleed into other roles in terms of combat, but for the most part they have their respective niches.
However, Skills, do not need so rigid a definition for the following reasons:
- Classes already have built in enforcement for Ability Scores, which by extension limit your ability to be good at a Skill
- Skill Feats are not plentiful enough to allow people to breech roles of other players
- Skills do not define roles, Classes already rigidly define what a person is capable of doing realistically.
- Roles can accommodate different Skills without impeding others abilities to have fun
And the most important point:
- Skills are intuitively cooperative in a lot of cases (even stealth) to the point where they don't need protection.
Generally everyone in a party wants others to succeed at skills they succeed it, especially if they made the investment of pursuing that skill.
I can't see a Rogue getting upset that a Fighter happened to succeed on a Skill check for Stealth when they are both trying to be sneaky, he's probably happy the guy didn't trigger an opponent and he has backup.
There was little to no role protection via skills in PF1, I see no reason to implement it in PF2 because that was something that was generally universally loved.
signature skills are no different than class skills. and the only difference is that you can get to certain level. you can still take the skill, you just wont be quite as good at it, by like a point or 2. which is a good thing. i don't think the wizard with no multiclass should be legendary in athletics, or acrobatics or stealth. it does in my opinion water down the classes.
it would be ok if when you multiclassed, you also gained that classes signature skill. that would be a fair compromise. if you want to as good as another classes stihck then there should be some investment, beyond just merely spending the skill points.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
signature skills are no different than class skills.
They actually are though, because it was extremely simple to gain skills as a Class skill, you weren't gated for attempting certain actions based on Proficiency, and it only granted a flat +3 bonus (which as you level, becomes inconsequential with the overall roll).
i don't think the wizard with no multiclass should be legendary in athletics, or acrobatics or stealth.
One, I don't see why that restriction is fair. If the Wizard wants to invest into Athletics/Acrobatics/Stealth, then they should be good at those skills. There are limited amounts of Skill increases every character gets, if the Wizard chooses any of those three, they will subsequently not be good at something else. In the current system, you can ONLY be Legendary at three skills, and it requires you to leave all of your other skills as Trained to even do it.
Not to mention there is little to no incentive for a Wizard to choose those skills. Wizards have spells that augment Climbing, Stealth, and Acrobatics already, and their stat arrays do not support heavy investment.
Essentially even if a Wizard was Legendary in Athletics, they would be significantly worse than a Fighter with Master in Athletics, even if they heavily invested into Skill feats to support it.
I will stand by my original argument that Classes enforce enough role protection as is. Ability Score requirements alone basically dictate this.
I should be able to play an Illusion focused Wizard with an emphasis on Stealth as a concept, because it's unique and fosters my role as a deceiver. It doesn't take away from the Rogue/Ranger who use this skill in an entirely different context (and they do it better than the Wizard even if they have the same Proficiency level anyways, so why restrict it?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
signature skills are no different than class skills.They actually are though, because it was extremely simple to gain skills as a Class skill, you weren't gated for attempting certain actions based on Proficiency, and it only granted a flat +3 bonus (which as you level, becomes inconsequential with the overall roll).
i don't think the wizard with no multiclass should be legendary in athletics, or acrobatics or stealth.One, I don't see why that restriction is fair. If the Wizard wants to invest into Athletics/Acrobatics/Stealth, then they should be good at those skills. There are limited amounts of Skill increases every character gets, if the Wizard chooses any of those three, they will subsequently not be good at something else. In the current system, you can ONLY be Legendary at three skills, and it requires you to leave all of your other skills as Trained to even do it.
Not to mention there is little to no incentive for a Wizard to choose those skills. Wizards have spells that augment Climbing, Stealth, and Acrobatics already, and their stat arrays do not support heavy investment.
Essentially even if a Wizard was Legendary in Athletics, they would be significantly worse than a Fighter with Master in Athletics, even if they heavily invested into Skill feats to support it.
I will stand by my original argument that Classes enforce enough role protection as is. Ability Score requirements alone basically dictate this.
I should be able to play an Illusion focused Wizard with an emphasis on Stealth as a concept, because it's unique and fosters my role as a deceiver. It doesn't take away from the Rogue/Ranger who use this skill in an entirely different context (and they do it better than the Wizard even if they have the same Proficiency level anyways, so why restrict it?)
huh? they wouldn't be worse, which is the point. there is no BAB, skills are increased automatically. and because of the way ability boost work, almost everyone will end up with very similar scores. it does in fact take away from the class nature of the game, if without any multiclassing, a wizard can outclass or equal a legendary rogue in stealth, because he can and very easily could, with the rules as they are written now.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
signature skills are no different than class skills. and the only difference is that you can get to certain level. you can still take the skill, you just wont be quite as good at it, by like a point or 2. which is a good thing. i don't think the wizard with no multiclass should be legendary in athletics, or acrobatics or stealth. it does in my opinion water down the classes.
I respectfully disagree. I don't view Signature Skills as the same as Class Skills. Among other things, through traits, feats, and other options in PF1 it was relatively easy expanding your list of Class Skills without multi-classing. PF2's approach is much more confining. And I don't believe it harms game balance for Wizards to be epic at Acrobatics, Stealth, etc. if they want to in lieu of typical Wizard skills. But I respect it's a matter of opinion: do players prefer characters "staying in their lanes" when it comes to the different classes' traditional flavors, or do players prefer character customization. Personally, I prefer character customization.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
huh? they wouldn't be worse, which is the point. there is no BAB, skills are increased automatically. and because of the way...
1. Wizards, in order to operate effectively, would need at least an 18 in INT, which means they can't afford the 18 in Dex. This already means they are WORSE than anyone else who prioritizes Dex in their role (which a Fighter/Rogue/Ranger all have as a Primary Class Score).
2. Rogues get far more skill increases than Wizards for starters. The Rogue actually has a higher likelihood of being better at a Signature Wizard skill than a Wizard does because of this.
3. The Wizard gets far less Skill feats than the rogue.
4. If the Rogue is a "Diplomancer" or prioritizes other Skills over Stealth, why should the Wizard who fully prioritized Stealth be worse at that Skill? Clearly the Rogue isn't trying to fill that role if he didn't invest, and clearly the Wizard is going to be able to if he did.
5. +1 increases matter more in this game. Ability scores grant these just the same as a Proficiency increase.
You are speaking like the Wizard is going to be able to outdo a Rogue who has also specialized in Stealth. Without the Wizard severely compromising their other abilities (Spellcasting especially) the Wizard can't even be as good as the Rogue even in a non-signature skill environment.
The developers even outright stated they are looking at removing them because there is already enough role protection in the classes themselves.
Wizards cannot be both Legendary at Stealth (and still not even or greater than any Dex dependent class) and just as good as a standard Wizard at Spellcasting. The resources just aren't there, so why restrict it arbitrarily for those that want to try to make a certain build work (like an illusionist Wizard that can Stealth relatively well)?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
signature skills are no different than class skills. and the only difference is that you can get to certain level. you can still take the skill, you just wont be quite as good at it, by like a point or 2. which is a good thing. i don't think the wizard with no multiclass should be legendary in athletics, or acrobatics or stealth. it does in my opinion water down the classes.
it would be ok if when you multiclassed, you also gained that classes signature skill. that would be a fair compromise. if you want to as good as another classes stihck then there should be some investment, beyond just merely spending the skill points.
Except that signature skills limit what skill feats you can take now, which wasn't previously a concern. I get why some people dislike them, but I think keeping some form of "class skill" around is a good thing, to indicate the usual roles for a class member. There just need to be a reasonable, not overly-restrictive way to get extra signature skills (like we used to get class skills with Traits), and perhaps a flexible signature skill for each class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that signature skills limit what skill feats you can take now, which wasn't previously a concern. I get why some people dislike them, but I think keeping some form of "class skill" around is a good thing, to indicate the usual roles for a class member. There just need to be a reasonable, not overly-restrictive way to get extra signature skills (like we used to get class skills with Traits), and perhaps a flexible signature skill for each class.signature skills are no different than class skills. and the only difference is that you can get to certain level. you can still take the skill, you just wont be quite as good at it, by like a point or 2. which is a good thing. i don't think the wizard with no multiclass should be legendary in athletics, or acrobatics or stealth. it does in my opinion water down the classes.
it would be ok if when you multiclassed, you also gained that classes signature skill. that would be a fair compromise. if you want to as good as another classes stihck then there should be some investment, beyond just merely spending the skill points.
That's the big point right there. Signature skills are a gate. Proficiency levels are a gate. With no way to do that besides multi-classing (which you don't REALLY do currently) it's not role protection so much as role confinement. There is only one kind of cleric that can craft legendary level items. Hope no one wanted to cast fireball AND craft high level divine items, cause that's a no no.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yknow its entirely possible that modern standards aren't necessarily more FUN than old standards.
4th was made with modern standards in mind after all.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're overstating the supported variety in the game. The +/-10 cirt feature pushes to-hit even further into the primary spot. Secondary would be anything that reduces AC. The approximate 50% miss chance and longer combat means a strong undervaluing of consumable resources. The higher to-hit rate of creatures over PCs means that reducing the combat effectiveness of NPCs to present more threats means that HP based attrition is the only other knob being turned.
The amount of variety will slowly decrease as people get more comfortable with the game. The worry is that the game will be so rigid that future options won't offer something interesting enough to shake up the initial standards.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You haven't considered the possibility that people have taken all of that into account, and come to the conclusion that locking in class/feat combos simply means that instead of having one best feat, you now have one best class/feat combo.
That's less support, not more. At least in the instance where a feat is always the best, and you are exploring options on how best to support that feat with your class selection you have a choice in which class to pick.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
come to the conclusion that locking in class/feat combos simply means that instead of having one best feat, you now have one best class/feat combo.I think limiting optimal strategies and making more choices viable is a good thing. If in the end, you can't take X feat but as a result feats A, B and C are more viable, then that's good, not bad.
This is also not new to PF2.
3.X/PF did this as well but they gated things behind BAB or class feature requirements. Its the same principle, its just being done better now with more intentionality.
You're not going to limit optimal strategies though. That's not going to happen. It's just not.
Especially with how the system works, I'm willing to bet most guides(And thus community) will put a huge amount of value into anything that ups their hit chance and defenses. Why?
Because Crits. Gotta hit/prevent those crits, you just have to, and if you don't well you're just playing subpar.
So you're going to take feat X if it does anything to help you crit easier or prevent them. A, B, and C might be viable, but they don't mess with crits so into the dumpster they go.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not more feats; it's just more feat names.
I get why you want niche protection, but you're mistaking PC niche protection for class niche protection. You achieve the first by limiting the number of skills+feats+other options a character can take. You achieve the second by limiting which skills+feats+other options he can take.
PC niche protection allows PCs to be different without stepping on each other's toes: nobody is omnicompetent. Class niche protection forces PCs to be defined by the game designer's chosen straitjacket.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't going to get anywhere if you keep bouncing from point to point without bothering to understand anything.
Frozen is stating a very basic fact. If you have a single feat available to all classes that interacts with each class's abilities differently, then you have a multiplier. If you manually adjust the feat based on which class is using it, then you have something merely additive. So, if you want more variety, which method do you chose?
Merlin is stating another very simple fact. The +/- 10 crit mechanic means that there will be no modifier more important than hit frequency and anything that doesn't increase hit frequency will be discarded by most players. That being the case, which ever class/feat combo is best situated to boost hit frequency will be the class/feat combo most commonly selected.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't going to get anywhere if you keep bouncing from point to point without bothering to understand anything.
Frozen is stating a very basic fact. If you have a single feat available to all classes that interacts with each class's abilities differently, then you have a multiplier. If you manually adjust the feat based on which class is using it, then you have something merely additive. So, if you want more variety, which method do you chose?
Merlin is stating another very simple fact. The +/- 10 crit mechanic means that there will be no modifier more important than hit frequency and anything that doesn't increase hit frequency will be discarded by most players. That being the case, which ever class/feat combo is best situated to boost hit frequency will be the class/feat combo most commonly selected.
As a way of seconding what ErichAD said with hard examples, take a look at the Druid. They have a couple set styles (wildshape, storm, animal companion, plant), and if paizo prints a new style for them then there will be +1 character style option. As for the wildshape druid, there is a magical item that is absolutely required that allows you to use your own bonuses instead of the spell's default bonuses. Pretend for a moment that that item was a feat rather than a prohibitively expensive item. If there was a class gated feat that said "use your own bonuses when transformed" then the druid would have +1 option. If the feat was not class locked than suddenly any transforming character has the option of building a melee build. +x options where x is the number of classes with access to polymorph spells/abilities. Sure there will be some that are better than others (the rogue that multiclasses wizard for spells won't get many uses out of it) but leaving those options open makes for more varied characters and more characters that can FEEL different. And think for a moment about how that could change other class aspects! Suddenly if strength is a secondary priority for the caster then melee touch spells that before would never see use suddenly become a reasonable option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think limiting optimal strategies and making more choices viable is a good thing. If in the end, you can't take X feat but as a result feats A, B and C are more viable, then that's good, not bad.
This is also not new to PF2.
3.X/PF did this as well but they gated things behind BAB or class feature requirements. Its the same principle, its just being done better now with more intentionality.
I don't think I follow you. What was so bad about a feat having a prerequisite of BAB +X, rather than just saying "Fighters only"? Then anyone could select that feat, allowing more options & customization.
I've played a lot of D&D and PF, and I don't feel like I've ever seen different players building the same characters and choosing the same feats. Rather, part of the fun has been the endless variety of builds in 3x and PF1. Then again, none of my gaming buddies have been true-blue min-maxers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont see a rationale there. You are assuming class based feats wont make you effective. That is not true of the current implementation. I dont see why that would be true later with more feats.
Literally, that post made no sense.
How doesn't it make sense?
I was arguing that you CAN take these feats. But why would you WANT to? The "viable" part of your post.
So a class feat makes you more effective. Does it make you effective in THIS way?
Instant garbage, don't pick, throw it out, you're subpar if you pick it.
You're not going to limit optimal strategies, they're just build around it. I just offered up Crit as the new pillar to build around.