Gated Class Feats? Hell, yeah!

[ChibiNyan]

Seems some people in this thread never played PF1 for some reason. You think that system makes classes irrelevant because of how the feats are arrnaged? Class is still the #1 most defining choice of how your gameplay will be. Inquisitor and Fighter going for archery may have mostly the same feats, but believe me those 2 characters don't feel at all alike even from a crunch standpoint. Every class has unique and different abilities that help them leverage their chosen style.

Even in current PF2, if you removed all specific weapon style feats from the class pile, Ranger, Fighter and Cleric using the same "build" would already be pretty different. That is unless you have to lose out on class features to learn archery... That is what will make them be the same.

If they just made an Archer archetype, for example, the classes who pick it would be a lot more samey than in PF1 because in this edition it would cost them their unique stuff. This would be pretty bad! Some stuff has to be divorced from class feats, or, like some devs have said, make the same options behave different depending on the class that uses it straight from the description text.

[Alchemaic]

ErichAD wrote:

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'm personally kind of confused by the cries for niche protection as well. I'm under the impression that niche protection is meant for classes, not characters. Barbarians get rage and do rage things and Wizards do casty things. That's their niche. If the Barbarian suddenly got access to spellcasting while still being a good (or better) Barbarian, then THAT'S an issue with niche protection because there's no reason to play a normal Barbarian when you can be one that's also casting, or there's no reason to play a Wizard when you could play one that's also able to smash real good.

Being able to take levels in Barbarian and Wizard and then be a Rage Mage who smashes stuff adequately and cast stuff adequately isn't an issue with niche protection.

Or, more relevant to PF1e: Vivisectionist Alchemist and a Rogue. You could play a Rogue and get that Sneak Attack, or you could play a Vivisectionist and get Sneak Attack plus 6th level spellcasting plus a built-in steroid plus a whole list of other class features plus better sneak attack than a normal Rogue thanks to access to invisibility and polymorph effects. THAT'S a situation where people should be crying about niche protection.

[Data Lore]

Zman0:

That sounds overly complicated and, frankly, open to abuse.

The more you open the pool of class features to folks, the more exponentially troublesome char-gen becomes. Its the intersection of class features that leads to gross build imbalances. By putting in sensible limits, devs can ensure that players get choice without getting so much choice than a small slate of opti-builds dominate GiantITP boards.

Also, by limiting M/C feats to 1/2 class level, the devs are able to put REALLY impactful stuff at level 12+ since only that class can nab it. The more they open up the system, the more they need to push stuff to levels more players won't play. That would be a shame as well.

Paizo:

Anywho, I will say again, great job Paizo. Please realize that while some folks on the boards are complaining about stuff, many of us quite like what you have done here and are excited to see what comes next.

[ErichAD]

Agreed, preventing a vivisectionist level eclipse from happening is a good idea. That was mostly a problem with the rogue class though, everything that could do some of what the rogue did always seemed like a better rogue. Slayer, investigator, some bards, vivisectionist of course, I'm sure there are others.

Rogue was a bit too easily overshadowed due to the narrow scope of their niche. Being the only guy who could handle traps only really meant you were saving someone else HP when they just walked into the trap. And of course having a bunch of skills isn't all that big a deal if you're in a party where everyone has a few of those skills and a better stat supporting them. Rogues still sort of have that problem, a wide array of now more useful skills based on a variety of stats.

I imagine that the more classes introduced, the narrower the niches would need to be. That's probably not a good situation for a game you want to grow over time.

[Alchemaic]

Right, but Paizo (for the most part) did a good job of avoiding that issue by keeping all the new classes fairly different from each other, either by filling in a mechanical niche that wasn't taken already (or was taken in an unsatisfactory way) or creating a new mechanical niche for the class. I imagine they can do so again, especially with all the groundwork that's already been laid out through PF1e's content.

[Anguish]

Belisar wrote:

They advocate to open all feats to every class.

Wait. What? Surely not.

Maybe I missed what you've been reading, but what I've been reading is that some/many class feats should be open. Not all.

See, some actions make sense to be class-locked, because many of the feats are just "class features" from PF1. Bardic song type abilities are bard things. Casting things are caster things. Sure.

The argument is that many things that used to be open should be re-opened. Why is two-weapon fighting class-locked? What about that style of fighting is beyond a paladin to learn? It's not granted by a deity. It's just... learning to use two weapons.

That's what I've been reading. But maybe I missed some odd arguments. So... I don't know if I agree with you or not. 'Cuz I too think many class-locked feats should be opened, but I definitely don't think all should.

[EberronHoward]

I, too, would like to voice an appreciation for gated class feats and features.

- Some things are open to several classes (Heal spell, familiars, weapons with special traits, etc.)
- Some things are done better by certain classes but aren't exclusive to them (making alchemical items, fighting well with your fists, Sorcerer able to choose which spell family to use, etc.)
- Some things are exclusive to a certain class (Drain Arcane Focus, Titan Mauler ability, Rogues getting a skill feat every level).

I can't vouch for every piece of crunch being good and fun for me, but I appreciate that the exclusivity of it is being based on what's right for the game, not out of a philosophy that "everything should be accessible" or "everything should be gated".

[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."

Jason Bulmanh confirmed that this is a design goal on Twitch tonight (around 50 minutes). He was specifically talking about TWF - stating that the Rogue should and will have it, but not the same version as the Fighter. Rogue's TWF will be thematic and he ventured might do something additional with sneak attack damage. He did warn that a broad range of options for all classes probably wouldn't make it into the playtest but would appear in the final rulebook.

[Sanmei]

I'm ~okay with the class feats, but I'm uncertain about the items which wound up restricted to specific classes. The main one I'm concerned about is Attack of Opportunity, since it feels like much of the rest of the game has yet to catch up with that (for example, the various ways of getting longer reach, such as Enlarge or Giant's Lunge and Giant's Stature). Having longer reach doesn't mean much if the best it can do for you is prevent an opponent from taking a third attack at a -10 penalty.

As someone noted, it feels like role protection, and I'm uncomfortable with it when it starts to feel as though the game is doing its best to force you to create a party with very specific classes.

[thorin001]

Class feats, yet another thing that looks like 4th ed. Even if all of them are at will rather than encounter or daily they are still the building blocks of your class's abilities. Hell, everyone (except the rogue) even gets them at the same uniform rate.

[PossibleCabbage]

thorin001 wrote:

Class feats, yet another thing that looks like 4th ed. Even if all of them are at will rather than encounter or daily they are still the building blocks of your class's abilities. Hell, everyone (except the rogue) even gets them at the same uniform rate.

So were the Alchemist, Arcanist, Barbarian, Investigator, Magus, Kineticist, (Unchained) Monk, Occultist, Oracle, Psychic, Rogue, Vigilante, and Witch just "4e" classes because a significant amount of what they do was defined by features they chose from a list every other level?

Like is the entirety of the problem that we call them feats instead of Discoveries, Exploits, Rage Powers, Investigator Talents, Arcana, Wild Talents, Ki Powers, Focus Powers, Revelations, Phrenic Amps, Rogue Talents, Vigilante Talents, and Hexes?

I mean in my experience a common complaint about classes other than these was something like "well, I don't get to make a lot of choices when I level up" and having played a Swashbuckler to level 20 Mythic tier 10, I agree with those complaints.

[thorin001]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Class feats, yet another thing that looks like 4th ed. Even if all of them are at will rather than encounter or daily they are still the building blocks of your class's abilities. Hell, everyone (except the rogue) even gets them at the same uniform rate.

So were the Alchemist, Arcanist, Barbarian, Investigator, Magus, Kineticist, (Unchained) Monk, Occultist, Oracle, Psychic, Rogue, Vigilante, and Witch just "4e" classes because a significant amount of what they do was defined by features they chose from a list every other level?

Like is the entirety of the problem that we call them feats instead of Discoveries, Exploits, Rage Powers, Discoveries, Arcana, Wild Talents, Ki Powers, Focus Powers, Revelations, Phrenic Amps, Rogue Talents, Vigilante Talents, and Hexes?

No, those are add-ons to the basic chassis, not the defining features.

[PossibleCabbage]

thorin001 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Class feats, yet another thing that looks like 4th ed. Even if all of them are at will rather than encounter or daily they are still the building blocks of your class's abilities. Hell, everyone (except the rogue) even gets them at the same uniform rate.

So were the Alchemist, Arcanist, Barbarian, Investigator, Magus, Kineticist, (Unchained) Monk, Occultist, Oracle, Psychic, Rogue, Vigilante, and Witch just "4e" classes because a significant amount of what they do was defined by features they chose from a list every other level?

Like is the entirety of the problem that we call them feats instead of Discoveries, Exploits, Rage Powers, Discoveries, Arcana, Wild Talents, Ki Powers, Focus Powers, Revelations, Phrenic Amps, Rogue Talents, Vigilante Talents, and Hexes?

No, those are add-ons to the basic chassis, not the defining features.

If you took away those "add-ons" there wouldn't be very much left. Like a Vigilante gets a whole 7 class features which aren't class equivalents. A witch without hexes, an oracle without revelaions, a kineticist without wild talents, an occultist without focus powers, a barbarian without rage powers, etc. are just weak characters.

Now if your point is "classes need more features that aren't just proficiency advancements" then I agree, but the problem there is on the odd levels not the even ones.

[Belisar]

Anguish wrote:

Belisar wrote:

They advocate to open all feats to every class.

Wait. What? Surely not.

Maybe I missed what you've been reading, but what I've been reading is that some/many class feats should be open. Not all.

See, some actions make sense to be class-locked, because many of the feats are just "class features" from PF1. Bardic song type abilities are bard things. Casting things are caster things. Sure.

The argument is that many things that used to be open should be re-opened. Why is two-weapon fighting class-locked? What about that style of fighting is beyond a paladin to learn? It's not granted by a deity. It's just... learning to use two weapons.

That's what I've been reading. But maybe I missed some odd arguments. So... I don't know if I agree with you or not. 'Cuz I too think many class-locked feats should be opened, but I definitely don't think all should.

If I read some of the comments I get the impression, they want all the spicey class core abilities without paying some price, they want a character which is eaqually good in two or more classes the same time.

For instance if they have a 10th level fighter with the rogue dedication feat there is the notion to grab all the class abilities of the rogue of the same level. Meaning they have in fact the a 10th level char that is equally a 10th level full fighter and a 10th level full rogue at the same time. But this will definitely imbalance the game, such a character will always outperform a 10th level fighter only and a 10th level rogue only, he is literally two 10th level character in a single body.
If you have a concept in mind you usually have primary class in mind. Maybe your concept envisions some abilities of another class, that will be the secondary class. But this choice should always be at the expense of the primary class, you turn your focus elsewhere. A single class char should always outperform a character, who dabbles in more than one class at the same time, in his specific class.

[John Lynch 106]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Jason Bulmanh confirmed that this is a design goal on Twitch tonight (around 50 minutes)....He did warn that a broad range of options for all classes probably wouldn't make it into the playtest but would appear in the final rulebook.

That doesn't make sense. Either it's a design goal or it's not a design goal.

This pretty much guarantees my group won't be playtesting unfortunately. Hopefully the rest of you can represent my group's interests in your feedback to Paizo and PF2e stops looking as much like 4th ed as it currently does and moves much closer towards PF1e then it currently sits.

[John Lynch 106]

Belisar wrote:

For instance if they have a 10th level fighter with the rogue dedication feat there is the notion to grab all the class abilities of the rogue of the same level. Meaning they have in fact the a 10th level char that is equally a 10th level full fighter and a 10th level full rogue at the same time.

You're getting that impression because they've gated so many basic elements that were once class agonistic behind a specific class. It's the fault of the people in communicating their desires so I'll correct that misunderstanding right now: We don't want this. We just want more of the freeform character creation we got in PF1e instead of the "everything is gated behind classes" that we got in D&D 4e.

[Alchemaic]

Belisar wrote:

If I read some of the comments I get the impression, they want all the spicey class core abilities without paying some price, they want a character which is eaqually good in two or more classes the same time.

For instance if they have a 10th level fighter with the rogue dedication feat there is the notion to grab all the class abilities of the rogue of the same level. Meaning they have in fact the a 10th level char that is equally a 10th level full fighter and a 10th level full rogue at the same time. But this will definitely imbalance the game, such a character will always outperform a 10th level fighter only and a 10th level rogue only, he is literally two 10th level character in a single body.
If you have a concept in mind you usually have primary class in mind. Maybe your concept envisions some abilities of another class, that will be the secondary class. But this choice should always be at the expense of the primary class, you turn your focus elsewhere. A single class char should always outperform a character, who dabbles in more than one class at the same time, in his specific class.

I would really love to know what comments you're reading where it sounds like someone wants to make a character that's a 10th level Fighter and Rogue simultaneously, because I haven't seen anything to that extent and it seems to be unduly coloring your perception of the situation as a whole.

[graystone]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

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."

Jason Bulmanh confirmed that this is a design goal on Twitch tonight (around 50 minutes). He was specifically talking about TWF - stating that the Rogue should and will have it, but not the same version as the Fighter. Rogue's TWF will be thematic and he ventured might do something additional with sneak attack damage. He did warn that a broad range of options for all classes probably wouldn't make it into the playtest but would appear in the final rulebook.

I don't get this at all. How does the game benefit from 12 versions of TWF, rapid shot and/or any other basic combat style feat.

[RealAlchemy]

David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

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.

Agreed. Niche protection is exactly what I do not want, and the ability of character classes to fill in a number of different nches is something I like about PF1. I am a big fan of a paladin (of Erastil for example) shooting down demons or undead for the glory of (deity,) a dwarven ranger fighting with axe and shield while delving into the underdark, an elven rogue springing in and out of melee with a curveblade, or a druid shifting into an earch elemental and becoming a greater roadblock than any traditional plate and shield fighter. This variety is what has made Pathfinder a great system to play in.

[Wolfism]

It will be more like 30 versions of each feat before long if classes proliferate like they did before.

I'd like to feats like double slice divided up by fighting style rather than class and have the feats gated by your proficiency. That gives fighters earlier access, protecting their niche.

I'd want that to go along with the classes getting more control of where they put their weapon, armor and spellcasting proficiencies though.

[PossibleCabbage]

graystone wrote:

I don't get this at all. How does the game benefit from 12 versions of TWF, rapid shot and/or any other basic combat style feat.

By not making the feats straightforward "this is the best option" numerical enhancers and instead making them about what the class is good at?

Like the Barbarian is about raw power and aggression; the rogue is about misdirection, hampering, and devastating single hits; the fighter is about expertise; and the Paladin is about defense and protecting others.

So in PF1 terms you give the Barbarian something like two-weapon rend and thunder & fang7, the rogue things like two-weapon feint, and the Paladin things like two-weapon defense.

I mean, there's no need every archery style in Pathfinder 2nd edition should be about "putting as many arrows in the air as possible so all your static mods pile up."

[Shaheer-El-Khatib]

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

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.

I also prefer it like this.

I would just prefer that Feats also auto-scale (To remove some remaining feat taxes. Looking at you Animal Companion) and players able to select more feats (around 5 should be fine) so that they could 100% go in a set of feat skill (like archery) but still can pick a few outside of it to be more diverse.
Right now there is only 3 Paladin build and that make me sad.

Also racial feat that auto scale selected at level 1.

[Belisar]

Alchemaic wrote:

Belisar wrote:

If I read some of the comments I get the impression, they want all the spicey class core abilities without paying some price, they want a character which is eaqually good in two or more classes the same time.

For instance if they have a 10th level fighter with the rogue dedication feat there is the notion to grab all the class abilities of the rogue of the same level. Meaning they have in fact the a 10th level char that is equally a 10th level full fighter and a 10th level full rogue at the same time. But this will definitely imbalance the game, such a character will always outperform a 10th level fighter only and a 10th level rogue only, he is literally two 10th level character in a single body.
If you have a concept in mind you usually have primary class in mind. Maybe your concept envisions some abilities of another class, that will be the secondary class. But this choice should always be at the expense of the primary class, you turn your focus elsewhere. A single class char should always outperform a character, who dabbles in more than one class at the same time, in his specific class.

I would really love to know what comments you're reading where it sounds like someone wants to make a character that's a 10th level Fighter and Rogue simultaneously, because I haven't seen anything to that extent and it seems to be unduly coloring your perception of the situation as a whole.

David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

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.

Just one of them. Calling to end niche protection is clearly asking to take every specialty of every class without some restriction.

Archetypes already address multiclassing thus being able to access abilities of different classes. But at an expense which is more than feasible. A wizard spending time in the gym training boxing will logically have less time to spend in training his special caster abilities in form of caster class levels. He will nontheless have the same spell progression like a singular wizard without dedication. But it is more than reasonable that this singular wizard will have more time delving into arcana and thus having more wizard's class feats than the Muhamad Ali wannabe mage.
After all even in fantasy settings the days only have a limited amount of hours you could study or train.
This is what makes the dedication feats so elegant.

Take the cleric dedication feat as an example:

Quote:

You cast spells like a cleric. You gain access to
the Cast a Spell activity and the Material Casting,
Somatic Casting, and Verbal Casting actions. You can prepare two
cantrips each day from the divine spell list or any other cantrips
you learn or discover. You’re trained in spell rolls and spell DCs
for casting divine spells and in attacks you make with divine
spells. Your key spellcasting ability for these spells is Wisdom.
You can use wands, scrolls, and staves, but only for spells of a
spell level that you can cast. Religion is a signature skill for you.
Choose a deity as you would if you were a cleric. You’re bound
by that deity’s anathema.

You really get alot from only one dedication feat, which is impressive and elegant in my eyes.

Mind you, multiclassing before didn't let a caster have the spell progresssion of his character level, he only had as much spell slots as his level in his caster class. So in PF2 a caster wanting to dabble into other classes is way better off than before.

[Belisar]

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

I would just prefer that Feats also auto-scale (To remove some remaining feat taxes. Looking at you Animal Companion) and players able to select more feats (around 5 should be fine) so that they could 100% go in a set of feat skill (like archery) but still can pick a few outside of it to be more diverse.

Alchemaic, this is another example.

This call for auto scaling feats so you could take more feats from a different class you multiclass into without losing the full progress advantages in your primary class. But this literally means, you spend less time in your primary class but want to rip full benefits of that class like you weren't dabbling into other classes. Why should a primary class feat auto scale, when you do not focus on your primary class and instead dabble into other classes to rip benefits from them?

Again, if a char wants to diversify and studies/trains different fields of expertise he can only do so at the expense of his primary class. Even in Golarion, the day has only that much hours.

[Vic Ferrari]

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.

This is very like the path 4th Ed took, but it can end up with too many similar powers (19 variations of fireball, etc). The class feats are similar to 4th Ed powers, in that they strongly enforce your role, but somewhat constrict your choices to go outside your zone.

[Use Headbutt!!]

Belisar wrote:

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

I would just prefer that Feats also auto-scale (To remove some remaining feat taxes. Looking at you Animal Companion) and players able to select more feats (around 5 should be fine) so that they could 100% go in a set of feat skill (like archery) but still can pick a few outside of it to be more diverse.

Alchemaic, this is another example.

This call for auto scaling feats so you could take more feats from a different class you multiclass into without losing the full progress advantages in your primary class. But this literally means, you spend less time in your primary class but want to rip full benefits of that class like you weren't dabbling into other classes. Why should a primary class feat auto scale, when you do not focus on your primary class and instead dabble into other classes to rip benefits from them?

Again, if a char wants to diversify and studies/trains different fields of expertise he can only do so at the expense of his primary class. Even in Golarion, the day has only that much hours.

I feel like we are reading very different comments. The way you are commenting it seems like you are comparing scaling crossclass characters to non-scaling single class ones. Khatib is saying all characters should have more access to feat options and one way to do that is to remove feat taxes that slightly increase feats you have already taken. The druid who is only a druid has to pick animal companion feats over and over and feels like they are missing out on doing other druid things. PF1 druids could have scaling animal companions while dedicating their feats to either spell casting or martial proficiency. In PF2 it feels like you are giving up on other druid flavors due to limited feat options. Some people are ok with that (PF2 and PF1 are different systems, stop comparing them) some people want to fix it by having a ton of class feat selections, and some people want to fix it by having scaling feats. Each solution has different pros and cons (which is why people gravitate to different answers), but either of the two proposed changes would still reward druids staying druids by having more druidy things but would reward druid fighters by being a little less druidy in exchange for being more fighter (which appears to be your disagreement).

As for David Silver's comments, he was asking for classes to be able to branch out. Currently the only ranged ranger is a crossbow wielder. Sure you could be an elf and get bow proficiencies but if your class gives you no benefits for using a bow why would you? In PF1, the inquisitor could be an excellent ranged combatant but it felt very different from a zen archer. They did this buy applying general feats with class locked abilities. Most of the comments I have seen have argued that there are many class specific feats that should be open to all classes, but no one wants ALL of the class feats/abilities to be generalized. If you want a very specific fighter only feat you take the dedication, but if you just want some backing for using bows should you really have to crossclass? Your response seems to imply that he wants the inquisitors to have wisdom to attacks and flurry of bows from zen archer in addition to all inquisitor class abilities and feats or in PF2 to have rangers be awesome with both crossbows and normal bows. No. He just wants access to point blank shot without crossclassing and he is willing to give up a ranger feat to do so.

[Mekkis]

I'm okay with class feats.

As long as they actually relate to the class.

Many of the "class feats" in the playtest are unrelated to the class: take "Cantrip expansion". It should have been a general feat with a prerequisite of "Able to cast Cantrips".

[Zman0]

Data Lore wrote:

Zman0:

That sounds overly complicated and, frankly, open to abuse.

The more you open the pool of class features to folks, the more exponentially troublesome char-gen becomes. Its the intersection of class features that leads to gross build imbalances. By putting in sensible limits, devs can ensure that players get choice without getting so much choice than a small slate of opti-builds dominate GiantITP boards.

Also, by limiting M/C feats to 1/2 class level, the devs are able to put REALLY impactful stuff at level 12+ since only that class can nab it. The more they open up the system, the more they need to push stuff to levels more players won't play. That would be a shame as well.

Paizo:

Anywho, I will say again, great job Paizo. Please realize that while some folks on the boards are complaining about stuff, many of us quite like what you have done here and are excited to see what comes next.

My last comment was somewhat a stream of thought. What I ended with was multiclass class level counting as level -3. Which in retrospect means nothing, since you gain class feats at even levels its effectively the same as level -4.

So, I'm looking at level -4 instead of half level.

I'd like the point out the devs didn't uniformly limit multicalss feats to 1/2 class level. The Cleric counts as full level and it has problems ie allowing any legendary Religion to pick up 10th level spells vial Cleric Multiclass. That needs to be fixed and is an example of something I really want to avoid.

With my level -4 suggestion and your assertion of putting the really impactful stuff at level 12. IMO, I would assert there should be almost a linear progression of impactfulness of the feats corresponding with level and it should be a smooth progression instead of creating a shelf. So, the earliest level a character could pick up an impactful multiclass feat would be at level 16, 18, and 20, and only if they had previously met the requirements and spent a feat on a multiclass dedication. Now, five of the classes Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard do not get a feat at 16th level.

So, the abuse you are very concerned about is really only possible at levels 16, 18, and 20. Now, the casters do not even get 16th level feats, and the martial classes already need their 18th for Master multiclass spellcasting. So that leaves some classes with two impactful multiclass feats and only martials multiclassing into other martials having the potential for 3.

Now, getting those 2-3 feats would require sacrificing their 20th level class feat. 20th level feats are an order of magnitude more impactful the even the 12-18th level feats. So, we can safely assume that no one is going to give up their 20th for another classes 12/14/16th level feats.

So, your concern is about classing, having already invested a 16 ability and feat to get the multi-class dedication, invested another feat for the basic multiclass feat, and then invested a third feat to pick up an impactful feat leveled at 12/14/16th.

Realistically, you can only pull this off for a single multiclass, or invest over half of your feats to a single impactful feat from two different class. That would take 6 feats and the requisite ability scores to pick up two good feats from other classes. Now, the opportunity cost is at least two of your primary classes feats of at lest 4 levels higher, plus however much of the dedication and basic feats were unneeded.

I'm just not seeing the magnitude of abuse potential you seem to believe this is rife for. Can you give me a single example where the multiclass level -4 would allow an overpowered build?

[master_marshmallow]

I don;t like that certain tactics are restricted to different classes, and they sometimes have different prereqs and tags.

Barbarians can sudden charge after making a strike, where for fighters it has the [open] trait.

Blind-Fight is only available to fighters at 10th level, but rogues get it at 6th.

Counterspell has two completely different texts for wizard and sorcerer, instead of being a game mechanic.

I don;t like all these game mechanics being locked behind classes, it makes the classes seem less interesting.

I've got a whole thread on how I think combat ought be changed around.

[Belisar]

master_marshmallow wrote:

I don;t like that certain tactics are restricted to different classes, and they sometimes have different prereqs and tags.

Barbarians can sudden charge after making a strike, where for fighters it has the [open] trait.

Blind-Fight is only available to fighters at 10th level, but rogues get it at 6th.

Counterspell has two completely different texts for wizard and sorcerer, instead of being a game mechanic.

I don;t like all these game mechanics being locked behind classes, it makes the classes seem less interesting.

I've got a whole thread on how I think combat ought be changed around.

Exactly, we should provide every class with arcane, divine and occult spellcasting and sneak attack. I don't like those game mechanics being locked behind caster and the rogue classes. Surely you will agree?

[Vic Ferrari]

Belisar wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

I don;t like that certain tactics are restricted to different classes, and they sometimes have different prereqs and tags.

Barbarians can sudden charge after making a strike, where for fighters it has the [open] trait.

Blind-Fight is only available to fighters at 10th level, but rogues get it at 6th.

Counterspell has two completely different texts for wizard and sorcerer, instead of being a game mechanic.

I don;t like all these game mechanics being locked behind classes, it makes the classes seem less interesting.

I've got a whole thread on how I think combat ought be changed around.

Exactly, we should provide every class with arcane, divine and occult spellcasting and sneak attack.

Well, let's not get hysterical.

[Haywire build generator]

I recently put a lot of effort into figuring out how best to dip for an arcane version of Purify Food and Drink to add to a Hinyasi Brawler build I was doing (answer: Nature-Bonded Magus), so I can't exactly say I'm against the idea as a whole.

I just want the baguette to still be edible after I kill a dragon with it.

[Belisar]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Belisar wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

I don;t like that certain tactics are restricted to different classes, and they sometimes have different prereqs and tags.

Barbarians can sudden charge after making a strike, where for fighters it has the [open] trait.

Blind-Fight is only available to fighters at 10th level, but rogues get it at 6th.

Counterspell has two completely different texts for wizard and sorcerer, instead of being a game mechanic.

I don;t like all these game mechanics being locked behind classes, it makes the classes seem less interesting.

I've got a whole thread on how I think combat ought be changed around.

Exactly, we should provide every class with arcane, divine and occult spellcasting and sneak attack.

Well, let's not get hysterical.

Some seemingly only want to cherrypick. All the goodies without a drawback. If I were hysterical, I would send the derailing player to your table! :P

[Vic Ferrari]

Belisar wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Belisar wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

I don;t like that certain tactics are restricted to different classes, and they sometimes have different prereqs and tags.

Barbarians can sudden charge after making a strike, where for fighters it has the [open] trait.

Blind-Fight is only available to fighters at 10th level, but rogues get it at 6th.

Counterspell has two completely different texts for wizard and sorcerer, instead of being a game mechanic.

I don;t like all these game mechanics being locked behind classes, it makes the classes seem less interesting.

I've got a whole thread on how I think combat ought be changed around.

Exactly, we should provide every class with arcane, divine and occult spellcasting and sneak attack.

Well, let's not get hysterical.

Some seemingly only want to cherrypick. All the goodies without a drawback. If I were hysterical, I would send the derailing player to your table! :P

Cherrypick what?

What goodies?

What derailing player?

Stay away from my table!

[Shaheer-El-Khatib]

Belisar wrote:

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

I would just prefer that Feats also auto-scale (To remove some remaining feat taxes. Looking at you Animal Companion) and players able to select more feats (around 5 should be fine) so that they could 100% go in a set of feat skill (like archery) but still can pick a few outside of it to be more diverse.

Alchemaic, this is another example.

This call for auto scaling feats so you could take more feats from a different class you multiclass into without losing the full progress advantages in your primary class. But this literally means, you spend less time in your primary class but want to rip full benefits of that class like you weren't dabbling into other classes. Why should a primary class feat auto scale, when you do not focus on your primary class and instead dabble into other classes to rip benefits from them?

Again, if a char wants to diversify and studies/trains different fields of expertise he can only do so at the expense of his primary class. Even in Golarion, the day has only that much hours.

I sincerely don't understand how you managed to not understand What I was saying To the point you reached a nearly total reverse of my intent.

I want people To :
- Take more feats INSIDE THE CLASS so that you could be a swordy Paladin with a bit of mount ability, or a bit of shield. Or a shield specialist with a bit of sword. That would make 12 différent Paladin build instead of the 3 currently in game.
- Have feats that Feel like feats. New actions / réactions (Like a Monk reaction to trip opponent
- Multiclassing would still means less Class Stuff but that may be a bit overpowered so maybe you need to change Multiclassing system as Well.

[Belisar]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Belisar wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Belisar wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

I don;t like that certain tactics are restricted to different classes, and they sometimes have different prereqs and tags.

Barbarians can sudden charge after making a strike, where for fighters it has the [open] trait.

Blind-Fight is only available to fighters at 10th level, but rogues get it at 6th.

Counterspell has two completely different texts for wizard and sorcerer, instead of being a game mechanic.

I don;t like all these game mechanics being locked behind classes, it makes the classes seem less interesting.

I've got a whole thread on how I think combat ought be changed around.

Exactly, we should provide every class with arcane, divine and occult spellcasting and sneak attack.

Well, let's not get hysterical.

Some seemingly only want to cherrypick. All the goodies without a drawback. If I were hysterical, I would send the derailing player to your table! :P

Cherrypick what?

What goodies?

What derailing player?

Stay away from my table!

I'm harmless sucker for quests, was talking about mathmuse's expectation subverting wife! :P

and about cherrypicking read many of posts above which state "I don;t like that certain tactics are restricted to different classes".

[Data Lore]

Chargen system feels solid now. I have choices within my class (with more to come) and some flexibility to grab stuff outside of my class. Add to that the prestige archetypes and thats plenty of player choice in my book.

You can model plenty of player concepts with all that. As much as a game thats been out and released for years? No but that will be addressed with time. The only reason to want more on at this stage is if you want some higher level feat access for munchkinny shenanigans - not to realize a character concept or what not.

This edition seems to be doing a fair job of laying out plenty of player choice while cleverly blocking off extreme power gamey stuff. As both a GM and a player, this makes me happy.

Please keep it up Paizo

[Belisar]

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

I sincerely don't understand how you managed to not understand What I was saying To the point you reached a nearly total reverse of my intent.

I want people To :
- Take more feats INSIDE THE CLASS so that you could be a swordy Paladin with a bit of mount ability, or a bit of shield. Or a shield specialist with a bit of sword. That would make 12 différent Paladin build instead of the 3 currently in game.
- Have feats that Feel like feats. New actions / réactions (Like a Monk reaction to trip opponent
- Multiclassing would still means less Class Stuff but that may be a bit overpowered so maybe you need to change Multiclassing system as Well.

Parts I might have missunderstood but putting all iconical class feats of one certain class into all the other classes it is literally equivalent to opening classes for every feat. But yeah, if classes would be broadened only by fitting feats, which will probably happen, I see your point.

[John Lynch 106]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Belisar wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

I don;t like that certain tactics are restricted to different classes, and they sometimes have different prereqs and tags.

Barbarians can sudden charge after making a strike, where for fighters it has the [open] trait.

Blind-Fight is only available to fighters at 10th level, but rogues get it at 6th.

Counterspell has two completely different texts for wizard and sorcerer, instead of being a game mechanic.

I don;t like all these game mechanics being locked behind classes, it makes the classes seem less interesting.

I've got a whole thread on how I think combat ought be changed around.

Exactly, we should provide every class with arcane, divine and occult spellcasting and sneak attack.

Well, let's not get hysterical.

Hyperbole is easier then addressing legitimate criticism.

[1of1]

When I want a group activity in which everyone falls into tightly predefined roles, then efficiently executes their purposes with each other like clockwork, I generally just connect to a Japanese VPN and play MMOs with some very nice, very busy people.
It's enjoyable, but it's about the exact opposite of why I enjoy Pathfinder.

[John Lynch 106]

D&D 4th ed is like that as well. Right down to fighters AoOs being the best and paladins being defenders who (from memory) don't have smite. We moved to PFto get away from that. My group is genuinely flabbergasted why Paizo thinks bringing it back is a good idea.

[WatersLethe]

Oh for the days of PF1e when people would be gently ribbed for even using the word "tank".

[PossibleCabbage]

WatersLethe wrote:

Oh for the days of PF1e when people would be gently ribbed for even using the word "tank".

I'm just glad we don't have anything that compels enemies to drop everything and attack you regardless of circumstances; that's a line I'm unwilling to cross.

[Themetricsystem]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Oh for the days of PF1e when people would be gently ribbed for even using the word "tank".

I'm just glad we don't have anything that compels enemies to drop everything and attack you regardless of circumstances; that's a line I'm unwilling to cross.

Agreed, a Taunt that determines "aggro" is a line in the sand for me. If I see something like this it's getting house-banned faster than limp lash.

[master_marshmallow]

Honestly, I don't know if I'd really be upset if sneak attack existed as a light weapon complement to the heavy weapon power attack, and the combat niches were defined by buffs, debuffs, and tactics, rather than telling you what weapons your class allows you to be good at.

Sneak Attack in this edition is reminiscent of whatever duelist strike would end up being anyway.

So your hyperbole failed.

[Zman0]

Data Lore wrote:

Chargen system feels solid now. I have choices within my class (with more to come) and some flexibility to grab stuff outside of my class. Add to that the prestige archetypes and thats plenty of player choice in my book.

You can model plenty of player concepts with all that. As much as a game thats been out and released for years? No but that will be addressed with time. The only reason to want more on at this stage is if you want some higher level feat access for munchkinny shenanigans - not to realize a character concept or what not.

This edition seems to be doing a fair job of laying out plenty of player choice while cleverly blocking off extreme power gamey stuff. As both a GM and a player, this makes me happy.

Please keep it up Paizo

"The only reason to want more at this stage is if you want some higher level feat access for muchkinny shenanigans - not to realize a character concept or what not."

It is rather rude to dismiss people's ideas and concerns as munchkinery. I too have a large concern for balance and want to prevent the same kind of behaviors. I did ask you for examples of any problems my suggestion creates.

As far as realizing a concept, well here is one for you.

Multiclass Desiring Higher level feats. Not Munckinery:

Devilish Swashbuckler. This young lad is a skilled silver tongued scoundrel with a heart of gold and flair for showing off. I picture him as a duelist, probably fighting with just a single blade.

Now, I want to fulfill this concept adequately. Mechanically Dex based is pretty obvious. For the silver tongued scoundrel part I can see him being Rogue or a Bard. I kind of like the idea of Bard, fits the showing off aspect and I like the idea of him heckling his allies into being better ie shouting insults with inspire courage. Bard is pretty well equipped for this, but now I want him to be good with a single blade and fulfill the devilish duelist part and actually fight competently. This is a pretty significant portion of the character. I really don't have any options via Bard to be good with a blade. So I have to look elsewhere eyeing up Rogue or Fighter. I don't see him as a backstabber type and Fighter really had some good dueling focused feats. I'm sold on fighter.

So, we've mechanically got a Dex based bard who multiclasses fighter. Now, what can I do with Fighter, my level 2 feat picked up fighter dedication. My level 4 feat picks up Basic Maneuver for Dueling Parry. So far so perfect. I'm getting the fighters level 2 ability at level 4, that isn't terrible.

Now I'm at level six and decide to pick up Advanced Maneuver(Intimidating Strike) a level 2 fighter feat for my duelist. So far legal at half level and with my level -4.

Now, its 8th level and I'll pick up the level 8 bard feat mental fortress.

I'll pick up weapons expert at 12 to try and be a competent duelist.

What about the later levels. Fighter offers more Dueling feats which are perfect to fill out the character, we've got dueling reposte at fighter 8, and dueling dance at fighter 12. Since I'm terrible at attacking, only making expert at 12 I'd love to get my hands on agile grace or certain strike which are 10th level fighter feats.

Now, with stock rules as a multiclass fighter I can pick up dueling reposte at 16th level. But I'm a bard so I don't have a 16th level feat, so that would be 18th level. Ouch. Dueling Reposte fits my theme, but man it isn't a very good feat. I could get Agile Grace or Certain Strike at 20th, but no way a pidly 10th level feat is worth giving up 10th level spells so I'll pass. Dueling Dance, perfect for my character, just not possible. Well, it started so good and fizzled out.

What about my suggestion of level -4. Well, I would choose between Dueling Reposte or Weapons expert at 12th, choices are good. I'm really lucky and at 14th I can indeed get Agile Grace or Certain Strike. They are good feats, probably not giving up Allegro good or delaying it to 18th. But for the concept, I could get on board. At 16th I've be able to pick up Dueling Dance, except I don't get a feat at 16th. So I'd snag it at 18.

Sure, if I wanted to be that dueling focused, I could just play a straight fighter, but I'd be very hard pressed to fulfill the other aspects of the character to the point it just wouldn't work.

Was anything imbalanced by that? No, it appears that a 4 level difference for the purpose of snagging feats is a pretty good balancing mechanic and at least for this character the difference between a mediocre representation of the desired character and a stellar one. Nothing was imbalanced, we gave up a lot of excelling at bard to be a reasonable duelist in combat. Through 8th level it functions exactly the base game does, except for Cleric that should be moved to the same for consistency, and the scale of pace between stock and my suggestion isn't terrible only opening up 12/14/16 level feats eventually.

Can you point to any feat combination using level -4 for multiclassing that appears even remotely overpowered? I can't. As I said before, I am very concerned about balance, but the half level requirement for multiclassing is pretty harsh and arguably too stringent.

I will agree with you, Paizo is doing a good job with P2, and I'm excited to see where it is going. I take offense to your accusations though.

[Data Lore]

Dueling Dance is a fine example of something that should be fighter only. Its the fighter interacting with the Action economy in a way only it should. I am not going to go line by line on your essay there. But all this "me, me, me" stuff is silly. Its you saying you want to be almost as good a duelist as a straight up fighter but also be a bard that cast 10th level spells. Thats munchkinism. If you cant see that, I cant help you see it - its freaking obvious.

The bottom line is that this is an asymmetrical game. Characters are meant to be different. Players who specialize in a class are rewarded for that. Players who diversify through dedication may get some versatility but they arent going to get the higher level toys. Players are told up front that they are probably going to get more bang for their buck from their own high level class feats but, hey, you can poach a few lower level feats if you want.

The devs obviously have an understanding of niche protection and its an obvious design goal. Folks clamoring that this may be different than PF1: of course it is, its PF2.

[ErichAD]

If they were going to go hard on niche protection, I wouldn't expect the one handed fencing style to stay with the fighter over a rogue. Fighter's an armor and shield guy what's he doing with agile weapons?

[Zman0]

Data Lore wrote:

Dueling Dance is a fine example of something that should be fighter only. Its the fighter interacting with the Action economy in a way only it should. I am not going to go line by line on your essay there. But all this "me, me, me" stuff is silly. Its you saying you want to be almost as good a duelist as a straight up fighter but also be a bard that cast 10th level spells. Thats munchkinism. If you cant see that, I cant help you see it - its freaking obvious.

The bottom line is that this is an asymmetrical game. Characters are meant to be different. Players who specialize in a class are rewarded for that. Players who diversify through dedication may get some versatility but they arent going to get the higher level toys. Players are told up front that they are probably going to get more bang for their buck from their own high level class feats but, hey, you can pouch a few lower level feats if you want.

The devs obviously have an understanding of niche protection and its an obvious design goal. Folks clamoring that this may be different than PF1: of course it is, its PF2.

Condescending much?

The me, me, me stuff? Well, you said that all desire like that were munchkinism, and there we will disagree. I literally had give give an example of something I'd like to play that would fit the scenario. It was a concept I made up on the spot and explored for the example. I never said I wanted the bard idea I had to be as good of a duelist as a straight fighter, I just wanted for it to have some level of competence and access to reasonable feats. It flat out cannot be as good as the fighter. Do you not see that?

How is the Bard under my example a worse duelist. It does not get Weapon Mastery and Weapon Specialization along with things like flexibility which are core fighter class abilities and should be locked with the exception of specific dedication feats like Opportunist. The bard gets Dueling Parry 2 levels later. Gets all the other feats at least 4 levels later.

That is not "almost as good" as the Fighter. But, it gets to the low end of required competence, something that is not possible otherwise.

Affecting the action economy in a way only a Fighter can, come on? We're talking about the bard in question spending their 18th level feat to be able to do it.

I saw giving up quite a number of powerful Bard feats just to get to low level martial competence as a duelist as reasonable. You call it munchkinery. See, I agree with most of what you said about it being an assymetrical game right there, and IMO, that paradign has been maintained.

The Devs must not have absolutely adhered to that design goal, you can poach 10th level spell slots form the Cleric with nothing more than a 16 Wis, Legendary Religion, and Poaching their 10th level spell slot. If you didn't notice, I'm opposed to this and my recommendation would fix it. See, that is muchkinery, and I hope that the rules as written for the Cleric there not ok. Call that an example of the Dev's recognizing Niche Protection and giving out 10th level Cleric Spells for 2 feats, 3 skill increases, and a 16 Wis?

[Data Lore]

ErichAD:

I expect the rogue to get a different one handed style. The fighter one is more about doing a two handed smash to the face and grabbing it by the scruff of the neck (like the end boss to the Lost Star). The rogue version of the style may well be different - probably have more debuffs, bleeds, blinds and the like.

I built the fighter with a bastard sword in the main hand and a guantlet in the offhand. Smash and grab. Can be built finesse, of course, but still more straight up damage oriented than I would expect from the rogue feats. I am sure a finesse styled fighter may poach some of the lower level rogue dueling feats when they come out.

Zman0:

Im going to read exactly 0 of those words.