| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pandora: Thanks for finally being willing to discuss this issue. I will ignore the first half of your post and get to the actual meat of it.
The approach you and the devs are advocating is EXACTLY how 4th ed worked. The approach that PF1e had is one you are directly abandoning as "boring". If my group found it boring and preferred the approach you are advocating, we would play 4th ed. We don't and so we dont. By abandoning the PF1e approach and embracing the 4th ed approach you lose my group.
I don't want unique "exciting" class specific feats at the expense of the class agnostic feats. That's what 4th ed did. Give me class talents that complement my fighting style, but also open up some of the feats for a fighting style to all classes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
We have far different ways of playing then.
I do agree though. Remove classes. I shouldn't have to be a Fighter to be an archer. I shouldn't have to be one or ranger for two weapon fighting. Or Barbarian for 2hander.
Remove the classes, let players do what they want. I dislike this half done system they have in place. It's half classless(Build what you want with what you want) and half class(OH but only these classes are good at X good job trying to make it work without X).
Also. Arcane Archer. Was it good to play nothing but Wizard classes? I don't know, probably not. I still had fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The approach you and the devs are advocating is EXACTLY how 4th ed worked. The approach that PF1e had is one you are directly abandoning as "boring". If my group found it boring and preferred the approach you are advocating, we would play 4th ed. We don't and so we dont. By abandoning the PF1e approach and embracing the 4th ed approach you lose my group.
Okay, but you ignored my point regarding sameness. I'll pose it as a direct question. PF2's approach is to have less sameness in how classes fight than PF1. 4e is constantly accused of too much sameness, especially in class powers, as a major weakness. How do you reconcile those? Do you think 4e is less samey than PF1? Do you and your group prefer classes to be more samey in how they play? If so, why?
I don't want unique "exciting" class specific feats at the expense of the class agnostic feats. That's what 4th ed did. Give me class talents that complement my fighting style, but also open up some of the feats for a fighting style to all classes.
What, precisely, is your problem with unique class specific feats instead of generic feats? What is lost in that approach that you find valuable? Being different from 4e isn't a valid answer. If you have an actual reason for disliking 4e, then you'll be able to give me the same reason for disliking it in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have far different ways of playing then.
I'm curious why you say that. What do trap options add to your game? The only reason I know of to like trap options is because one likes to be better than players who don't know to avoid them. I'm sure you have a better reason than that, so I'd like to know what it is.
I do agree though. Remove classes. I shouldn't have to be a Fighter to be an archer. I shouldn't have to be one or ranger for two weapon fighting. Or Barbarian for 2hander.
Remove the classes, let players do what they want. I dislike this half done system they have in place. It's half classless(Build what you want with what you want) and half class(OH but only these classes are good at X good job trying to make it work without X).
I agree that completely classless could make a good game but I think we both know it won't happen here. If you're going to have classes, they should matter and play differently. If feats define your combat options and everyone takes the same feats, classes don't mean much in terms of combat. There's no variety. Classless systems overcome this problem by offering vastly more options for your build path. PF1 was the worst of both worlds in this regard: build paths were too similar with too few build paths.
Also. Arcane Archer. Was it good to play nothing but Wizard classes? I don't know, probably not. I still had fun.
To be fair, the Arcane Archer gives a bunch of abilities that make using bows less of a trap for a Wizard. I'm not opposed to a Wizard with a bow. I'm opposed to Wizards who are intended to be bad with a bow being offered a bow as an option without flashing warning signs.
I'm glad you had fun, but it's possible to have fun with a useless character and with a wet turd of a game system. In a playtest, we're trying to help create the best game possible to maximize the potential for fun. Having fun isn't good enough, when more fun could instead be had.
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?!?
I suggested we have the general version and then have a section at the bottom of the feat, like a special section, that lists the extra some classes get or have the general feat and have the class feat read 'same as general feat' + the class extras.
Well, we do need more solid general feats, so that there's one more definite benchmark which anchors all classes to the same in-game world (other than ability scores).
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?!?I suggested we have the general version and then have a section at the bottom of the feat, like a special section, that lists the extra some classes get or have the general feat and have the class feat read 'same as general feat' + the class extras.
Yeah that pretty well works the same or just as good I suppose. hmm I wonder which would be easier to implement. Probably the one with the special section.
My only worry is if that we make to many combat feats general feats are we then just making the fighter and other martials that rely on feats to interchangeable? Hmm the fighter is the difficult one because he seems based on turning all the old combat feats into just fighter feats. I guess as long as we don't go hog wild with the general combat feats it should be fine. I'll have to think on it.
Well, the Fighter and other martials could gain fat class features, to augment things they do, and I want Legendary to unlock gnarly stuff.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?!?I suggested we have the general version and then have a section at the bottom of the feat, like a special section, that lists the extra some classes get or have the general feat and have the class feat read 'same as general feat' + the class extras.Yeah that pretty well works the same or just as good I suppose. hmm I wonder which would be easier to implement. Probably the one with the special section.
My only worry is if that we make to many combat feats general feats are we then just making the fighter and other martials that rely on feats to interchangeable? Hmm the fighter is the difficult one because he seems based on turning all the old combat feats into just fighter feats. I guess as long as we don't go hog wild with the general combat feats it should be fine. I'll have to think on it.
I keep saying I think one of the few skill feats that have it right is cat grace. it progresses as your proficiency gets better and taking no fall damage from any height legitimately feels pretty legendary.
Yeah im ok with fighters being (basically) the only ones that AOO.
I think I just need to write up a list of all the prospective changes I want and the reasoning behind it and post it so I can reference it so I don't have to say the same thing over and over. The feats and how they work with prof is a big one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The approach you and the devs are advocating is EXACTLY how 4th ed worked. The approach that PF1e had is one you are directly abandoning as "boring". If my group found it boring and preferred the approach you are advocating, we would play 4th ed. We don't and so we dont. By abandoning the PF1e approach and embracing the 4th ed approach you lose my group.Okay, but you ignored my point regarding sameness. I'll pose it as a direct question. PF2's approach is to have less sameness in how classes fight than PF1. 4e is constantly accused of too much sameness, especially in class powers, as a major weakness. How do you reconcile those? Do you think 4e is less samey than PF1? Do you and your group prefer classes to be more samey in how they play? If so, why?
I don't want unique "exciting" class specific feats at the expense of the class agnostic feats. That's what 4th ed did. Give me class talents that complement my fighting style, but also open up some of the feats for a fighting style to all classes.What, precisely, is your problem with unique class specific feats instead of generic feats? What is lost in that approach that you find valuable? Being different from 4e isn't a valid answer. If you have an actual reason for disliking 4e, then you'll be able to give me the same reason for disliking it in PF2.
1) I haven't addressed it because it's an argument I haven't made and so is completely offtopic. Furthermore the fact you are making it in this way suggests a lack of understanding of 4th ed and the criticisms against it and feels like you think you have found a "gotcha" argument that your going to spring on me rather than try to engage in a good faith discussion of the issue.
Given you won't let it go I will address it at the end of this post.
2) My problem with unique feats for the classes is it means only those classes can get those elements of the game. It means Paizo gives us some prepackaged boxes and very few pieces we can fill in with those boxes. Whereas in Pf1e by not restricting such feats to class only you have a much wider array of characters that can be built. A cleric can take step up if they so desire instead of only fighters getting that feat.
At the moment I believe any class in D&D 5e can take the TWFing feat. That is crazy that 5e is more open then PF2e given how little choices are actually available in 5e.
1 continued) The sameness in 4th ed was in how every class from caster to non caster used the AEDU system. So no, PF2e does not have this sameness.
By the end of 4th ed's life cycle hundreds (if not thousands) of powers had been published for each class. By that time most of the effects available in any given power were available to every class of that role. PF2e hasn't reached that point yet, but nor had 4th ed when only the PHB was published. But it is certainly a pit trap that PF2e could fall into.
All of that is of course irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But hopefully it addresses it for you so we can move on to the actual conversation of this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going to have classes, they should matter and play differently.Absolutely, but at the same time you don't want to be pigeonholed into a specific role, style. You also want to avoid homogeneity and 15 versions of fireball or what-have-you.
i wonder wgat other game could have possibly had classes narrowly defined by specific roles and had 15 different versions of cure light Sounds? Regardless of what it was I'm sure glad OF existed so I didn't have to play it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) I haven't addressed it because it's an argument I haven't made and so is completely offtopic. Furthermore the fact you are making it in this way suggests a lack of understanding of 4th ed and the criticisms against it and feels like you think you have found a "gotcha" argument that your going to spring on me rather than try to engage in a good faith discussion of the issue.
Given you won't let it go I will address it at the end of this post.
Seriously? So sameness wasn't the reason you had an issue with 4e. It is relevant because over and over and over in this thread, rather than actually explaining why a mechanic is bad or not to your tastes, you say that it's like 4e and that's how we know it is bad. That's nonsense. If you have a problem, articulate it. Edition warring shows an aversion to change with an absence of reason.
2) My problem with unique feats for the classes is it means only those classes can get those elements of the game. It means Paizo gives us some prepackaged boxes and very few pieces we can fill in with those boxes.
Do you have a problem with only Rogues getting Rogue Talents or only Barbarians getting Rage Powers? If not, how is this different? Is it just combat styles that you care about so much with how they're siloed?
You complain about few pieces to put in those boxes, and then later caution against how many class powers 4e ended up with for each class. Which is the problem?
Whereas in Pf1e by not restricting such feats to class only you have a much wider array of characters that can be built. A cleric can take step up if they so desire instead of only fighters getting that feat.
Much wider array of characters in name only. PF1 martial characters are defined by their weapon combat style. You end up with each of the, what, 30-odd? martial classes all taking the same feats to fight the same way, with each class adding slightly different numerical bonuses on top. The difference between a Raging Barbarian's hit and damage bonus and a Fighter's hit and damage bonus is riveting, really. In my book, not every class having access to Step Up is a worthwhile trade for having more than 6ish effective build paths across dozens of classes.
If you're going to have classes, they should matter and play differently.Absolutely, but at the same time you don't want to be pigeonholed into a specific role, style. You also want to avoid homogeneity and 15 versions of fireball or what-have-you.
Classes need to be different in either role, function, or both. Role is what they do, function is how they do it. If you choose function, that function has to be tangibly different. To hit and damage bonuses with different flavor aren't tangibly different in function.
Avoid homogeneity, yes. I'm fine with 15 versions of Fireball if they're tangibly different in their function. I have no idea how you would create so many that are, but if it was accomplished, I'd have no issue with it.
Classes need to be different in either role, function, or both.Different from what, other classes? Also, what are these roles and functions?
Right, other classes. If you're not going to have differences between classes, just cut out the middleman and go classless. If you can't sufficiently differentiate a new class from existing ones, that new class is unnecessary.
What roles are functions exist are dependent on the game and the creativity of the designers. In RTS games, such as Starcraft, you often have worker units, combat units, and utility units; each does something totally different. In MMOs, you tend to have tank/dps/healer. Those are examples of roles.
In a class based shooter, such as Team Fortress 2 or Overwatch, you'll have some classes with the same function: kill the enemy. It's really all they do. Some kill the enemy with speed and close-ranged/melee weaponry, others do it from long range with fast-firing, accurate weapons. The role is the same, but they go about it in different ways and are very different to play.
If you're asking me what roles and functions should exist in a tabletop RPG, I'll tell you that I have my tastes, I'm sure you have yours, and I don't think there is any one right answer.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have far different ways of playing then.I'm curious why you say that. What do trap options add to your game? The only reason I know of to like trap options is because one likes to be better than players who don't know to avoid them. I'm sure you have a better reason than that, so I'd like to know what it is.
Well for one, I don't min max. I try to be effective in combat, traveling, social, etc. But I don't go out of my way to push the number as far as it can go. So if you look at my character sheets you'll probably see a bad pick or a trap option when it comes to feats, skills, or even items. I mean heck, I picked up Craft Construct as a feat on my current character in PF1, but the community seems to consider that a trap, not worth it, what are you doing, unless you're using it to make a crafting army you are doing it wrong. Don't care, I have a little junk golem that follows me around and helps out.
As a GM though, and I admit this isn't in the rules, or for new GMs I guess, I'll give you the same as when I explained Appraise to someone else; To me there's no Trap option. There are harder options yes, but I try to make sure players are able to use the skills, feats, and items they pick up. It might require a bit more work, but I like sitting down with a player and trying to help them build what they want and then make it work. I might have to bend the rules or even ignore them at times, but I play for story and character, not the math. And if it is truly, truly trapish or Taxish... well I just remove those.
I agree that completely classless could make a good game but I think we both know it won't happen here. If you're going to have classes, they should matter and play differently. If feats define your combat options and everyone takes the same feats, classes don't mean much in terms of combat. There's no variety. Classless systems overcome this problem by offering vastly more options for your build path. PF1 was the worst of both worlds in this regard: build paths were too similar with too few build paths.I do agree though. Remove classes. I shouldn't have to be a Fighter to be an archer. I shouldn't have to be one or ranger for two weapon fighting. Or Barbarian for 2hander.
Remove the classes, let players do what they want. I dislike this half done system they have in place. It's half classless(Build what you want with what you want) and half class(OH but only these classes are good at X good job trying to make it work without X).
They should matter and play differently. I don't think class X should have a monopoly on a play-style though. Or at the very least, Combat Style. I want to make a TWF guy that uses knives..., well I would just make him Rogue(Gasp) or maybe Ranger, maybe a few other classes. NOW I have to make him Ranger or Fighter.
PF1 might have been bad. I went out of my way to do different things. However I'm looking at PF2, and with people already making the true build paths, I ask; How is PF2 going to be any different? The math is going to get figured out, the guides are going to go up and you'll see the same character again and again. There might be more paths in PF2, but how sure are we that the community isn't just going to go down the same one like before?
Also. Arcane Archer. Was it good to play nothing but Wizard classes? I don't know, probably not. I still had fun.To be fair, the Arcane Archer gives a bunch of abilities that make using bows less of a trap for a Wizard. I'm not opposed to a Wizard with a bow. I'm opposed to Wizards who are intended to be bad with a bow being offered a bow as an option without flashing warning signs.
I'm glad you had fun, but it's possible to have fun with a useless character and with a wet turd of a game system. In a playtest, we're trying to help create the best game possible to maximize the potential for fun. Having fun isn't good enough, when more fun could instead be had.
See this to me is why Retraining exists. If you have messed up your character enough or are not having fun, ask the GM to either retrain or just rebuild. Unless it's PFS, they usually will let you do so. I'd also suggest as GM, maybe tell players "This might be hard to pull off". I have someone going to run a Shifter for Mummy's Mask. Oh god the DR might hurt them, and Shifter is kinda a weird class. Now I'm willing to see what I can do for them, but for a newer GM and player, I would tell the new gm to maybe suggest something else. If you need the book to pop up with red letters, I suppose that's fine. I'd rather see the player and GM talk it out myself.
And this is where we break. Because fun is subjective. People are split on the fun of Resonance and seem to be having a lot of fun with the 3 action system. Resonance in my playtests, gets in the way and kills Alchemist; and the 3 action system while neat tends to just boil down to "Move attack Move" or just standing still to get as many crit swings in. It's not that different from the "I need to get full attack". It's just "I need to get as many crit swings in".
What is fun for you is not fun for me all the time. And vice verse. What is MORE fun for me could make it less fun for you. I'm all for trying to see if we can make the system fun for all but I don't see that happening. Not with the systems already in place, and the community that is so used to pushing every number they can.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that pretty well works the same or just as good I suppose. hmm I wonder which would be easier to implement. Probably the one with the special section.
Special would be easier at the start of the game, the other would be easier as we start adding more classes that get access to those feats.
Yeah im ok with fighters being (basically) the only ones that AOO.
I think I'd like to see a way others could be built for an AoO that doesn't require being a fighter. I'd be fine if they work/look different but it doesn't seem out of place if, for instance, a rogue or barbarian could punish you for taking a casual stroll past you when they are swinging around weapons.
Do you have a problem with only Rogues getting Rogue Talents or only Barbarians getting Rage Powers? If not, how is this different? Is it just combat styles that you care about so much with how they're siloed?
The difference is that in general there wasn't the overlap: a rage power was significantly different most times from the rogue talent. It wasn't all 'take x combat feat, give it different fluff and a slightly different mechanic' and do that for every set of those abilities.
It's like taking every combat feat, making 12 versions [one for every class] and calling them class feats. It's giving the veneer of different/unique but give it a good look and it's STILL the same combat feat with a different paint job. I'm all for letting classes have unique abilities and feats, but these types of feats aren't that IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the big goals of PF2 should be to make various combat strategies (e.g. archery, twf, etc.) functional without any feat investment, so the fact that some classes have some feats relevant to these strategies is simply a bonus that makes the strategy a little more efficient for that class, not "you need to be this class to do it."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the big goals of PF2 should be to make various combat strategies (e.g. archery, twf, etc.) functional without any feat investment, so the fact that some classes have some feats relevant to these strategies is simply a bonus that makes the strategy a little more efficient for that class, not "you need to be this class to do it."
Oh they're functional across all classes. Class X does the combat style better though. SO it's only "functional" if you pick that class or dedication. Otherwise it's possible but a trap. You won't be as good as X so why bother?
That's how we do it right? We have to have the max benefits for a thing or it's not worth it right?
See, that's the issue. It might be a little more efficient to play the combat style with X. No biggy. But the Math of crits is probably going to make any small benefit worth more and then the community gets in on it. To the point that while it wasn't designed as such, we'll get to "You NEED to play X style with X class, what are you a bad player?"
So it might be designed for You don't need X class. It'll end as "You need X class" anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the big goals of PF2 should be to make various combat strategies (e.g. archery, twf, etc.) functional without any feat investment, so the fact that some classes have some feats relevant to these strategies is simply a bonus that makes the strategy a little more efficient for that class, not "you need to be this class to do it."
Is that satisfying, though? I'd like to play a Cleric, for example, who is good with a bow. I have no options outside of multiclassing to demonstrate that I'm a better archer than the bog standard cleric? If I wanted to show that in PF1e I would take archer feats and have all my cleric stuff. In 2e I have to trade out cleric stuff to get any recognition as a bow user.
In terms of mechanics, there is a limit and that limit means that at some point power X looks a lot like power Y because there's only so much design space.
I played a lot of MTG and you got to see the same kind of thing there as well. Most deck builders have similar issues.
d20 only introduced a certain number of core mechanics and abilities are really just a way of playing around with those core mechanics. At some point the only way to increase your design space is to introduce more and that can push complexity past a breaking point.
So if you look at your 15 different fireballs (or spells in general) it's just going to be a mix and match of various mechanics until you have something that's balanced against other things of the same level. In this case:
# of Actions, Size and Shape, Damage (amount and type), Save Type, Setting or Clearing Conditions
Most spells in D&D basically define things in terms of those limited set of mechanics, but it's a very large number of combinations. So what is fundamentally different between a Fireball and a Cone of Cold except tweaking one or more property of the above? Do we consider Fireball and Cone of Cold variants of each other because they only tweak a couple of things?
Now, combat styles could be grouped into sets like spells are. So like you have Arcane, Divine, Occult, and Primal spells you could have Sword and Board, TWF, Archery, and Great Weapon. Is that better? Each martial class could be a combination of some minor feats (like casters) and access to one or more weapon styles. I'm not sure its better, but its definitely a possibility.
I believe the adage applies here (paraphrasing): "it's not the number of options, but the illusion of them that matters". One of D&D 4e's major failures was being perceived as having fewer options.
I think one of the big goals of PF2 should be to make various combat strategies (e.g. archery, twf, etc.) functional without any feat investment, so the fact that some classes have some feats relevant to these strategies is simply a bonus that makes the strategy a little more efficient for that class, not "you need to be this class to do it."Is that satisfying, though? I'd like to play a Cleric, for example, who is good with a bow. I have no options outside of multiclassing to demonstrate that I'm a better archer than the bog standard cleric? If I wanted to show that in PF1e I would take archer feats and have all my cleric stuff. In 2e I have to trade out cleric stuff to get any recognition as a bow user.
Well, from a Barbarian I've been playing I have found that things like "grappling, shoving, and tripping" are satisfying even though I have invested 0 feats in it and these were things that you would never have enough feats to fully optimize in PF1. Just being able to knock people over because I have a high strength and athletics proficiency I find satisfying.
I think one of the big goals of PF2 should be to make various combat strategies (e.g. archery, twf, etc.) functional without any feat investment, so the fact that some classes have some feats relevant to these strategies is simply a bonus that makes the strategy a little more efficient for that class, not "you need to be this class to do it."Is that satisfying, though? I'd like to play a Cleric, for example, who is good with a bow. I have no options outside of multiclassing to demonstrate that I'm a better archer than the bog standard cleric? If I wanted to show that in PF1e I would take archer feats and have all my cleric stuff. In 2e I have to trade out cleric stuff to get any recognition as a bow user.
Correction: In PF1e you HAVE to spend your feats to even THINK about using a bow. Don't want to take a -4 on every single attack? That's two feats down the drain. At least in 2e you can use a bow with no penalty to begin with.
Also don't think of you trading out "cleric things" when you multiclass. You're still gaining divine spell levels and proficiency in divine spell casting. The cleric feats aren't what makes you a cleric.
So how many people would have been satisfied in PF1 if they did not have to take point blank or precise shot, they just got those things for free, but in exchange were not eligible to take rapid shot or manyshot or snap shot or w/e?
Like I have build archers on a lot of low-feat classes (Paladins, Occultists, Mediums, Spiritualists) and I would have been extremely happy to just spend all my feats on non-archery things if I had the opportunity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the big goals of PF2 should be to make various combat strategies (e.g. archery, twf, etc.) functional without any feat investment, so the fact that some classes have some feats relevant to these strategies is simply a bonus that makes the strategy a little more efficient for that class, not "you need to be this class to do it."Is that satisfying, though? I'd like to play a Cleric, for example, who is good with a bow. I have no options outside of multiclassing to demonstrate that I'm a better archer than the bog standard cleric? If I wanted to show that in PF1e I would take archer feats and have all my cleric stuff. In 2e I have to trade out cleric stuff to get any recognition as a bow user.Correction: In PF1e you HAVE to spend your feats to even THINK about using a bow. Don't want to take a -4 on every single attack? That's two feats down the drain. At least in 2e you can use a bow with no penalty to begin with.
Also don't think of you trading out "cleric things" when you multiclass. You're still gaining divine spell levels and proficiency in divine spell casting. The cleric feats aren't what makes you a cleric.
What shooting into Melee? Depending on the Cleric level, you can probably find a spell to ignore that. And you can probably pick up a Domain that helps too.
Final bit, there's a couple Gods that have Favored Weapon: Bow/Long Bow, so you can even get around not having the Proficiency for the weapon.
PF2..., we still actually still need Feat to use a bow or Favored Weapon. Which is only Erastil right now. That or take Fighter Dedication to get it and if we're already taking that, might as well pick up Basic Maneuver too for Pointblank Shot, cause you're probably going to have a Volley trait otherwise we have -2. And then depending on if Screening is a thing...
That seems close to the "needing 2 feats in PF1".
Well, from a Barbarian I've been playing I have found that things like "grappling, shoving, and tripping" are satisfying even though I have invested 0 feats in it and these were things that you would never have enough feats to fully optimize in PF1. Just being able to knock people over because I have a high strength and athletics proficiency I find satisfying.I think one of the big goals of PF2 should be to make various combat strategies (e.g. archery, twf, etc.) functional without any feat investment, so the fact that some classes have some feats relevant to these strategies is simply a bonus that makes the strategy a little more efficient for that class, not "you need to be this class to do it."Is that satisfying, though? I'd like to play a Cleric, for example, who is good with a bow. I have no options outside of multiclassing to demonstrate that I'm a better archer than the bog standard cleric? If I wanted to show that in PF1e I would take archer feats and have all my cleric stuff. In 2e I have to trade out cleric stuff to get any recognition as a bow user.
Also side note, UM, while I do like the fact Manvuers seem better or at least easier in PF2..., part of the issue is that You're not always locked to Athletics from what I understand. If you're trying to do it while Flying, It becomes an Acrobatics check. Now while this might not effect you all the time, I can see it being kinda out of left field if a Grapple build jumps/flys up to the monster and fails their check cause they didn't put as much focus into Acrobatics as they did Athletics.
Also gimme Dirty Trick back.
I think one of the big goals of PF2 should be to make various combat strategies (e.g. archery, twf, etc.) functional without any feat investment
You have to balance that with the big goal of 'every +1 matters'. "a little more efficient" is meant to be significant as per the design.
If the "a little more efficient" is situational but not specific you can avoid concerns over the importance of a +1. As an example, being able to determine cover using the guidelines for screening would be a huge benefit for a rogue, but not much for classes that don't get extra benefits from being behind cover, and shooting an arrow in place of a material casting action would be quite useful for some casters but meaningless to standard archers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They should matter and play differently. I don't think class X should have a monopoly on a play-style though. Or at the very least, Combat Style. I want to make a TWF guy that uses knives..., well I would just make him Rogue(Gasp) or maybe Ranger, maybe a few other classes. NOW I have to make him Ranger or Fighter.
Or Warpriest <3 One of the coolest ways to make TWF with tiny knives be badass.
They should matter and play differently. I don't think class X should have a monopoly on a play-style though. Or at the very least, Combat Style. I want to make a TWF guy that uses knives..., well I would just make him Rogue(Gasp) or maybe Ranger, maybe a few other classes. NOW I have to make him Ranger or Fighter.Or Warpriest <3 One of the coolest ways to make TWF with tiny knives be badass.
I had a player drop out that was a Warpriest. He's coming back with a Shifter(Needed like two months off). So I've seen what Warpriest can do and am interested in maybe running one.
Also, and main reason I'm making a post; the whole bit I did about how Clerics can use bows in both editions..., well. That's for Clerics. Or casters in general. Any class that can boost their hit with a spell or side ability can maybe get over the hump of -4 to shooting into melee. Finding a way to use the bow in the first place is another matter.
PF2 still has the issue of you need first Proficiency and then you have to find a way around Volley. Which is -2. Not quite as bad as -4 but I really haven't had a bow user in my tests just yet so I can't tell with the math and crits is that better or worse just yet.
So PF1 you needed Point Blank shot to get Precise shot to really start using bows. PF2 you need..., probably a class or dedication to use the bow and a way around Volley. Which is probably Fighter dedication into Point blank shot.
At best, PF2 costs 2 feats instead of 3 if you wanted to bow with a class that couldn't pick up Proficiency or work around it with spells/traits. Maybe 1 if you can grab an Ancestry feat or Common feat to give you weapon training but still need a way around Volley.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Erastil-following Cleric can take 0 feats and take only -2 within 50 feet with his longbow, or any cleric can invest a single class feat in Fighter Dedication and run around with a shortbow because they can, in fact, do that.
If they are dedicated to going full archer, sure, they're welcome to grab Point Blank Shot for some icing on top. If you want to round out the archetype with a third feat invested into the Fighter Dedication (for some reason) you can steal Attack of Opportunity or even wait until level 12 to become an Expert archer.
You don't need a way around the Longbow volley property if you go into Fighter Dedication. You *can* if you're dedicated entirely to going longbow for that +1 average damage per die, but is it really fair to consider it so onerous to be making an equal or lesser relative investment to get to the same place?So at best, PF2 costs 1 feat instead of 3, because if you're that concerned about the -2 from volley you'll use a shortbow to completely circumvent it, and if they release a cleric feat at some point for Erastil followers that lets them ignore the volley property, you'll still be at 1 feat. So even if clerics had a native way to copy point-black shot for the one God with a favored bow, it'd cost just as much to get to it as just using shortbows.
And if they ever print a god with shortbows favored, you can get down to 0 feats to competently wield bows with no penalty. And the people who want to specialize and be better at bows than other clerics will still be going Fighter Dedication -> Point Blank Shot -> Weapon Expert because that's just how you show that you're the better archer.You make it sound like some kind of massive step backwards that the cleric can invest *less* of his feats or class levels into this for the same result as the previous edition. A PF1 cleric could have invested those feats into being more clericy too, but he chose to throw 2-3 archery feats in instead.
Now see, I'm not the one who said You have to give away Cleric feats. Or cleric abilities. There's debate there but I wasn't even touching that.
Is it a step back? No I don't think so. I think it's jsut a step to the SIDE if anything.
2 feats to use bows in PF1. 2 Feats to use bows in PF2.
There's a difference? I mean for longbows at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wonder if the proposed "Deadeye" archetype Mark Seifter talked about in a different thread is a solution we could make work for a lot of the popular combat style which appear to be class limited.
Like instead of "multiclassing fighter" to get bow feats, just take the dedication for "good with bows". It will get in the way of other archetyping, but if the archetype is good that's not much of a cost (expect to devote at least 3 feats to your combat suite.)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making a bunch of archetypes for weapons and fightings styles is a great way to go about it, as long as it's not locking you out of other archetypes you want to be taking around the same time.
In fact, I get the feeling that taking many, many levels to stack archetypes is goinc to be a bit of a sticky problem. But that's a separate problem.
That being said, I think Fighter should get some new, compelling, interesting and inspired class feats to make up for unlocking many of their combat feats.
Edit: I do also want to caution that this approach shouldn't unduly take away your ability to get cool class specific stuff. In Pf1e you get all your class abilities AND feats you can use on combat stuff. Currently 2e is making you choose between class features which are now class feats and combat stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well for one, I don't min max. I try to be effective in combat, traveling, social, etc. But I don't go out of my way to push the number as far as it can go. So if you look at my character sheets you'll probably see a bad pick or a trap option when it comes to feats, skills, or even items. I mean heck, I picked up Craft Construct as a feat on my current character in PF1, but the community seems to consider that a trap, not worth it, what are you doing, unless you're using it to make a crafting army you are doing it wrong. Don't care, I have a little junk golem that follows me around and helps out.As a GM though, and I admit this isn't in the rules, or for new GMs I guess, I'll give you the same as when I explained Appraise to someone else; To me there's no Trap option. There are harder options yes, but I try to make sure players are able to use the skills, feats, and items they pick up. It might require a bit more work, but I like sitting down with a player and trying to help them build what they want and then make it work. I might have to bend the rules or even ignore them at times, but I play for story and character, not the math. And if it is truly, truly trapish or Taxish... well I just remove those.
I don't either min max either, not that that playstyle is inherently wrong for the groups that enjoy it. My desire is that every option should be good enough at what it does that it makes a noticeable difference and fulfills the fantasy. If my Rogue fancies himself an unseeable assassin but fails Stealth on an 18 and sneak attacks for an extra 1d2 damage, then being an assassin is just as much a fantasy for my character as it is for me. I want my fantasy to be the character's reality, and that means they need to be able to mechanically achieve what their flavor suggests. If your rust golem was a useful helper during your adventures, then I think that's a fine feat. The feat told you "you can make golems," you made one, and it did useful things for you.
So to be clear, when I say trap option, I don't mean "not-perfectly-optimal option". I mean "doesn't fulfill fantasy by feeling effective." A Wizard with a bow will usually fit that category. If I were to go to the devs and say "Is it reasonable to expect that my Wizard will be good with a bow?" and they said "No, the Wizard really has a different focus.", then my followup question shouldn't be "Then why do I have all these bow options?" At that point, Wizards with bows is a designed trap; the devs know I shouldn't do it. Design-wise, there's a big difference between a feat that isn't meant to be useful to you and a feat that may be hard to get much value out of but wasn't designed that way (such as Craft Golem.)
GM filtering is nice. I do that for my players. I help them optimize enough to feel effective. That doesn't help new GMs, and would be unnecessary if the system didn't have unmarked but intentional traps.
They should matter and play differently. I don't think class X should have a monopoly on a play-style though. Or at the very least, Combat Style. I want to make a TWF guy that uses knives..., well I would just make him Rogue(Gasp) or maybe Ranger, maybe a few other classes. NOW I have to make him Ranger or Fighter.
PF1 might have been bad. I went out of my way to do different things. However I'm looking at PF2, and with people already making the true build paths, I ask; How is PF2 going to be any different? The math is going to get figured out, the guides are going to go up and you'll see the same character again and again. There might be more paths in PF2, but how sure are we that the community isn't just going to go down the same one like before?
I don't think we're seeing classes have monopolies on combat styles. The devs have openly admitted some classes were missing some styles that are an expected part of that class's fantasy and they're working on those. Wizards being great at TWF isn't really a reasonable or common fantasy IMO, so I'm fine if they need to multiclass into fighter (which doesn't wreck their character now!) to get that fantasy.
As I implied above, I don't care if people are finding the One True Optimal build path. I care that characters have options that are Effective Enough for Fantasy (TM) and that those options have meaningful variety (in role or function, as I explained in another post). If the devs create different ways each class functions with, say, archery, then I absolutely think we're at least getting something that is a step up from PF1, even if it isn't perfect.
Do you have a problem with only Rogues getting Rogue Talents or only Barbarians getting Rage Powers? If not, how is this different? Is it just combat styles that you care about so much with how they're siloed?
I actually do have a problem with this. Barbarians would be much better designed if you changed the Rage powers into feats with the (Rage) or (Totem) keyword (and any other appropriate keyword) on them and they got bonus feats with the Rage or Totem keyword. Same with Rogue Talents, Ninja Tricks, Alchemist Discoveries, et al.
Give us a spellcasting system that works with multiclassing and it'd be damn near perfect.
I agree that this is an attractive idea, but the only way you'll see this in Pathfinder, or any kind of D&D, is homebrew. Recognizing that, I want class siloing to be done in a way that makes meaningful differentiation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So sameness wasn't the reason you had an issue with 4e.
I addressed this at the end of the post. Your posts are coming across at this point as if you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing. I may not respond further if this keeps up.
It is relevant because over and over and over in this thread, rather than actually explaining why a mechanic is bad or not to your tastes, you say that it's like 4e and that's how we know it is bad.
Not quite. I've said this is one of the big things that caused my group to play PF1e rather than D&D 4e. It isn't to my group's taste and there doesn't need to be a justification any further then that. Taste is personal preference. PF1e attracted us, in part, because of an absence of class specific powers/feats that we've now seen come into the playtest. If it stays in it's current form we won't play.
Do you have a problem with only Rogues getting Rogue Talents or only Barbarians getting Rage Powers? If not, how is this different?Already answered.
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.
But just to reiterate it once more: No, I do not have a problem with rogue talents and rage powers*. If that was how class feats were implemented I would have had no problem with class feats.
*I may have an issue with specific powers and talents, but overall I do not have a problem with the general idea.
You complain about few pieces to put in those boxes, and then later caution against how many class powers 4e ended up with for each class. Which is the problem?
Both. Having 20 powers that all do the same thing increases the cognitive load required to play the game. Whereas having 1 class agnostic feat gets the same effect and doesn't require 5 different supplements and 3 years to get to that effect is better.
So at best, PF2 costs 1 feat instead of 3
If it only takes 1 feat, why not just make it a class agonistic feat?
You make it sound like some kind of massive step backwards that the cleric can invest *less* of his feats or class levels into this for the same result as the previous edition.
TWFing grants you exactly -1 damage per weapon dice per attack for +1 attack on your second attack (because PF2e is designed to make you not want to take that third attack). Does that really seem satisfying to you? Or do you think everyone just won't bother?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wonder if the proposed "Deadeye" archetype Mark Seifter talked about in a different thread is a solution we could make work for a lot of the popular combat style which appear to be class limited.
Like instead of "multiclassing fighter" to get bow feats, just take the dedication for "good with bows". It will get in the way of other archetyping, but if the archetype is good that's not much of a cost (expect to devote at least 3 feats to your combat suite.)
It's better then what we currently have, but still not great because it locks you out of all other archetypes for at least 5 levels.
Yeah that pretty well works the same or just as good I suppose. hmm I wonder which would be easier to implement. Probably the one with the special section.Special would be easier at the start of the game, the other would be easier as we start adding more classes that get access to those feats.
Yeah im ok with fighters being (basically) the only ones that AOO.I think I'd like to see a way others could be built for an AoO that doesn't require being a fighter. I'd be fine if they work/look different but it doesn't seem out of place if, for instance, a rogue or barbarian could punish you for taking a casual stroll past you when they are swinging around weapons.
Do you have a problem with only Rogues getting Rogue Talents or only Barbarians getting Rage Powers? If not, how is this different? Is it just combat styles that you care about so much with how they're siloed?The difference is that in general there wasn't the overlap: a rage power was significantly different most times from the rogue talent. It wasn't all 'take x combat feat, give it different fluff and a slightly different mechanic' and do that for every set of those abilities.
It's like taking every combat feat, making 12 versions [one for every class] and calling them class feats. It's giving the veneer of different/unique but give it a good look and it's STILL the same combat feat with a different paint job. I'm all for letting classes have unique abilities and feats, but these types of feats aren't that IMO.
Yeah probably a good idea to future proof so better to go with the second option and have the class feats themselves reference but work differently.
Agree I don't think the bad feats are intentional traps. I think sometimes they are mistakes and sometimes the person might of had a good idea but it just didn't work out how he planned. Some feats to me too seem like they are meant specifically for NPC's as a tool for the DM to use and may be less then ideal for a PC to use. heck the entire assasin class is way more suited as a NPC then a PC. The things it does hurts a PC but who cares if your NPC can't be resurrected you have infinity more just like him hanging out in your head.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's better then what we currently have, but still not great because it locks you out of all other archetypes for at least 5 levels.I do wonder if the proposed "Deadeye" archetype Mark Seifter talked about in a different thread is a solution we could make work for a lot of the popular combat style which appear to be class limited.
Like instead of "multiclassing fighter" to get bow feats, just take the dedication for "good with bows". It will get in the way of other archetyping, but if the archetype is good that's not much of a cost (expect to devote at least 3 feats to your combat suite.)
Also costs your your actual class features, since the majority are only in the form of class-feats, the opportunity cost of combat style stuff is a lot different when it costs class-features compared to general feats.