There seems to be the widespread view, that PF1 offers more individualization than PF2. This made me curious and though I never played PF1 I looked up the book I have.
For instance the Fighter:
In PF1 the Fighter is the class with most bonus feats if I am correct. By rule, every char gains 10 feats till 19th level at every other level.
The Fighter gets one bonus feat at 1st, 2nd and every even level therafter which is accumulates to 11 feats which totals to 21 feats overall.
In PF2 the fighter gets 31 feats in total.
So in PF2 the fighter gets 10 feats more than in PF1. To me this means there are way more options for individualization in PF2.
Their was no two weapon fighting in 1st edition D&D? huh maybe that was a house rule on my DM's part.Maybe Don't Wake Baby meant Dungeons & Dragons 1E rather than Pathfinder 1E. I know that many rogues (or were they still called "thieves"?) multiclassed to ranger in AD&D to gain access to two-weapon fighting.TWF was a fighting style in 1E available only to fighters/rangersHow is this in any way true?1e (or even 2e) multiclassing didn't work that way (if you were non-human you took 2 or 3 classes at once and leveled simultaneously in all of them). If human, you could take one, then stop, and take another (dual-classing)
Two weapon fighting didn't exist in 1st edition. (It did in 2nd, but wasn't... entirely... class dependent).
Ranger/thief wasn't a valid multi-class or dual class option in either edition.
But yes, the class was thief.
There are rules for it in the DMG (everything is in that book, if you look hard enough...it's almost eerie...), but 2nd Ed made it easier (some would say abusable), and a core part of the ranger class.
I saw dual-wielding before 2nd Ed, was a drow thing, my buddy made a Drow Fighter/Magic-User/Thief that dual-wielded longswords, back in 1986.
-_- that drow character is my age. (my 1st edition dm would not let me do long sword long sword it had to be long and short. )
-_- that drow character is my age. (my 1st edition dm would not let me do long sword long sword it had to be long and short. )Their was no two weapon fighting in 1st edition D&D? huh maybe that was a house rule on my DM's part.Maybe Don't Wake Baby meant Dungeons & Dragons 1E rather than Pathfinder 1E. I know that many rogues (or were they still called "thieves"?) multiclassed to ranger in AD&D to gain access to two-weapon fighting.TWF was a fighting style in 1E available only to fighters/rangersHow is this in any way true?1e (or even 2e) multiclassing didn't work that way (if you were non-human you took 2 or 3 classes at once and leveled simultaneously in all of them). If human, you could take one, then stop, and take another (dual-classing)
Two weapon fighting didn't exist in 1st edition. (It did in 2nd, but wasn't... entirely... class dependent).
Ranger/thief wasn't a valid multi-class or dual class option in either edition.
But yes, the class was thief.
There are rules for it in the DMG (everything is in that book, if you look hard enough...it's almost eerie...), but 2nd Ed made it easier (some would say abusable), and a core part of the ranger class.
I saw dual-wielding before 2nd Ed, was a drow thing, my buddy made a Drow Fighter/Magic-User/Thief that dual-wielded longswords, back in 1986.
And now I feel old again, ha.
Long and short is more reasonable, we were very young, I was the DM, it was a solo campaign, his character was an assassin. We somehow managed to keep the campaign going, on and off, until 1994 (by then he was working for Mephistopheles). Technically, it's just been on pause for the last 24-years.
Well my first edition DM at the time had been playing since it was made and even said he helped design the 1st edition cavalier (I can not verify) but he said he started at his teens and had been playing for 20+ years before I started (age 14 If my memory serves.) so your not TOO old. if that makes you feel better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There seems to be the widespread view, that PF1 offers more individualization than PF2. This made me curious and though I never played PF1 I looked up the book I have.
For instance the Fighter:
In PF1 the Fighter is the class with most bonus feats if I am correct. By rule, every char gains 10 feats till 19th level at every other level.
The Fighter gets one bonus feat at 1st, 2nd and every even level therafter which is accumulates to 11 feats which totals to 21 feats overall.In PF2 the fighter gets 31 feats in total.
So in PF2 the fighter gets 10 feats more than in PF1. To me this means there are way more options for individualization in PF2.
Fighter Class Feats: 11
Ancestry Feats: 5Skill Feats: 10
General Feats: 5 (+1 if Human)
Yes, you're correct that Fighters get 31 feats in PF2e. 11 of those are class feats (analogous to the 11 combat feats in PF1e), which means they get (potentially) half as many combat feats as the Fighter in PF1e.
Skill Feats and General Feats are analogous to the normal 10-11 feats from leveling any character, so the PF2e fighter is somewhat better off in that sense as it can select 15 total, except that as a class with 3 + Int skills those skill feats are going to be chosen from a significantly smaller pool. So effectively you get more, but because they may not be very beneficial to your character, they count for less. On the other hand, the PF1e fighter could pick and choose to either select more "class feats" to augment whatever they were going for (which also let them speed up reaching their peak build) or choose to go for something they were trained in or need, like a Skill Focus or Healer's Hands or something. So let's call it even.
And finally Ancestry Feats. These don't interact with class features at all, and in PF1e most of them were just things you started the game with, so they count for nothing.
So in conclusion, PF1e and PF2e have effectively the same number of choice slots.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion in PF1e there wasn't really a whole lot of choice for you feats. There was the illusion of choice. But really. Try to make an archer character in 1e. You literally have to spend every single feat until level 10 just to be effective in combat with a bow. There's no choice there. There's either be good with a bow and have no feats to spend, or spend your feats on flavourful stuff but be absolutely horrid at shooting a bow. Same goes for TWF, and shield users. You really didn't have as much choice as it seems.
You could use the same system for combat styles that the archetype and dedication system uses.
There are definitely ways to expand options that are available to everyone, but it's a matter of how much each class should get their own special things. If Fighter is just a collection of feats, it's kind of a weird one-off and it doesn't have a particular identity, and admittedly Fighter doesn't really invoke any kind of specific imagery for me so it was appropriate before.
The fundamental issue of Fighter and combat feats for me is that there could never be a deep enough feat tree that would allow Fighter to have something that no one else could reach.
If you had a combat feat tree that required more than 8-10 feats, then you would be locking non-Fighters out of it completely, but then Fighters would have something special. If you did this a bunch of times, people would complain about not being able to actually get full effect.
If they didn't, then Fighter would just really be, "pick 2 or more feat trees", which isn't really all that special. And is exactly what most Fighters ended up doing.
Long-term I'm quite happy with the idea that the Fighter class is special with mostly unique choices to them, just like most other martial classes. That said, I would've liked to have seen some of the swashbuckler stuff actually moved into a dedicated swashbuckler class. But, in theory, you could take Fighter and dedicate towards Rogue (or vice versa) to get most of the effect. I just miss the dedicated swashbuckler class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could use the same system for combat styles that the archetype and dedication system uses.
There are definitely ways to expand options that are available to everyone, but it's a matter of how much each class should get their own special things. If Fighter is just a collection of feats, it's kind of a weird one-off and it doesn't have a particular identity, and admittedly Fighter doesn't really invoke any kind of specific imagery for me so it was appropriate before.
The fundamental issue of Fighter and combat feats for me is that there could never be a deep enough feat tree that would allow Fighter to have something that no one else could reach.
If you had a combat feat tree that required more than 8-10 feats, then you would be locking non-Fighters out of it completely, but then Fighters would have something special. If you did this a bunch of times, people would complain about not being able to actually get full effect.
If they didn't, then Fighter would just really be, "pick 2 or more feat trees", which isn't really all that special. And is exactly what most Fighters ended up doing.
Long-term I'm quite happy with the idea that the Fighter class is special with mostly unique choices to them, just like most other martial classes. That said, I would've liked to have seen some of the swashbuckler stuff actually moved into a dedicated swashbuckler class. But, in theory, you could take Fighter and dedicate towards Rogue (or vice versa) to get most of the effect. I just miss the dedicated swashbuckler class.
Then we got Advanced Weapon Training, Advanced Armor Training, Combat Stamina and stuff, which made the Fighter capable of taking super unique builds. Also everyone is envious of armor training negating the speed reduction.
Though I'll admit most of those things were not in core and in fact took several years to get released.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was the appeal of PF2 that the classes could take on their evolved roles from the end of PF1, clean them up, and have their identity codified right out of the gate.
It's not, and it makes me sad.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sincerely think Fighter's status as "Guy with combat feats" needs to be reevaluated. You're absolutely right that it's the corner case class with no cohesive flavor beyond its feats. In that sense, much like the Cavalier, Fighter could easily be an archetype in Pf2e that goves you access to combat feats.
IMO fighters should get unique things that go beyond being good with x, y, z weapons or fighting styles.
Bravery is one, but other flavorful options could include 4e Warlord stuff, gear maintenance abilities, messing with weapon traits, swashbuckler stuff, enemy ability identification and appraisal, grit, enemy reaction denial abilities, bonuses to tactical positioning and so much more. Instead they get re-runs of old combat feats and again no narrative power outside of combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest issue I couldn't counter was class feats. Having feats locked behind class and level is presenting a significant barrier that I can't overcome at this point. A lot of them feel like they shouldn't have a level requirement do so merely to bulk out the class options at that level. Power Attack (.and other feats) being limited to 1 class is also terrible from their perspective.
Of all the arguments (level scaling, resonance, outcome-based monster stats, etc.), problems with Class Feats is the one I'm most surprised that PF1 players would balk at -- maybe their presentation? (They do look very reminiscent of D&D4's powers in their layout.) I get the reasoning behind the other arguments, this is one that I'm having a harder time wrapping my mind around.
After all, most of the newer classes in PF1 (Alchemists, Oracles, Slayers, the Unchained Rogues and Barbarians, etc.) have class and level gating already. As an Alchemist, I can't take acid bombs explicitly until level 8, or concussive bombs until level 6, and nothing about those discoveries screams "this is a high-level effect" (changing damage to sonic and adding a deafening with a failed Fort Save is pretty reasonable even at 1st or second level.) Further, I can't use Rogue Talents to take Alchemist Discoveries and vice versa, except in exceptional circumstances (Vivisectionist's bleeding attack and crippling strike comes to mind - and crippling strike is level-gated because it's an advanced feat). So other than "feel", it doesn't look much different mechanically from the way class "talents" work already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best version of the fighter in my eyes ended up being the brawler. On the fly feat choice ends up being really pretty powerful with system mastery, and guarantees that the character is always prepared for the combat. On the other hand, we have a guy at our table who really likes just whacking things with a sword and shield and fighter is his go-to. Fighter also ends up being the best crowd control martial and the best archer as well. It's a rough class to find a niche for because there isn't a coherent theme there. Best focused weapon specialist, best martial allrounder, best toe to toe martial? I don't know. These leaves them in a position to get carved up for future martial classes, and stepping on the toes of other classes already.
The current version seems to be set up as the guy with combos. It doesn't feel exactly right with the combos all expressly codified, but I suppose the class is more defined than it used to be. It does leave a few of their feat lines seeming out of place though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best version of the fighter in my eyes ended up being the brawler. On the fly feat choice ends up being really pretty powerful with system mastery, and guarantees that the character is always prepared for the combat. On the other hand, we have a guy at our table who really likes just whacking things with a sword and shield and fighter is his go-to. Fighter also ends up being the best crowd control martial and the best archer as well. It's a rough class to find a niche for because there isn't a coherent theme there. Best focused weapon specialist, best martial allrounder, best toe to toe martial? I don't know. These leaves them in a position to get carved up for future martial classes, and stepping on the toes of other classes already.
The current version seems to be set up as the guy with combos. It doesn't feel exactly right with the combos all expressly codified, but I suppose the class is more defined than it used to be. It does leave a few of their feat lines seeming out of place though.
It took work, a lot of reading, and some very consice writing, but fighters actually got that same niche.
It took many long contentious fighter threads before it became common knowledge though.
I do like that it's part of the core fighter package, I think it needs to be more open and come online earlier.
That's fair. Being the combo guy and having a combo of 1 is pretty lame.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of all the arguments (level scaling, resonance, outcome-based monster stats, etc.), problems with Class Feats is the one I'm most surprised that PF1 players would balk at -- maybe their presentation? (They do look very reminiscent of D&D4's powers in their layout.) I get the reasoning behind the other arguments, this is one that I'm having a harder time wrapping my mind around.The biggest issue I couldn't counter was class feats. Having feats locked behind class and level is presenting a significant barrier that I can't overcome at this point. A lot of them feel like they shouldn't have a level requirement do so merely to bulk out the class options at that level. Power Attack (.and other feats) being limited to 1 class is also terrible from their perspective.
Dungeons & Dragons before 3rd Edition had niche protection. Many classes had roles, not just abilities, that other classes were not able to handle. Rogues could disarm traps, fighters could make multiple attacks, clerics could cast divine spells. Overlap occurred because the designers liked mixing and matching classes, for example the bard started as a prestige class that had a rogue prerequisite, so when bard became a stand-alone class, it had rogue-like skills, and rangers had two-weapon fighting for their own multiple attacks.
Third Edition opened the doors to cross-class abilities. A lot of abilities were made into feats. A few feats had obvious class-based prerequisites, for example, Alignment Channel requires channel ability, but they were the exception rather than the rule. Players loved how they could mix and match abilities as easily as the designers previously could. Some combinations offered power to the powergamers, and other combinations added versatility to the roleplayers. It was fun.
Pathfinder copied that open door and its extravagant fun.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition offers the choice of feats, but not the cross-classing mix and match. It closes the door again. Of the general feats, only the dedication archetype feats have the feeling of cross classing, and they are supposed to represent multiclassing rather than mix and match.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is dedications not mix and matching? I don't understand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is dedications not mix and matching? I don't understand.
Mostly in how they're gated by prerequisites and tax the players on a very limited resource, then limit it by the half level rule and then level gating feats to protect the class from others taking their toys.
If I want to be good at using a bow/scimitar on a wizard (sword and sorcery style) it takes two feats that must come from my wizard abilities, and I'm stuck taking the same pool of ancestry/ skill/ general feats from before.
Fighters can no longer get a combat feat every level, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of the general feats, only the dedication archetype feats have the feeling of cross classing, and they are supposed to represent multiclassing rather than mix and match.How is dedications not mix and matching? I don't understand.
The Paizo designers worked hard to make the dedication archetypes look dedicated. They have a Key Ability Score 16 requirement. They require three feats in the line (the original dedication feat and two more) before taking another dedication. "Mix and match" is a phrase stolen from clothes styles, where a shirt and skirt can be thrown together on a whim, to either complement or contrast.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is dedications not mix and matching? I don't understand.Mostly in how they're gated by prerequisites and tax the players on a very limited resource, then limit it by the half level rule and then level gating feats to protect the class from others taking their toys.
If I want to be good at using a bow/scimitar on a wizard (sword and sorcery style) it takes two feats that must come from my wizard abilities, and I'm stuck taking the same pool of ancestry/ skill/ general feats from before.
Fighters can no longer get a combat feat every level, for example.
Except they aren't coming from your "wizard abilities" like in 1e. You actually are gaining spell progression you're only spending feats to do this. It's way way way more viable to do multiclassing with spellcasters in this edition. It was utter garbage to do it in 1e because you would lose out on your spell progression.
I ran a game with a Draconic Sorcerer with the fighter dedication and he was really effective. Fullplate spellcaster with claws and the magical striker feat was super strong.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lotsa people are ignoring the huge number of feats required to be minimally viable in most combat styles in PF1. I don't care that the fighter doesn't get a combat feat every level, because they no longer need 6 feats just to use a bow effectively. Many people said Fighters, and most martials, didn't have enough they could do out of combat, and now we have 10 skill feats. Some people just won't be happy unless every single character resource can be poured into combat ability. Replacing combat feat taxes with skill feats looks like a win from where I'm standing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest issue I couldn't counter was class feats. Having feats locked behind class and level is presenting a significant barrier that I can't overcome at this point. A lot of them feel like they shouldn't have a level requirement do so merely to bulk out the class options at that level. Power Attack (.and other feats) being limited to 1 class is also terrible from their perspective.
Of all the arguments (level scaling, resonance, outcome-based monster stats, etc.), problems with Class Feats is the one I'm most surprised that PF1 players would balk at -- maybe their presentation? (They do look very reminiscent of D&D4's powers in their layout.) I get the reasoning behind the other arguments, this is one that I'm having a harder time wrapping my mind around.
After all, most of the newer classes in PF1 (Alchemists, Oracles, Slayers, the Unchained Rogues and Barbarians, etc.) have class and level gating already. As an Alchemist, I can't take acid bombs explicitly until level 8, or concussive bombs until level 6, and nothing about those discoveries screams "this is a high-level effect" (changing damage to sonic and adding a deafening with a failed Fort Save is pretty reasonable even at 1st or second level.) Further, I can't use Rogue Talents to take Alchemist Discoveries and vice versa, except in exceptional circumstances (Vivisectionist's bleeding attack and crippling strike comes to mind - and crippling strike is level-gated because it's an advanced feat). So other than "feel", it doesn't look much different mechanically from the way class "talents" work already.
The Level gating was a lot more flexible for those. Rogue, for example only had Basic Talents and Advanced Talents. Some classes had a bit more level gating here and there, but for the most part you had a lot to choose from even on the first talent, always the one you wanted or at least part of the chain towards it.
Compare to having exactly 3-4 ones every 2 levels. It's a lot tighter. Some potential good lv1-2 feat are being moved to higher level list to pad them out or because the low level ones are too big already. Every class feat should be evaluated by itself at it's level. Obviously you gate off things like Flying or something that could be disruptive early, but all of the basic stuff should just be lv1 feats.
One example off the top of my head is the one Paladin feat that gives damage. The feat "scales" with the weapon and would be nothing special at level 1, but somehow it's at 14. It should just be level 1 for what it does, but guess they needed more stuff on 14. If the developers have nothing that is particularly relevant to be gated off at 14 then there should just not be feats for that level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lotsa people are ignoring the huge number of feats required to be minimally viable in most combat styles in PF1. I don't care that the fighter doesn't get a combat feat every level, because they no longer need 6 feats just to use a bow effectively. Many people said Fighters, and most martials, didn't have enough they could do out of combat, and now we have 10 skill feats. Some people just won't be happy unless every single character resource can be poured into combat ability. Replacing combat feat taxes with skill feats looks like a win from where I'm standing.
It's true. You had to put a bunch of feats into it.
Now you just need to put class levels into it. This is...better?
Want to be a Wizard with some bow Feats? Nope. Take Fighter.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lotsa people are ignoring the huge number of feats required to be minimally viable in most combat styles in PF1. I don't care that the fighter doesn't get a combat feat every level, because they no longer need 6 feats just to use a bow effectively. Many people said Fighters, and most martials, didn't have enough they could do out of combat, and now we have 10 skill feats. Some people just won't be happy unless every single character resource can be poured into combat ability. Replacing combat feat taxes with skill feats looks like a win from where I'm standing.
But they didn't get rid of combat feat taxes. There's a lot of class feats that I really don't want, but are necessary for the really good abilities. Ranger/druid have to take 4 feats just to keep their animal companion relevant. If skill feats were more like the skill unlocks in Pathfinder Unchained, I would maybe find their inclusion commensurate, but too many feats are just feat gating things people should be able to with regular skill use.
Like, how is train animal a feat, almost anyone is capable of doing this to some extent. You many not be great with animals but almost anybody can get a dog to relieve themselves outside. Sure they may still chew the furniture when you're gone too long, or bark at every car that passes by, but that doesn't mean you weren't able to do some training. Now shouldn't that same sort of thing be reflected with various difficulty to perform the task, instead of denying anyone without the feat even the attempt.
It's true. You had to put a bunch of feats into it.
Now you just need to put class levels into it. This is...better?
Want to be a Wizard with some bow Feats? Nope. Take Fighter.
Wizard with bow feats? I'm alright with traps like that being taken out. You could do that to yourself in PF1, it just always sucked. I'm not a fan of ivory tower game design. If a feature is going to be available to a character, there should be some instance where it isn't a trap for that character. If Wizards are going to suck at weapon combat (which they clearly did in PF1), then they shouldn't have access to weapon feats. Either classes should be offered options only for what they are allowed to be good at, or everyone should be able to be good at anything (with investment, of course) and classes should be removed because no roles/niches are being protected. PF1's approach just allowed a ton of trap options that required system mastery to save yourself from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they didn't get rid of combat feat taxes. There's a lot of class feats that I really don't want, but are necessary for the really good abilities. Ranger/druid have to take 4 feats just to keep their animal companion relevant. If skill feats were more like the skill unlocks in Pathfinder Unchained, I would maybe find their inclusion commensurate, but too many feats are just feat gating things people should be able to with regular skill use.
Like, how is train animal a feat, almost anyone is capable of doing this to some extent. You many not be great with animals but almost anybody can get a dog to relieve themselves outside. Sure they may still chew the furniture when you're gone too long, or bark at every car that passes by, but that doesn't mean you weren't able to do some training. Now shouldn't that same sort of thing be reflected with various difficulty to perform the task, instead of denying anyone without the feat even the attempt.
A feat tax is a feat that usually does nothing for you or removes a penalty that prevents you from being viable. PF1 Combat Expertise and Precise Shot are good examples of tax feats. I've seen far fewer feats that fit those categories in the playtest. I agree with you in that I prefer there to be few/no feet trees, because those can easily become tax situations.
Animal Companions scale with level automatically, so I see those upgrades as purely optional but nice benefits, which is not a tax to me. What should be a basic skill use vs. a skill feat will always be purely taste, so I'm not going to touch that. I probably disagree with both you and the developers on that. I don't think it's fair to call anything I personally would build into the skill itself a tax, however.
I also strongly disagree with your assertion that anyone could train an animal to be reliably combat capable or that potty training is at all similar to what that feat allows.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Level gating was a lot more flexible for those. Rogue, for example only had Basic Talents and Advanced Talents. Some classes had a bit more level gating here and there, but for the most part you had a lot to choose from even on the first talent, always the one you wanted or at least part of the chain towards it.
Compare to having exactly 3-4 ones every 2 levels. It's a lot tighter. Some potential good lv1-2 feat are being moved to higher level list to pad them out or because the low level ones are too big already. Every class feat should be evaluated by itself at it's level. Obviously you gate off things like Flying or something that could be disruptive early, but all of the basic stuff should just be lv1 feats.
One example off the top of my head is the one Paladin feat that gives damage. The feat "scales" with the weapon and would be nothing special at level 1, but somehow it's at 14. It should just be level 1 for what it does, but guess they needed more stuff on 14. If the developers have nothing that is particularly relevant to be gated off at 14 then there should just not be feats for that level.
The Unchained Rogue Talents I'll give you -- there's very little gating on these as compared to both PF1 and PF2 classes. However, Alchemists, Oracles, Vigilantes, etc. all had tons of level and prereq gating throughout. Comparing to one or two classes that didn't (e.g. Rogue) to me isn't a fair expectation, when so many other classes have lots of restrictions like that.
As for the feats being moved to higher levels, it's still difficult for me (at least) to judge the power level of some of these, because using the PF1 power curve which is much sharper, I misjudge the worth of some of these. For instance, until seeing things like the splash damage from alchemist fire in practice, I figured 1 splash damage is worthless, until I started seeing the recall knowledge in play and determining the weaknesses of certain creatures and using the appropriate tactic. (Looking at Level 14 paladin, I'm unsure which feat you're talking about. I do know that energy resistance 2 or 5 at level 14 looks super-weak (warding aura) - ouch!) I'll happily take anchoring aura instead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animal Companions scale with level automatically, so I see those upgrades as purely optional but nice benefits, which is not a tax to me. What should be a basic skill use vs. a skill feat will always be purely taste, so I'm not going to touch that. I probably disagree with both you and the developers on that. I don't think it's fair to call anything I personally would build into the skill itself a tax, however.
I also strongly disagree with your assertion that anyone could train an animal to be reliably combat capable or that potty training is at all similar to what that feat allows.
They scale, but not enough to be relevant as anything but a hit point sponge/flanking partner. Since they cannot benefit from any item bonuses other than barding, they need the stat increases the additional feats provide to not fall behind the games expected math (especially in damage). Sure you get a few other things with the feats, such as the advanced maneuver, but in a lot of cases, I feel people wouldn't bother with those choices, except they come with the near mandatory number boosts.
And I'm not saying that anybody should be able to train animals for any purpose with absolute certainty. What I'm saying is that I know lots of people with no special training who were able to train animals to do things that were achievable with animals in first edition. Things like fetch, heel, come, stay. It seems a little ridiculous that that's not possible without a skill feat in second edition. Now, wouldn't a system with variable skill DCs be a better way to simulate how it's easier to train for certain behaviors than others, instead of a binary system where a feat says it's either possible or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming you are correct and those feats are required to maintain relevance, that is feat tax, after a fashion. As you pointed out, they do come with other benefits. I'd rather feat taxes not exist in any form, but let's at least recognize that for all its faults, the playtest has vastly fewer taxes than PF1.
That's back to the topic of what should be baseline for a skill vs. a skill feat. Considering you had to invest in a skill that was rarely useful otherwise (Handle Animal) to train before, that doesn't seem any more onerous than a single skill feat to me. The specifics of training, however, doesn't matter much to me. My main point is that just because someone might wish a skill feat's effects were included in a skill, that does not make such a skill feat a tax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sincerely think Fighter's status as "Guy with combat feats" needs to be reevaluated.
Combat feats in general need to be evaluated.
Why someone who dedicates their lives to the martial arts needs to take feats for things like Power Attack or Cleave is patently absurd. It's bar none one of the worst changes 3.PF made to the system. Since 4e was mentioned, at least even that system had the decency to make something as common as Cleave an at will ability.
I'll happily take more from the 4e fighter though. I'll still bat for it as the best incarnation of the class across the various editions, closely matched by AD&D2e Fighter.
But you still have to choose that particular at-will (and you generally only have 2 or 3, out of thousands), and from a particular class, how is that better than a feat anyone can choose?I sincerely think Fighter's status as "Guy with combat feats" needs to be reevaluated.Combat feats in general need to be evaluated.
Why someone who dedicates their lives to the martial arts needs to take feats for things like Power Attack or Cleave is patently absurd. It's bar none one of the worst changes 3.PF made to the system. Since 4e was mentioned, at least even that system had the decency to make something as common as Cleave an at will ability.
It's not strictly better for everyone, though in the context of that particular line of thought I never meant to imply that it was an overall better decision for everyone as opposed to one class. I can freely admit to this being more of a specific instance of control rather than a flexible choice that others may not see as beneficial and that it has its downsides.
My overall main point though is that things such as Cleave shouldn't be feats to begin with, at least for most characters. The concepts of feats are nice on paper, but silly amounts of punitive in actual practice for some classes more than others. Feat tax rules exist I suppose but that's a band aid on a problem which frankly shouldn't continue into a new edition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is the PF1 Fighter, ended up with a lot of great options, scattered about in dozens of little books here and there. I don't understand why they didn't consolidate all of those for PF2. Instead they decided "we'll just take all the combat feats away from everyone else, that will make the fighter special"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
problems with Class Feats is the one I'm most surprised that PF1 players would balk at
So am I. I was anticipating that class feats would be a universal currency that equalises rogue talents, rage powers, advanced weapon training and such so that they were of equal value. We didn't get that though.
maybe their presentation? (They do look very reminiscent of D&D4's powers in their layout.) I get the reasoning behind the other arguments, this is one that I'm having a harder time wrapping my mind around.
It's not presentation. It's the entire ideology behind the mechanic and how the mechanic will be expanded.
Class feats took general feats and made them class specific. Each class now only has access to feats that allow them to fulfill their stereotypical role. More roles will be opened up in the future, by creating class specific feats that duplicate the general idea (TWFing) but express it in a class specific way (TWFing for the rogue is going to be completely different to the TWFing of the fighter and ranger).
This is the exact solution that D&D 4th edition took. My group selected out of that game system and went with Pathfinder. Now that Paizo is changing Pathfinder to go back to D&D 4th edition solution they are saying quite loudly and clearly that they will be looking to another system that does not implement that solution.
The class feats as implemented in the playtest is a substantial misstep and one that will stop my group from playing the game if it isn't changed.
Here is my version of the fighter, here is my version of class feats and here are the leftover feats. You can see that the solution is extremely similar. However I didn't lock down things like Power Attack, Stand Still, Quick Draw, etc to only specific classes. Meaning there is greater freedom in what character you make.
When they talked about class feats I pictured them taking all the archetypes from pf1 classes, breaking them down into chunks, and letting you put together an archetype of your choosing.
Instead they took baseline class features, stripped them out and spread them over a bunch of levels and mixed in random general and combat feats. They saw that the result wasn't super cool so they rustled through 4e's pockets for ~~"class fantasy"~~ style abilities to pepper in.
What you end up with is a class watered down AND locked into pre-defined build path. It's also frustrating that there are so many class feats that are essentially "this thing from before but better"
Why can't we have Class Feats totally divorced from old pathfinder feats?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo's biggest error was naming class feats after prior general feats. That's it, the name itself. Power Attack doesn't do the same thing, Double Slice doesn't do the same thing, Point-Blank Shot doesn't do the same thing, etc. Nobody seemed to mind all the classes with "class talents" in PF1, so a la carte class features can't be the problem. If they'd just called Class Feats "Class Talents" instead (though calling all things that act like feats by one name IS better design, whining aside) and reused no names, I don't think most of you would even think to complain about this. I don't get how it makes a lick of sense to complain that you can't have an ability with a familiar name with unfamiliar effects, but somehow, that's what's been happening.
Also of note: class feats are no more 4e-like than all those a la carte class features in PF1 were, because they're the same danged thing. For anyone who disagrees with that, please explain, in detail, how they are functionally different.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's it, the name itself. Power Attack doesn't do the same thing, Double Slice doesn't do the same thing
I disagree. I've analysed how TWFing works in PF2e vs PF1e.
Double Slice, Twin Parry and Twin Paragon should be open to all classes. I'm okay with Twin Riposte and Improved Twin Riposte being a special fighter thing. But an increase in accuracy and an AC boost should definitely be accessible to all TWFers.
class feats are no more 4e-like than all those a la carte class features in PF1 were, because they're the same danged thing. For anyone who disagrees with that, please explain, in detail, how they are functionally different.
If you want to invest in TWFing in PF1e you get to take class agonistic feats and be a TWFer. In 4th ed if you want to be a TWFer you have to take class specific powers. In PF2e you also need to take class specific feats if you want to gain any actual benefit for TWFing beyond a +1 attack boost at a -1 damage penalty.
That is how they're the same. If you want to be a TWFing Rogue you either take Fighter powers (4th ed)/feats (PF2e) or you wait until WotC (4th ed)/Paizo (PF2e) publishes Rogue specific powers (4th ed)/feats (PF2e). Been there, done that. Don't want to go back to it.
So while I disagree with certain strategies being limited to classes, I don't think the existence of class feats which are available only to that one class is any more of a problem than how in PF1 a fighter couldn't get rage powers, magus arcana, revelations, phrenic amps, vigilante talents, rogue talents, etc.
But I feel like the answer is less to "make all feats available to everybody" (beyond how they are going to be when all the dedications are added in the next updates) it's to identify thematic matches which are not currently possible and give appropriate feats to those classes.
Generic feats, however, are pretty thoroughly underwhelming, though you get so few of them that it might not be great to make them important.
Well my first edition DM at the time had been playing since it was made and even said he helped design the 1st edition cavalier (I can not verify) but he said he started at his teens and had been playing for 20+ years before I started (age 14 If my memory serves.) so your not TOO old. if that makes you feel better.Thank you, that actually does make me feel a little better.
Sounds like he was playing since pretty much the day the game started (1974), I only became aware of the game in the early 80s (the peak), but was a bit too young to really get into it, I did not start playing until 1986.
I am not sure if one would want design credit for the 1st Ed Cavalier, ha, I kid, sort of!
It does have the first ability score increase system, though.
He had said his specific contribution to it was the cavalier doing more damage while mounted which apparently originally it wasn't going to make a difference but he moved for them to be more damaging while mounted and with a lance. Which I think is a pretty good contribution really.
Well we already have some weapon traits granting enhancements to actions (e.g. trip). This could be extended to agile, finesse and so on along with the creation of other traits.
Lowering accuracy for damage or lowering damage for accuracy could be made into universal rules. There's options there, but at what point do you stop? I like the idea of some things being inherent, but I wouldn't want to see too many things converted over to universal rules.
I disagree. I've analysed how TWFing works in PF2e vs PF1e.
PF1 Double Slice's effect is automatic in PF2. PF2 Double Slice is an accuracy boost for lighter weapons, effectively. It's more akin to the Improved/Perfect Balance features of the Two Weapon Warrior Fighter, which you'll note was not even gated by class, but by a specific archetype. If PF2 Double Strike was instead called Perfect Balance, I don't think it would have ever occurred to you to compare it to PF1 Double Strike, because outside of improving TWF, they are nothing alike.
If you want to invest in TWFing in PF1e you get to take class agonistic feats and be a TWFer. In 4th ed if you want to be a TWFer you have to take class specific powers. In PF2e you also need to take class specific feats if you want to gain any actual benefit for TWFing beyond a +1 attack boost at a -1 damage penalty.
That is how they're the same. If you want to be a TWFing Rogue you either take Fighter powers (4th ed)/feats (PF2e) or you wait until WotC (4th ed)/Paizo (PF2e) publishes Rogue specific powers (4th ed)/feats (PF2e). Been there, done that. Don't want to go back to it.
This is just you saying you don't like the new siloing each class has. Rogue Talents, Rage Powers, Revelations, Hexes, etc etc all gave unique options no other class could recreate, including many that didn't have a compelling reason for that exclusivity. I just showed above how two-weapon accuracy increase was a Fighter archetype class feature, and somehow I never saw anyone complain about that. Al a carte class features, by whatever name they take, give you options that are unavailable to other classes. Their function is the same as it was in PF1. You just wish some things that are in class silos in PF2 weren't. That's not wrong to want, but it doesn't make PF1's "class talents" somehow magically different from PF2's class feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If PF2 Double Strike was instead called Perfect Balance, I don't think it would have ever occurred to you to compare it to PF1 Double Strike, because outside of improving TWF, they are nothing alike.
Sure. But you've missed the point. My TWFing Rogue? He gets absolutely nothing for TWFing because he doesn't have access to any any TWFing feats because they've all been gated behind classes.
This is just you saying you don't like the new siloing each class has.
I've gone on at length how I like the idea of class feats sioling abilities that were once held in class talents/archetypes.
You just wish some things that are in class silos in PF2 weren't. That's not wrong to want, but it doesn't make PF1's "class talents" somehow magically different from PF2's class feats.
I'm not saying they're magically different. I'm saying that by removing so much from general feats and reclassifying so much as class talents we've lost the versatility of PF1e and entered the territory thoroughly trod in D&D 4th ed.
Here's an easier example for you: Vital Strike. Anyone can take it in PF1e, only the fighter can take it in PF2e (it's been renamed, I'm sure you'll work it out though).
You've also completely ignored this: In PF2e if I want my Rogue to invest in TWFing I have to wait for class specific feats to be published. This was not the case in PF1e and is the very complaint you're doing your darndest to ignore.
OOhOOH brain storm! What about if the classes still had class specific and refined combat feats for two weapon fighting etc. but their was slightly less effective general version as well and the general and class specific could count as each other so you couldn't take both and for preqs if any?!?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. But you've missed the point. My TWFing Rogue? He gets absolutely nothing for TWFing because he doesn't have access to any any TWFing feats because they've all been gated behind classes.
I think you missed mine, because I wasn't talking about that. I was speaking to the complaint "Double Slice used to be a general feat and now it's a class feat for only classes X and Y, so class feats are bad." That was my entire initial premise.
I've gone on at length how I like the idea of class feats siloing abilities that were once held in class talents/archetypes.
But notably not things that used to be general feats, hence, you don't like the new approach to siloing.
I'm not saying they're magically different. I'm saying that by removing so much from general feats and reclassifying so much as class talents we've lost the versatility of PF1e and entered the territory thoroughly trod in D&D 4th ed.
If it is the removal of generic combat options that makes things too much like 4e, then say that. Saying that class feats are somehow like 4e class powers and unlike PF1 "class talents" doesn't make sense, and the class feats aren't actually the problem you're having. You may realize they're not magically different, but the general discussion in all these class feat threads doesn't acknowledge that. That's been my whole issue: people are complaining about class feats like they're something new. They aren't. This lack of specificity in what actually bothers people has led to unnecessary histrionics and edition warring regarding 4e and distracted from discussing what is actually bothering people.
Here's an easier example for you: Vital Strike. Anyone can take it in PF1e, only the fighter can take it in PF2e (it's been renamed, I'm sure you'll work it out though).
You've also completely ignored this: In PF2e if I want my Rogue to invest in TWFing I have to wait for class specific feats to be published. This was not the case in PF1e and is the very complaint you're doing your darndest to ignore.
Alright, now I'll actually discuss what you seem to care most about, which is a lack of generic combat feats outside of class feats. What I don't want to see is what we had in PF1: TWF paladins, rangers, rogues, and fighters all took the same 5+ feats. The only difference was how quickly they acquired them, due to bonus feats. That was really boring, and made classes very samey in their offensive actions in combat. In a classless system, this makes sense: the archery tree gives X archery abilities. If you're going to bother with classes, they should approach combat with different options.
The developers' goal is to do exactly that: give each class unique approaches to combat, including unique twists on combat styles. I don't think the problem is that generic TWF, archery, etc options don't exist. I think the problem is that some classes didn't get all the combat styles that their traditional fantasies expect, like archer paladins and TWF rogues. Due to the sheer volume of complaints on those two, you'll see those in the final book, I guarantee it. I think time will prove the devs right on this one, as this will result in much less sameness in how classes play. That's why the comparisons to 4e, which supposedly made all the classes play the same with different flavor, confuse me.
That approach does mean that some classes may not have every option at the very beginning, without multiclassing. That's no different than PF1, of course. Many options required to realize certain concepts didn't appear for many years. That's a fundamental reality of the business, and I don't think we should settle for samey combat to alleviate it slightly.
Some classes, like spellcasters, are unlikely to have support for many weapon combat styles. Good! Martial combat options being available to everyone but spellcaster combat options being available to only spellcasters was yet another reason why casters outclassed martials in PF1. The more unique abilities martial classes have, the harder it is for casters to effectively replace them.