Am I missing something with Dedication feats?

[SuperSheep]

Looking at e.g. Basic Trickery and Advanced Trickery:

Basic Trickery (Feat 4)
Gain a Level 1 or Level 2 rogue feat.

Advanced Trickery (Feat 6)
Gain one rogue feat. For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your rogue level is equal to half your level.
Special You can select this more than once. Yada yada yada.

----

There are no class feats at level 3. So when you first get this, you are still stuck with a level 1 or 2 feat.

Additionally, if you just replaced the text of Basic Trickery with Advanced Trickery, you would have the exact same effect since (Level 4 / 2 = 2).

So you could just have:

Trickery (Feat 4)
Gain one rogue feat. For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your rogue level is equal to half your level.
Special You can select this more than once. Yada yada yada.

-----

Now that said, it would be nice if instead it said:

For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your rogue level is equal to your level - 4 (minimum 2).

It's kind of annoying that at level 18, you're getting level 8 feats from your dedication. I thought they figured out that "half your level" doesn't work for cross-class or spell-casting in 1e.

[Sevrin Uomiel]

SuperSheep wrote:

Now that said, it would be nice if instead it said:

For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your rogue level is equal to your level - 4 (minimum 2).

It's kind of annoying that at level 18, you're getting level 8 feats from your dedication. I thought they figured out that "half your level" doesn't work for cross-class or spell-casting in 1e.

I am firmly in this camp too.

I guess the argument against this is that it lends itself for combo-ing things that aren't supposed to be combo-ed, which could be game breaking. And the designers are tasked with the basically insurmountable goal of trying to balance asymmetrical abilities, so that the options are attractive, but none are "obvious choices."

The nice thing is that, as the primary DM of my group, I don't have to be balanced. I tend to err on the side of letting players feel more awesome, so I'd probably house rule more towards the ruling you indicate.

That's honestly been my feeling on most of the PF Playtest are "There's some really cool stuff here, I just will need to tweak it for my table".

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Why are you assuming that someone taking a feat must be at the minimum level for that feat? Someone could decide late in their career that they want to multiclass. The first rogue feat they get should still be a beginner's feat.

[SuperSheep]

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Why are you assuming that someone taking a feat must be at the minimum level for that feat? Someone could decide late in their career that they want to multiclass. The first rogue feat they get should still be a beginner's feat.

I knew I was missing something. Thank you.