| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of the general effectiveness of your character, it seems to me that the number of meaningful options available to your build has gone down. Ancestry feats and General feats seem to be generally less useful and more situational than your combat feats with the possible exception of those ancestry feats that grant you weapon proficiencies and the human's option of gaining an additional level 1 class feat.
In PF1, a talent-based class would essentially gain a meaningful new power every level in that they were always either getting a new talent or a new feat which could be useful in building towards a new playstyle or just gain the character an extra talent.
Moreover, the game is still full of effective feat chains that take up a lot of feats to remain effective:
Animal Companions, Multiclass feats, Spell Power Builds, totem feats etc.
I am always wishing I could build a character that does two things well rather than just one thing well.
Want to make a ranger that has an animal companion and uses crossbows competitively?
You can't.
Want to make an alchemist whose bombs are a meaningful offensive threat but also have poisons that are worth a damn?
You can't.
Want to make an arcane monk that multiclasses wizard so he can use intelligence as his spell pool?
You can't. (you kinda can but you suck)
I either want more class feats or I want general feats to be a lot better (and likely include the option to use general feats as multiclass feats).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of get that feeling, at least for certain classes. Fighters seem better than they used to be in this regard, and I Barbarians seem to be doing a little better as well. Rogues too I think.
But Rangers and Monks feel spread pretty thin.
I don't especially touch on General Feats in there but I do feel like they should be better or usable for class feats. I think Ancestry feats aren't in a terrible place, at least for low levels as most ancestries have at least a few I want.
While some classes are more affected on this than others, I do agree they need to adjust somethings a bit. Sometimes it can feel like your only choice is what feat line your going down, which then forces you to specialize. This {in the worst interpretation of the situation) seems more like your picking an archtype for the class, with only the illusion of choice behind it. -(note, you can simply choose not to go continue down side line, but in cases where there prerequisites and/or other things needed to set up to be useful, that not really hard pill to sallow)
I would not mind, say a general Feat along the lines saying "Gain one class feat {in your own class}. For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your class level is equal to half your level. You can select this more than once.". Has it would allow you to specialize, but still allow you to spread out a little, or be helpful in spreading out in general, without being to broken.
I think a general feat for a 1/2lv class feat is a pretty solid idea, actually. Perhaps you could also gain additional general feats (on top of Ancestry feats) at 5/9/13/17? That mostly depends on what increase in options is "too much".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with this in that I feel like I am progressing in a bunch of different directions as I level to the point where things feel a bit disjointed.
I think part of this stems from Skill/General/Ancestry Fests don't really seem to foster a character concept so much as they foster their own individual paths. Advancing with a respective feat selection on those selections doesn't feel like I'm building a cohesive character so much as putting ornaments on a Christmas tree.
I'm not sure class feats can be straight added without serious adjustments to power level for certain classes/class feats but I think that's part of the problem.
Does anyone else have similar "disjointed" feelings in regards to the differing feat lines? It doesn't terribly bother me, but I have felt this way pretty much every time it comes to putting a sheet together. Maybe that's the intent, but it does make the Class aspect feel very "thin" as a result.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feel like it would be better to just make some abilities automatic instead of them taking a feat to get.
I don't especially feel characters seem disjointed. I rather like that the different kinds of feats fill in different categories for any given character.
Feel like it would be better to just make some abilities automatic instead of them taking a feat to get.
Yeah, that could work too, though I'm not sure precisely what abilities those would be. I like that the monk doesn't always have ki powers for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Theirs got to be few iconic ones in there somewhere
Racial(Ancestry) feats should get the Axe ASAP. and in their place put additional regional feats.
If some racial features need additional development they can be done via general feats.
Also general feats should be used to take class feats. Maybe limit it to 1/2 your level(round up)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind higher level ancestry feats to make a elf more elfy etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with this in that I feel like I am progressing in a bunch of different directions as I level to the point where things feel a bit disjointed.
I think part of this stems from Skill/General/Ancestry Fests don't really seem to foster a character concept so much as they foster their own individual paths. Advancing with a respective feat selection on those selections doesn't feel like I'm building a cohesive character so much as putting ornaments on a Christmas tree.
I'm not sure class feats can be straight added without serious adjustments to power level for certain classes/class feats but I think that's part of the problem.
Does anyone else have similar "disjointed" feelings in regards to the differing feat lines? It doesn't terribly bother me, but I have felt this way pretty much every time it comes to putting a sheet together. Maybe that's the intent, but it does make the Class aspect feel very "thin" as a result.
Yes, I got this feeling as well. It's like I have four boxes, and I can pick things from those boxes. But they have nothing to do with each other, don't interact, and really don't go together. The net result is I'm building four different things at the same time and then combining them at the end to see what I get, rather than building something cohesive.
It isn't so bad with skill feats, as I can find interesting things to do with those. Class feats are the most interesting. Ancestry feats? Those are just time wasting choices to me, something they added to say "we have more choices than before!" but that don't really contribute to the game in a meaningful way.
If it were up to me, ancestry feats would get axed entirely or chopped down to "you get one at first level, but what they do is significantly improved so that it actually matters."
On the topic of things feeling “disjointed”:
I think this is kind of a good thing at least in terms of skill feats. This is a method of separating more roleplaying/out of combat focused game mechanics from combat mechanics which is essentially the core of player power and game balance for Pathfinder. It is good that those things don’t compete with each other because otherwise players will feel like they need to make a character who is boring out of combat in order to not fall behind in their core competency (combat).
General feats and ancestry feats feel like they want to add to your “core competencies”, though. That is why I wish General feats did more to add meaningfully to your build in the way class feats do.
On the topic of things feeling “disjointed”:
I think this is kind of a good thing at least in terms of skill feats. This is a method of separating more roleplaying/out of combat focused game mechanics from combat mechanics which is essentially the core of player power and game balance for Pathfinder. It is good that those things don’t compete with each other because otherwise players will feel like they need to make a character who is boring out of combat in order to not fall behind in their core competency (combat).General feats and ancestry feats feel like they want to add to your “core competencies”, though. That is why I wish General feats did more to add meaningfully to your build in the way class feats do.
I can agree that Skill Feats are not the main culprit of this feeling, especially for the Rogue (and the Bard which I made also felt greatly improved via Skill Feats, particularly Fascinating Performance)
That said, Ancestry Feats and General Feats just feel very tame and non-goal oriented.
I ended up selecting human for all of my builds because I simply felt that none of the other races fostered interesting character concepts so much as they fostered their own respective race concept.
General Feats in my mind are in a terrible spot as they have no real definition other than a "catch all" for feats that don't fall into Skill category (which I honestly end up taking Skill Feats anyways).
I feel like ancestry feats might be in a good place too if they were something you got ON TOP OF other options that mattered more. It is cool that an elf can pick up a curve blade or gain a scaling catrip or two. That adds to the feel of playing that character. That sort of thing is no substitute for something that really adds to your build though.
I feel like ancestry feats might be in a good place too if they were something you got ON TOP OF other options that mattered more. It is cool that an elf can pick up a curve blade or gain a scaling catrip or two. That adds to the feel of playing that character. That sort of thing is no substitute for something that really adds to your build though.
I dunno, the ancestry feats seem like they have potential with specific builds. Burn It seems better than overwhelming sorcery if you want to focus on fire. The Dwarven war axe looks like one of the best weapons in the game to me. No one will complain about more skills, or extra move speed. A gnome familiar saves you a class feat and familiars are great. Distracting shadows looks kind of wonderful on a sneaky build-- is very been Contemplating a heavy crossbow Ranger with that. Orc ferocity looks really great on a Frontliner, much better than last edition. (It might be slightly less good post errata to death and dying, but it is still solid.)
And any of the weapon feats can be helpful if you want to gish. I don't think every ancestry has feats that are especially relevant to every build, but it is hardly shocking for some ancestries to excel more at certain things than others, especially this early into the edition.
I feel like ancestry feats might be in a good place too if they were something you got ON TOP OF other options that mattered more. It is cool that an elf can pick up a curve blade or gain a scaling catrip or two. That adds to the feel of playing that character. That sort of thing is no substitute for something that really adds to your build though.I dunno, the ancestry feats seem like they have potential with specific builds. Burn It seems better than overwhelming sorcery if you want to focus on fire. The Dwarven war axe looks like one of the best weapons in the game to me. No one will complain about more skills, or extra move speed. A gnome familiar saves you a class feat and familiars are great. Distracting shadows looks kind of wonderful on a sneaky build-- is very been Contemplating a heavy crossbow Ranger with that. Orc ferocity looks really great on a Frontliner, much better than last edition. (It might be slightly less good post errata to death and dying, but it is still solid.)
And any of the weapon feats can be helpful if you want to gish. I don't think every ancestry has feats that are especially relevant to every build, but it is hardly shocking for some ancestries to excel more at certain things than others, especially this early into the edition.
That is all pretty true. Still, you run out of really effective options after 1 or 2 feats. If anything, I'd prefer to have ancestry feats to act more like skill feats than class feats: these are things to enhance a character outside of their core competency. Weapon proficiencies for casting classes seems good but I am not sure we need to have dwarven fighters to have a better version of the bastard sword; or for that matter, we maybe don't want human fighters to be raised by gnomes to get their flick mace.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that the issue isn't that classes don't get enough feats, but that enough feats don't feel impactful enough for the pace at which we get them.
Take, for example, the now famous 1st Level Paladin Feat: Warded Touch. This is a feat that lets you do something that doesn't really seem like it should need a feat to do (Lay on hands with a hand full), but it also lets you avoid AoO's, if those are prevalent in your adventure. Using a shield and healing someone seems like it should be a basic thing, but now it requires a feat to be able to do something basic. Most classes have many feats like this; they tend to either do something that seems like it should be baseline, or that has a very minor effect. I would RATHER have feats that have a larger impact on play. There is, of course, a balance they have to strike: Weaker feats would be fine if we got them more often, and stronger feats would feel great if we got them less often. For what it's worth, I actually think most Skill and General Feats are in a pretty decent place for their pacing, but the class feats do feel very conservative.
Many feats simply don't grant enough of a bonus, or grant it too late. Why do fighters have to wait to get Combat Reflexes at 10th level? In PF1, an early Combat Reflexes is a build-defining feat, and I would argue that Combat Reflexes is actually one of the better carryover feats from D&D 3.5. I understand that it may be intimidating to front-load classes with cool/eclectic options, but with traditional 3.5 multi-classing gone there should be more freedom to allow for this. As it stands, class feats feel to conservative for being class restricted, and many build/style-defining feats are acquired too late in character advancement.
|
|
I would argue that the issue isn't that classes don't get enough feats, but that enough feats don't feel impactful enough for the pace at which we get them.It really depends on the Class. Rangers in P1 have a lot of versatility that was baked into the class. P2 has pulled a lot of it out and now forcing players to choose between feats that make you better at combat and feats that address two or three different themes. A perfect example is Wild Empathy. This was free for Rangers in P1, and not it costs a feat and is juxtaposed to Full Grown Companion, Swift Tracker, and Skirmish Strike. So in the Ranger's case, you need more feats to get back that feeling of versatility/agency you had in P2.
Another perfect example is the Animal Companion that Capt. Morgan already addressed. In P1, it took one General feat for me to have competent companion. In P2, there are eight feats needed to flesh-out the companion....eight feats. You only get 11.
Oh, I already vented about the Animal Companion RULES, but I don't mind needing to invest in a companion to get a powerful ally. We already had the issue of certain AC's in PF1 being too good at martial combat compared to actual martial characters.
But here's the thing: You don't NEED that many feats to get back the agency. What if you only got 5 feats throughout your adventuring career, and one of them was: "Animal Companion: You get X benefits, and at X level, X level, X level, and X level you select from these improvements." That would be an amazing, build-defining feat, and you'd sit there in eager anticipation reaching for 5th level because you'd get ANOTHER build-defining feat. You could also have a "Natural Lore" feat that gets you things like Wild Empathy, Superior Tracking, Nature-based Spells for Spell Points, etc., all tied to a theme, all for one feat. Again, in a 1 feat/5 levels, that'd work, because every feat would be huge. All PF2 needs to do is strike a balance given their current feat structure, and I simply don't think they've found it yet. SOME feats are really cool, but in general there needs to be a bit more scaling with current feats, especially in feat chains.
Another example: Fighter's have a lot of Singleton feats, which is a great inclusion, but many of them feel kind of "meh" on their own. What if you got "Dueling Expertise" at 1st level, which gave you Combat Grab and Dueling Parry, having a feat essentially unlock those action types? That's not a GREAT example, but I feel like some of these feats could really stand to be condensed and/or allowed synergies to make them feel more impactful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But here's the thing: You don't NEED that many feats to get back the agency. What if you only got 5 feats throughout your adventuring career, and one of them was: "Animal Companion: You get X benefits, and at X level, X level, X level, and X level you select from these improvements." That would be an amazing, build-defining feat, and you'd sit there in eager anticipation reaching for 5th level because you'd get ANOTHER build-defining feat. You could also have a "Natural Lore" feat that gets you things like Wild Empathy, Superior Tracking, Nature-based Spells for Spell Points, etc., all tied to a theme, all for one feat. Again, in a 1 feat/5 levels, that'd work, because every feat would be huge. All PF2 needs to do is strike a balance given their current...
I was just thinking the same thing. Maybe not less feats, but having the feats scale more instead of taking feats just to keep your abilities relevant at higher levels would feel a lot better I think. I like where they are going with the class feats, but it feels like the chassis of most of the classes got striped so much that I would have to spend all my feats getting what I need to keep up instead of getting something that lets me do something new. In pf1 this wasn't so bad because often feats were something that was outside of your class, which had more then enough stuff going for it(well... maybe not all the classes), but even then, few people liked feat chains(my group's house rules largely involved reducing feat chains or at least reducing the restrictions on them), and yet now it feels like they are back and more important then ever, even if the actual prereq's are no longer as much a problem.
I'd like more class feats as well. But ultimately, the goal is to make fun characters.
I hope the goal is to make PF2 a high fantasy game, because I'm not into the 4E feel at all.
I'd like more class feats as well. But ultimately, the goal is to make fun characters.
I hope the goal is to make PF2 a high fantasy game, because I'm not into the 4E feel at all.
I don’t think PF2E feels anywhere near as gamist and unnatural as 4e does. Within the context of this thread though: are you insinuating that additional more frequent feats would make the game less high fantasy in some way?
I am perplexed.
Im not in favor of this at all. way too artificial. the classes are all pretty good right now, for a CRB. each class is very nicely distinct right now. they could use a little tweaking, but every class getting class feats at every level, would massively unbalance the game. since it's clear that the more pure martial you are the more class feats you get.
I do not like this suggestion at all.
Im not in favor of this at all. way too artificial. the classes are all pretty good right now, for a CRB. each class is very nicely distinct right now. they could use a little tweaking, but every class getting class feats at every level, would massively unbalance the game. since it's clear that the more pure martial you are the more class feats you get.
Well, if we are talking about casting classes not generally getting a bonus feat at level 1, fighters get 3 "extra" feats over 20 levels whereas all other martials still only get the one extra feat. So I don't know what you are saying?
I must concede that the analysis is a little more complicated than that since I think the fighter has feats that have more mechanical impact on character effectiveness than most caster feat; a fighter might want to use power attack or dual strike every round while a caster will benefit from reach spell relatively rarely.
Also. is my suggestion for changing the role, power, and prevalence of general feats "artificial"?
I do not like this suggestion at all.
Like most suggestions that I make, I like this suggestion very much.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will again state that the problem is not that we get too few feats, but that feats gained are not impactful enough at their current progression. If we got these feats every level, it might be too much, especially given how successful the "Every Even Level" worked for PF1s class talents. I would just like class feats to be balanced around their current rate of acquisition.
I will again state that the problem is not that we get too few feats, but that feats gained are not impactful enough at their current progression. If we got these feats every level, it might be too much, especially given how successful the "Every Even Level" worked for PF1s class talents. I would just like class feats to be balanced around their current rate of acquisition.
I think that crowds out design space for feats that have weaker effects and room for more creative builds at lower levels.
Man, I understand that some people aren't interested in looking through a whole list of smaller feats. I am actually kind of into that kind of thing though and I am sure there are some people who would be willing to pay the "cost" of going through more feats in order to tune their builds at a finer level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will again state that the problem is not that we get too few feats, but that feats gained are not impactful enough at their current progression. If we got these feats every level, it might be too much, especially given how successful the "Every Even Level" worked for PF1s class talents. I would just like class feats to be balanced around their current rate of acquisition.I think that crowds out design space for feats that have weaker effects and room for more creative builds at lower levels.
Man, I understand that some people aren't interested in looking through a whole list of smaller feats. I am actually kind of into that kind of thing though and I am sure there are some people who would be willing to pay the "cost" of going through more feats in order to tune their builds at a finer level.
It's not just an issue for players though, it's an issue for GMs to memorize and understand all the added feats and when more content is released down the line it will create rules bloat if there's a slew of non impactful feats and increases feat counts across the board.
Currently feats are sitting about at the same strength as first edition, which is a problem based on the design structure. That goes for all feat groups as well, not just Class feats.
Scaling feats would be a much more elegant solution, with potentially allowing general feats to qualify for what currently are Class feats (like Cleave or potentially even Archetype/Multiclass feats)
I agree with your problem, just not necessarily the proposed solution. Davor isn't the only one who feels feats are a bit lacking in their current state, and I'm also in the camp of quality over quantity.
I will again state that the problem is not that we get too few feats, but that feats gained are not impactful enough at their current progression. If we got these feats every level, it might be too much, especially given how successful the "Every Even Level" worked for PF1s class talents. I would just like class feats to be balanced around their current rate of acquisition.I think that crowds out design space for feats that have weaker effects and room for more creative builds at lower levels.
Man, I understand that some people aren't interested in looking through a whole list of smaller feats. I am actually kind of into that kind of thing though and I am sure there are some people who would be willing to pay the "cost" of going through more feats in order to tune their builds at a finer level.
It's not just an issue for players though, it's an issue for GMs to memorize and understand all the added feats and when more content is released down the line it will create rules bloat if there's a slew of non impactful feats and increases feat counts across the board.
Currently feats are sitting about at the same strength as first edition, which is a problem based on the design structure. That goes for all feat groups as well, not just Class feats.
Scaling feats would be a much more elegant solution, with potentially allowing general feats to qualify for what currently are Class feats (like Cleave or potentially even Archetype/Multiclass feats)
I agree with your problem, just not necessarily the proposed solution. Davor isn't the only one who feels feats are a bit lacking in their current state, and I'm also in the camp of quality over quantity.
I am actually one of those GMs that kind of plays the game vicariously through his players.
That said, you do raise a good point: any increase in understanding build complexity may be multiplied by 4 or 5 for the DM. That said, a DM does not need to know the mechanics for every one of their player if the GM trusts the players to know the rules.
I would still come down on the side of "more quantity" to a certain extant.