Gated Class Feats? Hell, yeah!

[Belisar]

Some argue that allocating certain feats to classes restricts the freedom to individualize the character. They advocate to open all feats to every class. I tended to agree and thought gatekeeping was the death of individualization. But then I questioned this view and became very sympathetic to this class feat approach. Not every character benefits from every ability right now, even if feats were opened to everybody.
Look at magic, you could argue with the same eligibility that every class should be able to cast magic, it would be just fair. Don't gate spells behind caster classes. But then we could skip the concept of classes generally with only races being the only initial distinction in character creation. You could build up your character freely, right?
But we do have classes and classes should differ from each other. Each class should have its strengths and feats that make them so desireable for stereotypical character concepts. A fighter should have better access to feats that enhance melee and ranged combat. Why should a wizard have the same acces to combat feats when the fighter has none to magic. This is what archetypes are for. You choose an archetype and you siphon from the desired class feats as you like. Same for wizards, same for fighters. Fighters want to dabble in magic? Go take the wizard archetype. Wizards want to enhance their martial prowess? Go take the fighter archetype.

As a conclusion I think class feats are a great idea, so are archetypes. I hope this concept will be expanded in the future.

[Mark Seifter]

Thanks for the feedback and analysis! The corollary, though, is that we have to provide enough feat options to cover the things each class wants to do in its stereotypical concepts, as you suggest. A decent part of the push for removing gates (or certain gates) comes from several missing niches in certain classes in particular (archer paladins, for example), so with the added pages we'll get in the final book, if we don't paradigm shift, we will definitely need to come up with some awesome feats to fill these niches.

[Themetricsystem]

What is the over/under chance on getting Paizo to add another 50 or so Pages to the Core Rulebook for a price hike?

I'd gladly pay another $10 for a bigger book with the NPC/Monster Building Rules & another Chapter dedicated to Uncommon Class Feats.

[WatersLethe]

I think it's impossible for game designers to think of every build idea possible and provide feats that meet everyone's needs.

In that scenario, multiclassing becomes mandatory, and with lock-outs, ability requirements, and level restrictions multiclassing is far from an adequate stopgap.

Silo'd class feats also makes for uninspired feat design, and a tendency to hyper focus on level by level balance, as is the case in WoW where the talent system has progressively become blander and blander for the sake of balance.

Take for instance the very first character I built in Pathfinder 2e, a gnome sorcerer who wanted to swing around a flickmace. The strength requirement for multiclassing locked me out of selecting any melee class feats.

[David knott 242]

I got the impression from the previews that class feats would be things that certain classes got earlier than others, not that other classes never got them at all without multiclassing. Maybe the multiclassing dedication feats that grant delayed access to certain class feats aren't strictly necessary -- instead, the general rule could be that a character of level x has access to class feats from all classes of level x/2 -- of course, the class feats would have to be designed with that possibility in mind. Then the multiclassing dedication feats could be used to grant access to class feats or class features that might still be out of reach by these standard rules -- and you could pick and choose which ones should be made available instead of granting blanket early access.

[Data Lore]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Thanks for the feedback and analysis! The corollary, though, is that we have to provide enough feat options to cover the things each class wants to do in its stereotypical concepts, as you suggest. A decent part of the push for removing gates (or certain gates) comes from several missing niches in certain classes in particular (archer paladins, for example), so with the added pages we'll get in the final book, if we don't paradigm shift, we will definitely need to come up with some awesome feats to fill these niches.

I strongly like the approach of gated feats (to ensure varied builds and niche protection) while also ensuring each class gets a decent and varied menu of options (to ensure various concepts can be modeled).

You guys are doing great work. I am really enjoying this game thus far.

[Edge93]

I agree that class feats are a good idea, and really for me they're one of the things that makes the +1/level system work. Like sure, your Wizard, Ranger, and Fighter may have a 50%, 60%, and 65% chance respectively to hit a foe, and on paper that sounds like the martial aren't better enough at fighting than the caster. But the Fighter and Ranger can for example spend two actions to launch two attacks at full accuracy with Double Slice, which is a huge boon, plus they eat the cool critical specialization effects. It's the tendency to distinguish the characters mostly by WHAT they can do, not the numbers they have to do it. The number difference is there and important, especially with the new crit system, but it isn't the Wizard having 20% accuracy and he Fighter having 90%.

And at 4th level the Wizard -could- get Double Slice via Multiclass (since I'm using Double Slice as an example we will pretend one of the Wizard's weapons is a staff so I can act like I didn't forget about the need for a free hand to cast XD) but at that point the Martials are getting cool stuff like Twin Parry and such.

Same thing with proficiency gates skill feats and such, the game has really shifted from massive 1e number variance to more nuanced differences between -what- you can do and I LOVE it.

Though I would like to maybe see some more crossover between class feats, like maybe more classes getting access to some of the basic "fighting style" feats like Double Slice and Point Blank Shot. Then again Multiclass makes it easy for a fighting character to get the basics so maybe it's fine.

[ChibiNyan]

Just adding more feats to each class (often ones that already exists) just means the developers get to choose which builds exist in the game, kind of like 5E. If you don't want Rogues to be snipers then you just don't give them any feats to support the style, and give them to Rangers instead just to taunt them... Or force them to multiclass, which so far is the method people have been using to be able to get out of the box.
I used to like the stringent multiclassing requirements, but now I think they should just be lowered just so we can have the feats we want on our builds, even if it takes a feat tax and blocks further multiclassing.

I'm not sure that really goes with the design philosophy of the Pathfinder Brand of "Build the character you envision". Sure, it guarantees nobody will break the game, but this community loves to experiment with weird combinations! The general/skill/ancestry feats are way too uninspiring compared to the class feats to get a lot of mileage out of them.

[Rysky]

Yeah, I'm fine with class specific feats, I'm not fine with equipment feats being class specific.

[PossibleCabbage]

I strongly prefer "Barbarians do archery in one way, Paladins a different way, and Bards in a third unique way, all of which represent the identity of the class" to "everybody can do archery just like the fighter." It seems like "I want to do it like the fighter" is what the fighter dedication is for.

Sure we can't put everything in the book, but the one thing I know about Pathfinder is that there will never be any shortage of books printed with new character options in them. So if I have to wait a year to get the Zen Archer back, that's fine.

What makes archery special here is that there needs to be a way that people who normally want to fight in melee to be able to deal damage to enemies which are inherently dangerous or difficult to get close to, since "I'm going to sit back because trying to close is certain doom" is not very fun if you have nothing useful to do then.

[Robert Bunker]

I would have liked to see class features like weapon training, bravery, and the class features that replace them when you select an archetype become "class feats".

I just didn't expect to see Power Attack, Cleave (Swipe), Two Weapon Fighting (Double Slice) and other martial attacks to become class locked.

I was hoping to see archetypes kind of removed and replaced with class feats, while general combat feats remained open to anyone.

I'm not a fan of the silos within class feats at all. It feels very punishing to pick something "off spec".

[The Once and Future Kai]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I strongly prefer "Barbarians do archery in one way, Paladins a different way, and Bards in a third unique way, all of which represent the identity of the class" to "everybody can do archery just like the fighter." It seems like "I want to do it like the fighter" is what the fighter dedication is for.

That's fun. It'll require a mountain of new feats...but they'll be meaningful and flavorful. It will also provide ample incentive to multiclass. It would definitely give me something be excited for in each new splatbook.

[Yolande d'Bar]

When I played a druid of Gozreh in the playtest, I was really annoyed that the only way I could learn to use a trident (the holy weapon of my god) was to multi class into fighter.

Yes, this wasn't the best feat choice for my character, but I kind of resented the way the game nannied me into not taking what wasn't good for me.

[Zman0]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Thanks for the feedback and analysis! The corollary, though, is that we have to provide enough feat options to cover the things each class wants to do in its stereotypical concepts, as you suggest. A decent part of the push for removing gates (or certain gates) comes from several missing niches in certain classes in particular (archer paladins, for example), so with the added pages we'll get in the final book, if we don't paradigm shift, we will definitely need to come up with some awesome feats to fill these niches.

Or alternatively ensure that there are enough multiclassing dedications and options available to fulfill those niches by borrowing from other classes.

I think eliminating the counts as half level from multiclassing might be better, so long as some feats were properly chained with prerequisites.

[Captain Morgan]

I'm also a big fan of the silos.

Yolande d'Bar wrote:

When I played a druid of Gozreh in the playtest, I was really annoyed that the only way I could learn to use a trident (the holy weapon of my god) was to multi class into fighter.

Yes, this wasn't the best feat choice for my character, but I kind of resented the way the game nannied me into not taking what wasn't good for me.

That's not your only options, though. There's also a general feat called Weapon Proficiency. That's both less obtrusive to your concept and much cheaper since general feats are almost always weaker than class feats.

[Data Lore]

Zman0 wrote:

I think eliminating the counts as half level from multiclassing might be better, so long as some feats were properly chained with prerequisites.

Strongly disagree. I like that top level class feats are only for that class but other classes can poach the lower level ones. It protects class identity while also allowing some flexibility.

Honestly, the current implementation is extremely elegant and Paizo should be proud. It does need some more class feats to ensure more PC concepts can be modeled; once those are in there, this thing will be epic.

[Liir]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Thanks for the feedback and analysis! The corollary, though, is that we have to provide enough feat options to cover the things each class wants to do in its stereotypical concepts, as you suggest. A decent part of the push for removing gates (or certain gates) comes from several missing niches in certain classes in particular (archer paladins, for example), so with the added pages we'll get in the final book, if we don't paradigm shift, we will definitely need to come up with some awesome feats to fill these niches.

I think adding a multitude of class feats is a poor design decision. A player with no desire to be an “archer” paladin will need to plow through all the “archer” feats that are meaningless to their character concept. Followed by perhaps in the core rulebook or undoubtedly in a supplement all the paladin “great weapon fighting feats” and “two weapon fighting feats” and “mounted ally feats”, when from the get go they wanted to be a healing paladin with a sword.

The design team came up with a great concept of class feats, which I believe was at least in part to address the issue that not all PF1 classes had features that could be swapped out for archetype abilities; but after gracefully addressing that issue the next decision was to slam abilities from the class specific archetypes into a big old pile of class feats.

Jason just published a stream discussing simplicity versus complexity and barriers to entry. In PF1 you could pick a class and play, or you could pick a class and archetype and play, or with a lot of game experience you could try to build through multiple archetypes and/or multiple classes.

The design of class feats along with generic archetypes and the revamped multi-class rules have opened up a huge design space that seems to be over-utilized in the case of class feats and under-utilized for archetypes.

[Mark Seifter]

Liir wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Thanks for the feedback and analysis! The corollary, though, is that we have to provide enough feat options to cover the things each class wants to do in its stereotypical concepts, as you suggest. A decent part of the push for removing gates (or certain gates) comes from several missing niches in certain classes in particular (archer paladins, for example), so with the added pages we'll get in the final book, if we don't paradigm shift, we will definitely need to come up with some awesome feats to fill these niches.

I think adding a multitude of class feats is a poor design decision. A player with no desire to be an “archer” paladin will need to plow through all the “archer” feats that are meaningless to their character concept. Followed by perhaps in the core rulebook or undoubtedly in a supplement all the paladin “great weapon fighting feats” and “two weapon fighting feats” and “mounted ally feats”, when from the get go they wanted to be a healing paladin with a sword.

The design team came up with a great concept of class feats, which I believe was at least in part to address the issue that not all PF1 classes had features that could be swapped out for archetype abilities; but after gracefully addressing that issue the next decision was to slam abilities from the class specific archetypes into a big old pile of class feats.

Jason just published a stream discussing simplicity versus complexity and barriers to entry. In PF1 you could pick a class and play, or you could pick a class and archetype and play, or with a lot of game experience you could try to build through multiple archetypes and/or multiple classes.

The design of class feats along with generic archetypes and the revamped multi-class rules have opened up a huge design space that seems to be over-utilized in the case of class feats and under-utilized for archetypes.

Certainly something like a class-agnostic "Deadeye" archetype or some similar name that has a lot of archery feats is something possible in the design space, quite possibly a good idea to include such things eventually. Complexity vs. Depth and barrier to entry is a challenging issue, though actually having class feats for each class turns out to be simpler in that regard than letting everyone loose on an even bigger list of non-class-specific feats like in PF1 (which I know you haven't suggested here, but I've seen the suggestion around in other places).

[WatersLethe]

I'd be much more optimistic about Class Feats if they really were "Pick your own class features". The fact that they include things like weapon choice and specialization, means they play out more like PF1e feats rather than class features.

If nearly everything related to a specific weapon group or fighting style were stripped out and given over to a separate feat pool, you wouldn't have to build a custom class feat or archetype to cater to every fighting style.

Then class feats can be things highly thematic to the class, rather than "Since we added this class, here are their obligatory X, Y, and Z copies of other classes feats for these weapon groups and fighting styles."

In fact, you could organize a pool of combat feats by weapon category so you're back to the benefit of having a smaller list, but not locked into a certain class.

I just think Class should be a pack of thematically related features, abilities and bonuses, rather than a collection of preselected "build paths".

[Zman0]

Data Lore wrote:

Zman0 wrote:

I think eliminating the counts as half level from multiclassing might be better, so long as some feats were properly chained with prerequisites.

Strongly disagree. I like that top level class feats are only for that class but other classes can poach the lower level ones. It protects class identity while also allowing some flexibility.

Honestly, the current implementation is extremely elegant and Paizo should be proud. It does need some more class feats to ensure more PC concepts can be modeled; once those are in there, this thing will be epic.

I don't think an optional high level class feat protects identity. I did specifically mention proper chain requirements, so to get certain ones the multiclass would be investing potentially a second or third feat in a chain with advanced maneuver plus the dedication feat plus the basic maneuver to unlocked advanced. IMO if a character is pumping 4-5 class feats into something, they've got an awful lot of that class to identify with.

Why can't a Rogue, be enough of a Fighter to get a higher level feat? So long as the feats themselves are balanced, or if particularly good have a couple prerequisites, I don't see a problem. We already have an example with Cleric Dedication and Advanced Dogma. It counts level equals level, not half.

[Liir]

WatersLethe wrote:

*snip*

If nearly everything related to a specific weapon group or fighting style were stripped out and given over to a separate feat pool, you wouldn't have to build a custom class feat or archetype to cater to every fighting style.

*snip

Archetypes are a separate feat pool; they are feat chains or feat trees grouped under a specific theme. Dedication is the only thing that makes them different from a “normal” feats and note that dedication is a separate trait from Archetype (thus presumably an archetype could exist without dedication). Archetypes are also easily expandable by class. An Archer dedication feat could require Hunt Target, and thus would only be available to Rangers with the Archer archetype.

Archetypes could have other traits like “Fighting Style” to tie them directly with class options. For example, instead of putting archery class feats directly in the fighter class, they could have a class feat, or just a built in 1st level class feature, that says pick one of the initial feats of a Fighting Style (which begin on page XXX). In the text of the class it would be explained that when you pick a class feat you can always choose an additional feat from your chosen fighting style instead of the generic fighter class feats.

Later supplements would create more Fighting Styles (or expand existing ones), and when a new player is creating a Fighter and says.. “I’d really like to use a whip!”. The experienced player or GM can say “No problem, that’s in the Masters of Pain rulebook”.

[N N 959]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Thanks for the feedback and analysis! The corollary, though, is that we have to provide enough feat options to cover the things each class wants to do in its stereotypical concepts, as you suggest.

That's great to hear because in trying to build the stereotypical Ranger, archery with a companion, I couldn't get anywhere close. Pulling out the tracking feats and Wild Empathy and the Companion feats make this impossible. Even when I thought I could use all General and Ancestry feats for class feats, I wasn't getting there. I will admit that I find this response at odds with the fact that Paizo has fundamentally changed the Ranger into a hunter. I hope Paizo is willing to revisit this choice.

I really wish Paizo would open up class specific threads so players who are heavily invested in a class can have a direct dialogue about that class, similar to what happened with Advanced Class Guide playtest.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like the sweet spot for how many class feats there should be is "enough that every choice feels like it's the right one for the character I'm imagining, rather than just taking whatever one is the strongest."

Building characters thus far in PF2 feels like we've fallen well short of "every choice has a perfect and exciting option" so I feel like quadrupling (at least) the number of class feats (over time) would not be an issue.

[Data Lore]

Zman0 wrote:

Why can't a Rogue, be enough of a Fighter to get a higher level feat?

He's not a fighter. Thats the reason. I honestly don't care how many feats he pumps into a thing, he still isn't that thing. Its niche protection.

3.X had stuff like BAB requirements or class feature requirements or whatever to do the same thing. Ultimately certain high level stuff was harder to poach. This is like that but it actually works.

The firewall is there and a player's ability to construct some silly Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian 2/Fighter 4/Frenzied Berserker 10/Fighter 4 isn't going to help them here.

Frankly, folks that want to be able to grab whatever and cobble a character together by nabbing any ability from here and there are probably better served by playing GURPS anyways. The current implementation stills gives folks flexibility but there is still some niche protection and a real effort to ensure build variety instead of players building around the same X feats.

[Belisar]

Class feats make character developement way more versatile. Look at 5e, there you have a static class progression with fixed abilities in each class. Each fighter is more or less identical to other one. The choice of class feats replaces such a monotonous progression and offers the opportunity to create individualized characters. Instead to scrible down another fixed level ability you can choose one yourself.
And thanks to archetype you have a multitude of character concepts you will be able to implement.
You want to build an arcane trickster? Perfect, add the wizard's dedication to the rogue class. Archetypes also help to prevent a flood of prestige classes, you will simply not need them. This is indeed an elegant solution. And when I remember correctly it was mentioned that the final book will have up to 150 additional pages. I bet some of those will include plenty of archetypes.

[N N 959]

Belisar wrote:

Class feats make character developement way more versatile. Look at 5e, there you have a static class progression with fixed abilities in each class. Each fighter is more or less identical to other one.

But i think you're overlooking the obvious: If the basic FIghter is fun to play, that's what matters. Customization is way down the priority list of a new player. If Paizo builds rock solid base classes, you don't need five choices at every level. In fact, the more choices you force on players, the less satisfaction you're going to get.

I don't need the Ranger to be transmorphable into the Slayer/Hunter/Whatever. I need to it to be the best Ranger it can. I need it to fulfill the promise of that class, first and foremost. IMO, this is going to pay much bigger dividends for Paizo if they make a Ranger that is enjoyed by people who play Rangers. That means giving us a default build that works.

[PossibleCabbage]

Regarding "niche protection"- Considering the standard for archetypes appears to be "two feats plus the dedication and you have finished it", I wonder if we couldn't do a 3rd feat in the chain with Advanced Maneuver/Dogma/Arcana/Trickery as a prerequisite which lets you grab a feat from your dedication class using your full level (or like "your level -2") as your dedication class level and omitting the "you can take this more than once" text. We can view this as a sort of "capstone" option for the dedication.

So, for example, a Barbarian who multiclasses fighter primarily for Opportunist can get Combat Reflexes before level 20 if they want to sink enough feats into it, but they could not snag Combat Reflexes and Blind Fight or Certain Strike without waiting until 20 for the latter.

I figure you would probably want to keep the level 16, 18, and 20 feats specific to the class but everything else should be fair game. If the Wizard and Cleric dedications let you eventually get access to 8th level spells (which are gained at 15th level for those classes) why are we limited to 10th level max feats and only at 20th level?

[graeme mcdougall]

Themetricsystem wrote:

What is the over/under chance on getting Paizo to add another 50 or so Pages to the Core Rulebook for a price hike?

I'd gladly pay another $10 for a bigger book with the NPC/Monster Building Rules & another Chapter dedicated to Uncommon Class Feats.

They've said that the hard limit is the 575 pages of the original core-rulebook.

I hope it comes in a bit shorter - personally still prefer physical books for main rulebooks & not a fan of the unliftable tome of doom. That's why it was great when they released the pocket editions.
That said, there's alot to pack in that core rulebook, 450-500 pages would suit me fine.

[Belisar]

N N 959 wrote:

I don't need the Ranger to be transmorphable into the Slayer/Hunter/Whatever. I need to it to be the best Ranger it can. I need it to fulfill the promise of that class, first and foremost. IMO, this is going to pay much bigger dividends for Paizo if they make a Ranger that is enjoyed by people who play Rangers. That means giving us a default build that works.

People fond of static classes without options of individualization will probably already play 5e and not PF1. I doubt they will come back to PF2 if they already have their desired lack of choice in 5e. I am a 5e player and because of the missing choices in character developement I am looking into PF2. I hope for deeper characters without the PF1 bloat, something 5e lacks and what I dearly miss. We need no 5e clone.

[Data Lore]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Regarding "niche protection"- Considering the standard for archetypes appears to be "two feats plus the dedication and you have finished it", I wonder if we couldn't do a 3rd feat in the chain with Advanced Maneuver/Dogma/Arcana/Trickery as a prerequisite which lets you grab a feat from your dedication class using your full level as your dedication class level and omitting he "you can take this more than once" text. We can view this as a sort of "capstone" option for the dedication.

I don't like it. That opens up all kinds of possible crazy imbalances and ways to degrade the base classes niche.

The current system is good. Right now, devs can make stuff knowing that class stuff beyond a certain level can't be poached. That means they just need to balance class level 11+ feats against stuff the core class gets not against what every other class gets. I would rather it stay that way.

[David Silver - Ponyfinder]

Niche protection can find a comfortable place to curl up and wither.

There's nothing wrong with a sword-swinging rogue, or a fist-mage, or a ranger that dabbles in the occult in his strange path. The idea of 'protecting' the core archetypes is laughable in my view. We've come some distance since their inception.

[Data Lore]

David Silver:

Theres nothing wrong with a sword swinging rogue. But a master rogue should swing its sword significantly differently than a master fighter would... or a master barbarian or paladin or ranger or whatever. Why? Because this is a class based game. If folks don't want any restrictions they shouldn't play a class based game.

I play class based fantasy games BECAUSE of niche protection. I like the party feeling different every campaign. If I wanted to play a game where I could hyperoptimize, I would play Savage Worlds or something. I could make some uber thing using the same 6 Edges as everyone else and run around with 4 other PCs built roughly the same way.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Yeah I'm with Lore on this one. If you have a class system where everything is available to everyone else and everyone can do the same things...then frankly you missed the point of a class system.

Barbarians get rage and rage related things because that is what Barbarians do. That is their identity and the reason someone devoted a bunch of man hours into making that class and other classes don't get that (instead they get their own things unique to them). It's the same with Rogues, Wizards, Paladins, and every other class that's been deigned to exist. How wide or narrow the niches are is up to the designer, but if you have a class system, you're going to get constraints and opportunity costs (and conversely unique benefits) for going the way you did. That's the system at work and a feature of it, not a bug.

[WatersLethe]

I spent a significant portion of Pathfinder 1e's lifetime telling people that classes are a package of mechanical features and do not demand a certain manner of roleplay or character development.

Classes are much better as a loose collection of thematically similar abilities and bonuses, rather than some kind of archetype of "fantasy". Your characters should be your own, not iterations of the designers' vision.

[John Lynch 106]

Mark Seifter wrote:

if we don't paradigm shift, we will definitely need to come up with some awesome feats to fill these niches.

I've played this game before where every class has feats that allow them to build various different types of CLASS instead of simply having a common pool of feats people draw upon. It was stifling and unfun. Restricting everyone to their stereotypical role wasn't fun. PF1e revolutionised my world by not following that paradigm and I have zero desire to return to that philosophy.

No-one is saying all class feats should be available to all classes. What we are saying is way too many feats are locked behind classes.

[master_marshmallow]

Using a bow is niche?

[Tarik Blackhands]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Using a bow is niche?

In some systems, yeah "Archer" would indeed be a niche and even a class. Just like I've seen systems where "Wizard speccing in ice spells" is its own class. Whether you like that level of specificity in your class system is up to you, but it's a valid way to handle it.

[David Silver - Ponyfinder]

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Yeah I'm with Lore on this one. If you have a class system where everything is available to everyone else and everyone can do the same things...then frankly you missed the point of a class system.

Barbarians get rage and rage related things because that is what Barbarians do. That is their identity and the reason someone devoted a bunch of man hours into making that class and other classes don't get that (instead they get their own things unique to them). It's the same with Rogues, Wizards, Paladins, and every other class that's been deigned to exist. How wide or narrow the niches are is up to the designer, but if you have a class system, you're going to get constraints and opportunity costs (and conversely unique benefits) for going the way you did. That's the system at work and a feature of it, not a bug.

Sure, a rogue can't rage, by default. They will spend feats to do so. Then they can.

This is not the end of the world.

If my Fist Mage wants to go into fits of rage, they will spend the feats, and then do so.

This is still not the end of the world.

[Data Lore]

Quote:

What we are saying is way too many feats are locked behind classes.

Strongly disagree.

"We" are already making plans to make their current 5e campaign their last and move to PF2. This is not something "we" expected to do since "we" were extremely burnt out and turned off by 3.X/PF.

"We" are saying the current implementation of feats is one of the major reasons why "we" are drawn to this edition of the game. The reduction of munchkinist char-op is a huge draw for "us" and "we" like that characters won't lean on the same common pool of combat feats to create a slate of samey characters every campaign.

[Tarik Blackhands]

David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Yeah I'm with Lore on this one. If you have a class system where everything is available to everyone else and everyone can do the same things...then frankly you missed the point of a class system.

Barbarians get rage and rage related things because that is what Barbarians do. That is their identity and the reason someone devoted a bunch of man hours into making that class and other classes don't get that (instead they get their own things unique to them). It's the same with Rogues, Wizards, Paladins, and every other class that's been deigned to exist. How wide or narrow the niches are is up to the designer, but if you have a class system, you're going to get constraints and opportunity costs (and conversely unique benefits) for going the way you did. That's the system at work and a feature of it, not a bug.

Sure, a rogue can't rage, by default. They will spend feats to do so. Then they can.

This is not the end of the world.

If my Fist Mage wants to go into fits of rage, they will spend the feats, and then do so.

This is still not the end of the world.

If you want that then don't waste space writing out a class system and just stick with an open one. Open systems are fine just as class systems are fine, but don't take a leak on my leg and tell me it's raining by trying to disguise one as the other.

[David Silver - Ponyfinder]

I... think you are under the delusion that I'm making things up. This is the current system. I'm not proposing anything, just saying how it is.

Stop defending the past.

[Tarik Blackhands]

Maybe in the specific context of rage powers, but I can just as easily say something along the lines of "want dex to damage, roll a rogue" since last I checked, that one isn't covered by Rogue dedication feats. It's not the past, it's still alive and well.

[N N 959]

David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

Sure, a rogue can't rage, by default. They will spend feats to do so. Then they can.

This is not the end of the world.

If my Fist Mage wants to go into fits of rage, they will spend the feats, and then do so.

This is still not the end of the world.

It's not the end of the world, but it is the end of the class system. Whether you call it niche protection, purpose, or something else, the entire point of having classes is that there is a reason for picking Class A versus Class B. If I can make my Rogue work just like a Fighter, then there is no point in calling one a Rogue and one a Fighter. Now whether you prefer one system or the other is irrelevant, but if you are going to have a class system, then the classes have to actually do something different/unique.

[PossibleCabbage]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Using a bow is niche?

I mean, coming from PF1 any class that was not 1/2 BAB could be built into an effective archer, a couple of which compete for the crown of "absolutely most devastating archer in the game" (Inquisitor and Occultist), even if "good at archery" is not really core to the thematics of the class.

It's probably not necessary to replicate this so much as it is to make sure all classes get the ability to contribute up close and at range.

[David Silver - Ponyfinder]

So how was this in PF1? Since I could make a spellcasting rogue there with all the features given out.

I could also make one with rage.

I could make a barbarian with dex to damage if I wanted.

What you can't do right now, in the core book, is less telling than what you _can_ do, which is plenty. It will only get wider, not narrower.

[John Lynch 106]

Data Lore wrote:

"We" are already making plans to make their current 5e campaign their last and move to PF2. This is not something "we" expected to do since "we" were extremely burnt out and turned off by 3.X/PF.

"We" are saying the current implementation of feats is one of the major reasons why "we" are drawn to this edition of the game. The reduction of munchkinist char-op is a huge draw for "us" and "we" like that characters won't lean on the same common pool of combat feats to create a slate of samey characters every campaign.

You misinterpreted my comment. I was not speaking on behalf of all gamers. I was clarifying the position of people who are currently unhappy with the class feat system. It's being misrepresented as not wanting any class feats. I've yet to see anyone take such an extreme stance and portraying the dissatisfaction with the current system as such is not helpful.

[Funky Badger]

Data Lore wrote:

Frankly, folks that want to be able to grab whatever and cobble a character together by nabbing any ability from here and there are probably better served by playing GURPS anyways.

So, taking away features from one edition to the next, and if you don't like it, there's the door?

Sparkling strategy.

[Zman0]

Data Lore wrote:

Zman0 wrote:

Why can't a Rogue, be enough of a Fighter to get a higher level feat?

He's not a fighter. Thats the reason. I honestly don't care how many feats he pumps into a thing, he still isn't that thing. Its niche protection.

3.X had stuff like BAB requirements or class feature requirements or whatever to do the same thing. Ultimately certain high level stuff was harder to poach. This is like that but it actually works.

The firewall is there and a player's ability to construct some silly Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian 2/Fighter 4/Frenzied Berserker 10/Fighter 4 isn't going to help them here.

Frankly, folks that want to be able to grab whatever and cobble a character together by nabbing any ability from here and there are probably better served by playing GURPS anyways. The current implementation stills gives folks flexibility but there is still some niche protection and a real effort to ensure build variety instead of players building around the same X feats.

By taking the Fighter Dedication Feat he's certainly trying to be a fighter.

You keep talking about niche protection. Seriously, so much of the fighter class would be unavailable to someone multiclassing in. And with some proper prerequisites certain feats would be out of reach without considerable investment. For the very icon things it doesn't preclude class gating certain things either.

Your silly Spirit Lion Totem example just isn't going to happen with this framework. A class has what 11 feats at best, and one of those is lost at 1st level. You can't pick up your first dedication until 2nd level. You can't pick up another dedication until you spent two feats in that dedication. By the time you get two desired feats from two different classes you've spent 4 feats, can't really have done it till mid levels, forgone poweful feats from your class, and devoted stat increases to those other stats. With most good feats being 8th level or later, its awfully hard to cherry pick via multiclassing. Given the Ability 16 and Dedication feat prerequisite, what exact combinations are we worried about? How many classes is your dangerous optimizer going to steal from.

Now of course, certain things like the level 20 abilities and others need be be carefully regulated. I just noticed that they do have a problem with Cleric, they haven't closed off its level 10 spells, so effectively Multiclassing Cleric and becoming Legendary in Religion would let you select 10th level spells at 20th level.

Hmm... maybe the amount of work to make everything equal to level for all multiclasses is just too much. But, equal to half level feels overly restrictive in some cases.

I think I like you count your multiclass level as your level -3. When someone gets the Advanced "Training" feature it functions exactly the same, but scales closer to the scaling for multiclass Spellcasting. It could cut out the 18th and 20th level abilities for the multiclass and would have a substantial delay for the others, in addition to the feat tax and ability requirement.

[ErichAD]

Niche protection isn't really a valuable concept except from an accessibility standpoint. Ensuring that a player can't take a feat that won't function for the class he's playing is a great idea. Locking in item choice and play style is just going to slow people down as they try to find which class Paizo decided to put the player's character concept under.

I get that people are nervous about system mastery and it has them worried about its effect on PF2, but the level of feat restriction currently present will instead force a need for system mastery on those trying to make generic character archetypes. I'm honestly not sure what the niche protection advocates are talking about in here. Would you all rather pick from a list of premade characters?

[Rules Artificer]

It is my opinion (that has largely held true for Pathfinder) that a single class is a purpose, while a single character is how the player goes about achieving that purpose.

A Barbarian is about showing that primal emotion and instinct can stand toe-to-toe with dedicated training or sophisticated learning. A Rogue is about using your cunning and skill to do what others can't or would refuse to do. A Bard is about treating life as a performance, telling grand tales or starring in them, and that there's magic anywhere in the world if you know how to find it.

How an individual player interprets that purpose, and deciding what it means for their character? That's up to them.

I say this to then ask what a character's choice of weapon, or even just the answer to "what will you do when violence becomes inevitable" has to do with their purpose. In my opinion, not much. Most of the time it's a matter of what type of gameplay the player enjoys, or what a given party needs.

My conclusion then actually doesn't come down on one side or the other of the debate about class-locked feats. Instead, my conclusion is just that no matter what playstyle a given player wants their character to use, the system needs to be flexible enough to allow them to make a viable and fun-to-play character.

Classes having specialties is awesome and fun. It's great to build a character that really shines in their given focus. But this doesn't need to come at the cost of excluding other classes from building towards that same thing.