Gated Class Feats? Hell, yeah!

[Staffan Johansson]

Pandora's wrote:

So without niche protection, what are classes for? Without some kind of picture of how a class contributes differently from other classes, how do you decide a new class is needed?

I'm not entirely convinced I want niche protection, but it feels that that leads to a classless system as the inevitable conclusion.

The questions are: "What is a niche and to what degree do they need protection?" Is a niche a function or a method?

For example, both the barbarian, fighter, and paladin classes are designed to go toe-to-toe with enemies in melee. They fulfill the same function. But they do so in different ways - they have different methods.

Also, in a game with 12 classes that's usually played by 4-6 players plus GM, it's probably a bad idea to have strong niche protection for the functions. We see this in the way clerics out-class (heh) other classes with healing abilities, thereby making clerics near-mandatory. It's OK if clerics are a little better, but not to the point where they heal 50% or more above what other healers can do. Preferentially, it's good if the different healers can fulfill their functions with different methods - perhaps clerics are the best at direct healing, druids have magic that might heal you more than an equivalent-level cleric spell but does so over a few rounds, and bards would excel at group healing and/or temporary hp (as a "morale boost").

[Sara Marie]

Removed some posts. Going to temporarily close this while I pop into a meeting and will reopen with a follow up mod comment when I'm back.

[Sara Marie]

I removed some posts that were getting off topic and into just arguing. If you can't come up with a constructive response, take some time away from the thread until you can.
Additionally, the term "munchkin" is one that usually doesn't help the conversation. It's picked up a bit of a negative connotation so when it gets used, it tends to negatively escalate conversations instead of keeping everyone on track.

[Rules Artificer]

EberronHoward wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

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.

Well, Retributive Strike has been working pretty well to get my GM to always attack me instead of the other PCs. I personally don't think it's that enforcing, but then again, neither was Divine Challenge in 4th edition.

As a means of tanking that doesn't involve Aggro mechanics, Retributive Strike does a good job. Enemies don't want a free hit on them (that comes with a debuff), so they hit the Paladin instead.

I do, however, have some pretty significant issues with Retributive Strike being the Paladin's primary class feature.

- It is only effective countermeasure against particular threats, and even then isn't clearly defined.
RT's trigger is "A creature within your reach hits an ally or friendly creature." Does it trigger on ranged attacks? What about spells that deal damage? What about harmful effects that don't require an attack roll?
Then there's the issue that Retributive Strike always requires the Paladin to be within reach of the opponent, and never upgrades from this requirement. For melee, a creature can easily move to the opposite side of a creature and strike. Ranged attacks (including most spells) can easily circumvent this requirement. Where's the mid-level option to be able to at least move up to our speed before making a Retributive Strike? Also, what's a ranged weapon build Paladin to do?

- Retributive Strike is a class feature you want to never have to use. It's the threat of being walloped that makes an enemy reconsider attacking your allies and try to attack you instead. However, what happens when the enemy does just this? The vast majority of the Paladin's offensive class features revolve around Retributive Strike. Which means that, if the enemy attacks the Paladin instead (AKA Paladin is doing his job tanking) then the Paladin is deprived of using his class features that actually help defeat his foes!
This leads to the exceedingly wonky state that a Paladin wants to get in position to protect his allies but then have enemies attack his allies over him so that he can actually use his abilities to defeat them. Having anti-tanking be the optimal strategy for your tank seems extremely counterintuitive.
On a similar note, Aura of Justice seems like a monumental pain to actually use. Allies need to be all huddled around both you and the enemy, and need to be able to use a melee weapon worth a dang, and need to not use any reactions that turn, just to have a chance that the enemy decides to attack one of them so the Paladin can make a neutered Retributive Strike and they can also try to bop the enemy. That is such a far cry from the 1E Aura of Justice (practically Paladin's most powerful class feature) it's insane.

[PossibleCabbage]

Retributive strike, like the cleave feats, is weird to me since it seems to be making very specific assumptions about how combat participants are lined up otherwise it's barely useful.

Like as a GM what reason do I have to make enemies be adjacent to each other when "cleave" and "sweep" are things, and what reason do I have to make the enemy choose to be within range of the Paladin and the Paladin's Buddy when attacking the buddy when they could instead just move to a different square. It's hard for the GM to run monsters so they make tactical mistakes so the PCs can use their abilities.

[Tholomyes]

Rules Artificer wrote:

EberronHoward wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

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.

Well, Retributive Strike has been working pretty well to get my GM to always attack me instead of the other PCs. I personally don't think it's that enforcing, but then again, neither was Divine Challenge in 4th edition.

As a means of tanking that doesn't involve Aggro mechanics, Retributive Strike does a good job. Enemies don't want a free hit on them (that comes with a debuff), so they hit the Paladin instead.

I do, however, have some pretty significant issues with Retributive Strike being the Paladin's primary class feature.

- It is only effective countermeasure against particular threats, and even then isn't clearly defined.
RT's trigger is "A creature within your reach hits an ally or friendly creature." Does it trigger on ranged attacks? What about spells that deal damage? What about harmful effects that don't require an attack roll?
Then there's the issue that Retributive Strike always requires the Paladin to be within reach of the opponent, and never upgrades from this requirement. For melee, a creature can easily move to the opposite side of a creature and strike. Ranged attacks (including most spells) can easily circumvent this requirement. Where's the mid-level option to be able to at least move up to our speed before making a Retributive Strike? Also, what's a ranged weapon build Paladin to do?

- Retributive Strike is a class feature you want to never have to use. It's the threat of being walloped that makes an enemy reconsider attacking your...

This post actually sums up most of my likes and dislikes about RS. I think it would actually go a long way to solve things if RS were a feat instead of a feature, as I think designing around a feature you hope never gets used is a losing proposition, and even then it would still probably need something like "[Step up to 10 feet and]..." tacked on to the beginning to allow you to get past reach or an enemy who is trying to evade your trigger, but I think having it as a mechanic, even an optional one, gives something that I think is well in keeping with the Paladin's theme, and is neat mechanical design space for something difficult to pull off in a tabletop RPG.

[N N 959]

Tholomyes wrote:

I think it would actually go a long way to solve things if RS were a feat instead of a feature, as I think designing around a feature you hope never gets used is a losing proposition,

I think the problem isn't RS, per se, but that so much of the class is designed around something that isn't historically associated with the class. I bring this up because it mirrors the problems I have with the Ranger, only Hunt Target is an order of magnitude worse than RS.

[Rant] It would seem that Paizo decided that the essence of a Ranger is Favored Enemy and then tried to reinvent it so that it was more applicable. But Favored Enemy isn't the focal point of a Ranger's combat effectiveness, it's really the Combat Styles. So for me, Paizo is focused on the wrong thing. Worse, what Rangers really need is to have their schtick be generally useful. What is their schtick? It should be Tracking. It would be so easy for Paizo to make Tracking actually do useful things. [/rant]

[Data Lore]

Retributive Strike allowing you to move 15 feet first would be great. It should work that way from the get go.

I would put in a feat to allow it to work up to 20 feet away with ranged or thrown weapons. That would add value to slapping Returning on a Trident or something.

[Syndrous]

Would it be going too far to considering scraping both the Background and Classes and adding a Primary, Secondary and Tertiary styles list?

I.E.

You chose Primary Divine Caster - this gives you access to 10 level of Divine Casting, a deity, and feats related to Divine Casting.

You chose Secondary Skirmisher - this gives you access to Light/Finesse weapons, dex to damage, Light armor/Shields and Light combat feats

You chose Tertiary Healing - limited channel positive energy, and feats that provide benefits for Healing/channeling.

The feat lists are gated by whether it's your primary, secondary or tertiary and you get ability boosts to whatever you need to build the character. This gives everyone a way to customize characters how they want and allows the Dev team to control access as well as balance around combinations. It would likely give us the best of Pf1 classes/feats and Pf2 power-creep control.

[Zamfield]

The biggest complaint I'm seeing, is that the quantity of class feats gained vary dramatically between classes, so that biases certain types of multi-classing using archetype feats. I would rather see an equal amount of class feats allotted to every class.

I would also like it to be easy to build a "generalized" version of each class, where you can do all the various <insert class here> things, just not as specialized in them. In order for that work out, the feats, even low level ones need better scaling to last a full 20 levels. A lot of the class feats feel like they are mandatory to be good at that basic class feature, rather than exceptional.

[Midnightoker]

John Lynch 106 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.

Hyperbole is easier then addressing legitimate criticism.

I find this kind of ironic because the first statement is easily a hyperbole, as Sneak Attack and Spellcasting are class defining abilities that are iconic, and Cleave/Sudden Charge/etc. are not.

There's obviously a clear difference between ubiquitous and non iconic abilities like counterspell and Bloodline Spellcasting and Sneak Attack.

No one asked that the latter be available to everyone so this intentionally obtuse arguement doesn't hold a lot of water.

[master_marshmallow]

Midnightoker wrote:

John Lynch 106 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.

Hyperbole is easier then addressing legitimate criticism.

I find this kind of ironic because the first statement is easily a hyperbole, as Sneak Attack and Spellcasting are class defining abilities that are iconic, and Cleave/Sudden Charge/etc. are not.

There's obviously a clear difference between ubiquitous and non iconic abilities like counterspell and Bloodline Spellcasting and Sneak Attack.

No one asked that the latter be available to everyone so this intentionally obtuse arguement doesn't hold a lot of water.

In all fairness, sneak attack might be better as a feat. It's tactics are different from say, power attack in that it requires you inflict a condition upon the opponent first. That's interesting, and a different combat style from dumping all your strength into a single attack.

Either sneak attack could otherwise replace the dueling niche of combat, or the rogue could in theory absorb that role into itself, but I'm not convinced that quickly striking an exposed weak spot is in and of itself something that any combatant should not be able to get.

Stemming from my other threads where I broke down the three fundamental melee styles in PF1, having the capability of this would really solidify the style as something unique and play into DEX based attacks that don't rely on high STR to function, as was the case in PF1.

It could allow multiple classes to branch out.

As to spell casting, I'm not sold on that either since the sorcerer has such potential in my eyes. Rather than vomit a bunch of rules jargon here, consider an INT based prepared caster class. You choose the arcane list, it's a wizard. You choose the occult list, it's a witch.

The classes are then mechanical chassis upon which to exert your will to assume whatever role you choose.

Not likely to happen, but an interesting enough thought to discuss I hope.

[Staffan Johansson]

In the ideal world, the core book would have enough stuff in it that you could build toward a variety of archetypes (e.g. healer, archer, blaster, tank, skirmisher) from a variety of classes that could conceivably fulfill that role. But given that we live in a world where we have to deal with things like page count, I'm completely down with a system that restricts some of those archetypes to some classes that could potentially do them, and in return provides enough stuff for them to do it well.

That is, let's say I want to play an archer. I could easily see fighters, rangers, and rogues having room for archers, and I could potentially see a twist on the concept that works with paladins or monks. But I'd be totally fine if the core rules said "If you want to be a good archer, play a ranger" as long as the ranger class had options available to play a cool archer.

The other archer versions could then be found in whatever sourcebooks come around for PF2. But I'd rather see one class do the archetype really well rather than have three classes that can become mediocre archers.

[Midnightoker]

master_marshmallow wrote:

In all fairness, sneak attack might be better as a feat. It's tactics are different from say, power attack in that it requires you inflict a condition upon the opponent first. That's interesting, and a different combat style from dumping all your strength into a single attack.

My argument against SA being a feat is that it woefully changes the combat tactics of a player simply by being available.

Cleave/PA augment a combat tactic that is already apart of an existing design.

Or to put more simply, if you were to "take" SA you would build around it, but if you were to take Cleave/PA it would be to augment the combat tactics you're already using.

The former level (SA and Spellcasting) are ability that can be relegated to Multiclass/Archetype based trees, as they quite literally add entirely new mechanics to frame character combat and concepts around.

Quote:

It could allow multiple classes to branch out.

So would moving some Class specific (non-iconic) feats to General Feats. The drastic sweeping changes you describe are better suited for an entirely Class-less game, which DnD/Pathfinder quite simply is not.

Quote:

The classes are then mechanical chassis upon which to exert your will to assume whatever role you choose.

Not likely to happen, but an interesting enough thought to discuss I hope.

And while the exercise is fun to entertain, it's just not a direction this game is realistically going to go.

Theoretically, if a Class-less game were explored in PF2, I wouldn't be totally opposed to options you've suggested.

But given the direction the game is currently in, I think it's a bit of a moot point to discuss it as a legitimate option.

Those that want non-class locked feats aren't looking to steal niches or encroach on other class's territory, only to allow the non-iconic options to be present for others (and also to remove the unnecessary clutter and distinction of specific Class feats that operate almost identically anyways).

If they want to add nuance to each Class based on selection of General Feats as they relate to the class (i.e. Cleave operates differently for Fighter vs. Barbarian to define niches) then there are a lot of options to explore.

I mentioned an option for Class Feats specific to classes that modify General Feats based on their traits in a separate thread, which would be an option. That said, there is a lot of this type of interaction that can be native to a Class just by the design/abilities they can get on their own.

More or less, I'm just sick of the pedantic response of "OH yeah lets just give everyone the same HP and everyone can cast spells and...." just because people don't want Cleave/Powerattack/Counterspell to be Class specific Feats. It's a blatant false equivalence that's getting parroted a lot more than I expected.

[master_marshmallow]

I think it may be more productive to really consider the actual niche of the different classes and why they need to exist separately.

It's my hope that revisiting the hybrid classes can illuminate the exact functions which identity the classes and separate them, while also showing where the classes overlap and tell us what ought be considered a more open ended option.

I'm also running a mythic PF1 game weekly, which is giving me some insights into just how long the groundwork of ideas has really been laid for PF2.

[Midnightoker]

master_marshmallow wrote:

I think it may be more productive to really consider the actual niche of the different classes and why they need to exist separately.

It's my hope that revisiting the hybrid classes can illuminate the exact functions which identity the classes and separate them, while also showing where the classes overlap and tell us what ought be considered a more open ended option.

I'm also running a mythic PF1 game weekly, which is giving me some insights into just how long the groundwork of ideas has really been laid for PF2.

Personally, I don't really find niches to be that much of a problem at any table that is not PFS (which is probably one of the major motivations for defining niches so heavily).

At my personal tables, I've never really had an issue with niche overlap to the point where people feel overshadowed by another player at the niche they are meant to be good at.

That said, I'm not sure that's really a game problem so much as it is a player problem. Nothing is stopping the said player from selecting the exact same class as the person they are overshadowing in the first place.

Multiclassing/Archetypes as designed will likely create a lot of this "blurred niche" you are looking for anyways, just currently there isn't many options to choose from (Bloodrager should be possible with a Sorceror Multiclass being available for instance).

And over time, niches will get even further blurred as more content gets introduced, so I do think that for Core it makes a lot of sense to heavily define their respective spaces with a bit of breathing room between them. When more gets introduced, the Venn Diagram will start to happen.

[master_marshmallow]

Surely that's inevitable. I agree fully.

But given the new edition, I would personally find it serves the game better to look at the classes and their respective niches at the end of the last edition and cut the fat from there to really give a solid foundation from which the new materials can come.

A strong foundation for solid game play and design was one of the only stated goals of the playtest, so this conversation is not only really good, but necessary to get at the core of what the devs want us to feel from the game.

Pun intended, but only once.

[Leedwashere]

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'm also running a mythic PF1 game weekly, which is giving me some insights into just how long the groundwork of ideas has really been laid for PF2.

Can you elaborate on this point? I'm not sure what you're referring to, specifically, and I'm curious.

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

I keep seeing people refer to "multiclassing". Under the current playtest rules, you can't.

You can take feats that give you a different class' abilities, but you do not have "two" (or more) classes. It's disingenuous.

I want to be able to multiclass. I want archetypes that are changes to a class to broaden their concepts.

I did like the post that essentially compared hexes/talents/revelations/ki powers etc with "feats", and that mollified me a little. But not a lot. In PF1e, those powers/suites/choices still had feats to assist/change/provide choice to them.

I am no munchkin. I don't use the words chargen or char op or develop "builds" 20 levels in advance. I make characters. I make them interesting, and interestingly. Often they are "underpowered" or "weak" on paper. Here's the thing - it's how you use what you've got. And how you get through the game. I like choice. Paizo says choice is their mainstay. And I had choice.

With this edition, they've mauled multiclassing, erzats'd archetypes and gated feats hodgepodge all over the place. The magic has gone away. Sure it's early, it's a playtest, but having gone through a session 0 I'm really disliking it. It will suit a segment, but many will be more than disappointed, they will be put off.

Look at the way multiclassing and archetypes were revealed on the blog. Right near the end. Up until then, except for Resonance, I liked it. Now, I just don't.

[Syndrous]

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

I keep seeing people refer to "multiclassing". Under the current playtest rules, you can't.

You can take feats that give you a different class' abilities, but you do not have "two" (or more) classes. It's disingenuous.

I want to be able to multiclass. I want archetypes that are changes to a class to broaden their concepts.

I did like the post that essentially compared hexes/talents/revelations/ki powers etc with "feats", and that mollified me a little. But not a lot. In PF1e, those powers/suites/choices still had feats to assist/change/provide choice to them.

I am no munchkin. I don't use the words chargen or char op or develop "builds" 20 levels in advance. I make characters. I make them interesting, and interestingly. Often they are "underpowered" or "weak" on paper. Here's the thing - it's how you use what you've got. And how you get through the game. I like choice. Paizo says choice is their mainstay. And I had choice.

With this edition, they've mauled multiclassing, erzats'd archetypes and gated feats hodgepodge all over the place. The magic has gone away. Sure it's early, it's a playtest, but having gone through a session 0 I'm really disliking it. It will suit a segment, but many will be more than disappointed, they will be put off.

Look at the way multiclassing and archetypes were revealed on the blog. Right near the end. Up until then, except for Resonance, I liked it. Now, I just don't.

I've resigned myself to the playtest not being about building concepts, or characters and am assuming it's more about stress testing the barebones rules, the playtest isn't necessarily designed to be fun, it's designed to provide feedback.

What reinforces this for me is that they haven't republished the bestiary despite a glaring error throwing off everything in it, to the point that skill item boosts seem to be baked into the DC math on everything.

[Vidmaster7]

Ocean and syndrous you guys got it on the nose. Its what I've been trying to express we are most definitely not playing the finished product.

If your group can't handle the play test it might be best to just wait till the final product comes out.

I think about testing D&D next before it was officially 5th edition and I was ready to burn that thing.

[Mekkis]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

In the ideal world, the core book would have enough stuff in it that you could build toward a variety of archetypes (e.g. healer, archer, blaster, tank, skirmisher) from a variety of classes that could conceivably fulfill that role. But given that we live in a world where we have to deal with things like page count, I'm completely down with a system that restricts some of those archetypes to some classes that could potentially do them, and in return provides enough stuff for them to do it well.

That is, let's say I want to play an archer. I could easily see fighters, rangers, and rogues having room for archers, and I could potentially see a twist on the concept that works with paladins or monks. But I'd be totally fine if the core rules said "If you want to be a good archer, play a ranger" as long as the ranger class had options available to play a cool archer.

The other archer versions could then be found in whatever sourcebooks come around for PF2. But I'd rather see one class do the archetype really well rather than have three classes that can become mediocre archers.

But the Pathfinder core rulebook does allow you to play an archer fighter, an archer ranger, an archer cleric and an archer paladin. And they're all buildable and effective.

For PF2 to remove this flexibility and replace it with the promise of "we'll publish it in a book you can buy later" is very disappointing.

[Vic Ferrari]

Syndrous wrote:

I've resigned myself to the playtest not being about building concepts, or characters and am assuming it's more about stress testing the barebones rules, the playtest isn't necessarily designed to be fun, it's designed to provide feedback.

What reinforces this for me is that they haven't republished the bestiary despite a glaring error throwing off everything in it, to the point that skill item boosts seem to be baked into the DC math on everything.

Yes, the 0-level Skelton Guard has +6 to hit with its scimitar, where is that +6 coming from, Legendary proficiency and Legendary item, I don't think so.

The 5th Ed playtest seemed to sort of ignore monsters maths for most of it.

[Un-Bear-able Puns]

Did you choose skeleton guard because he said bare bones?

[Zman0]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

I've resigned myself to the playtest not being about building concepts, or characters and am assuming it's more about stress testing the barebones rules, the playtest isn't necessarily designed to be fun, it's designed to provide feedback.

What reinforces this for me is that they haven't republished the bestiary despite a glaring error throwing off everything in it, to the point that skill item boosts seem to be baked into the DC math on everything.

Yes, the 0-level Skelton Guard has +6 to hit with its scimitar, where is that +6 coming from, Legendary proficiency and Legendary item, I don't think so.

The 5th Ed playtest seemed to sort of ignore monsters maths for most of it.

Very low level monsters have been altered, most notably in regards to their attack modifiers. This effects CR0s and CR1s. They have low damage and had their attack modifiers gooses to keep them relevant towards the peak of that +4lvl range of being an expected threat. They have lower damage to compensate. It makes them more reliable, and less sit there and they miss until get get lucky and its even more swingy.

Imagine a Skeleten Archer with +4 to hit for D6+1 with shortbows. It misses more often, but when it gets lucky it hurts even more, and when it crits instead of dealing 12.5 damgae, it deals 14.5. And with Scimitar it'd be something like 7 vs 9. They end up getting even swinger than they feel right now, even more borring and worse as you put a couple levels above them.

Once you get past CR1 you see monsters start to make a lot of sense.

[master_marshmallow]

Leedwashere wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'm also running a mythic PF1 game weekly, which is giving me some insights into just how long the groundwork of ideas has really been laid for PF2.

Can you elaborate on this point? I'm not sure what you're referring to, specifically, and I'm curious.

Many of the abilities in the classes involve reducing or crunching multiple actions down for increased efficiency, this mirrors how Mythic often had abilities triggered off the swift action that changed the dynamic of the game in how many effective actions you gained.

There's also the way ability scores scaled up every other tier, giving you a +2 in whichever ability you wanted.

They were also organized by tier gating them, though they had less grouping and were usually all divided into 3 groups based on relative power level.

I'm sure there's more individual abilities which confer a more direct correlation, like the stuff you can do with skills, but that's the overarching discovery I made.

[Syndrous]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Ocean and syndrous you guys got it on the nose. Its what I've been trying to express we are most definitely not playing the finished product.

If your group can't handle the play test it might be best to just wait till the final product comes out.

I think about testing D&D next before it was officially 5th edition and I was ready to burn that thing.

My issue is I want to playtest, even if I am a player rather than DM and my players want to get out of what they see as a sinking ship at this point. One of my guys is a straight 5e enthusiast, he only played because I am one of 5 English speaking DM's where we are stationed. He worships the ground Matt Mercer walks on and believes that any DM style but Mercer's is badwrongfun. He has convinced them to move on to 5e, and revisit Pathfinder in 2-3 years if Paizo is still publishing.

I don't mind that, I really don't care for 5e, and half of my group just wants to play. Combined with me moving in December, I am mostly going to be building and running playtest with just myself and my wife. We both prefer PF1 and want PF2 to turn out well, we don't mind slogging through a broken system.

My only real gripe is that I don't see the point of play-testing a bestiary that is based off of design decisions that were a mistake, and that they had moved on from. We are providing them data that agrees that they were smart to move away from an iteration that was never meant to be published. They could correct that, any data they collect using the flawed bestiary is less useful, because it wasn't what was intended for the test.

[master_marshmallow]

Syndrous wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Ocean and syndrous you guys got it on the nose. Its what I've been trying to express we are most definitely not playing the finished product.

If your group can't handle the play test it might be best to just wait till the final product comes out.

I think about testing D&D next before it was officially 5th edition and I was ready to burn that thing.

My issue is I want to playtest, even if I am a player rather than DM and my players want to get out of what they see as a sinking ship at this point. One of my guys is a straight 5e enthusiast, he only played because I am one of 5 English speaking DM's where we are stationed. He worships the ground Matt Mercer walks on and believes that any DM style but Mercer's is badwrongfun. He has convinced them to move on to 5e, and revisit Pathfinder in 2-3 years if Paizo is still publishing.

I don't mind that, I really don't care for 5e, and half of my group just wants to play. Combined with me moving in December, I am mostly going to be building and running playtest with just myself and my wife. We both prefer PF1 and want PF2 to turn out well, we don't mind slogging through a broken system.

My only real gripe is that I don't see the point of play-testing a bestiary that is based off of design decisions that were a mistake, and that they had moved on from. We are providing them data that agrees that they were smart to move away from an iteration that was never meant to be published. They could correct that, any data they collect using the flawed bestiary is less useful, because it wasn't what was intended for the test.

This last part upsets me so much because classes that add in a second ability score, or otherwise get a scaling bonus that goes from +3 to +6 over the course of 20 levels literally fixes all the math and has no consequences for the 4 tiered success system because attack rolls don't have critical failures.

Adding in 8 or so abilities to the classes that need the hit chance, removing TAC from the game completely (by making a normal failure the new TAC) solves a lot of the problems I had with hit chance.

[The Sideromancer]

Un-Bear-able Puns wrote:

Did you choose skeleton guard because he said bare bones?

I'm trying to think of a clever response to this, but it never seems to be fleshed out. I'm ashamed at my lack of skull at this.

[Syndrous]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Ocean and syndrous you guys got it on the nose. Its what I've been trying to express we are most definitely not playing the finished product.

If your group can't handle the play test it might be best to just wait till the final product comes out.

I think about testing D&D next before it was officially 5th edition and I was ready to burn that thing.

My issue is I want to playtest, even if I am a player rather than DM and my players want to get out of what they see as a sinking ship at this point. One of my guys is a straight 5e enthusiast, he only played because I am one of 5 English speaking DM's where we are stationed. He worships the ground Matt Mercer walks on and believes that any DM style but Mercer's is badwrongfun. He has convinced them to move on to 5e, and revisit Pathfinder in 2-3 years if Paizo is still publishing.

I don't mind that, I really don't care for 5e, and half of my group just wants to play. Combined with me moving in December, I am mostly going to be building and running playtest with just myself and my wife. We both prefer PF1 and want PF2 to turn out well, we don't mind slogging through a broken system.

My only real gripe is that I don't see the point of play-testing a bestiary that is based off of design decisions that were a mistake, and that they had moved on from. We are providing them data that agrees that they were smart to move away from an iteration that was never meant to be published. They could correct that, any data they collect using the flawed bestiary is less useful, because it wasn't what was intended for the test.

This last part upsets me so much because classes that add in a second ability score, or otherwise get a scaling bonus that goes from +3 to +6 over the course of 20 levels literally fixes all the math and has no consequences for the 4 tiered success system because attack rolls don't have critical failures.

Adding in 8 or so abilities to the classes that need the hit chance,...

I actually like this but I would prefer a full restructuring of the Proficiency system.

For weapons and armor your proficiency should be more than a bonus, I love the idea of taking some of the feats that are class gated and locking them behind your proficiency with a weapon. I.E. Locking Power attack behind expert proficiency with Heavy Blades. This takes the onus of providing weapons/armor related feats off of classes, allowing the class feats to provide thematically tactful abilities to differentiate classes. You follow up with feats that you can take in place of a class feat, a general class feat if you will, to increase weapons proficiency with that class of armor/weapons (providing you meet basic ability score based pre-reqs) and you now have a proficiency system for weapons and armor that feels like a proficiency system. You can now have club wielding rogues and axe swinging wizards who sacrifice some of their wizard class feats to create the character they want.

The second part of this is dropping the +level pseudo-BAB we currently have attached to proficiency and recalculating values to match. I'm a fan of Proficiency bonuses as a flat scale that doesn't completely overshadow ability scores. We have ability scores, they should matter, the entire idea of adding level to a roll is numbers porn, and can make tracking difficult for folks like those I play with who can be rediculously bad at math.

[master_marshmallow]

Syndrous wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Ocean and syndrous you guys got it on the nose. Its what I've been trying to express we are most definitely not playing the finished product.

If your group can't handle the play test it might be best to just wait till the final product comes out.

I think about testing D&D next before it was officially 5th edition and I was ready to burn that thing.

My issue is I want to playtest, even if I am a player rather than DM and my players want to get out of what they see as a sinking ship at this point. One of my guys is a straight 5e enthusiast, he only played because I am one of 5 English speaking DM's where we are stationed. He worships the ground Matt Mercer walks on and believes that any DM style but Mercer's is badwrongfun. He has convinced them to move on to 5e, and revisit Pathfinder in 2-3 years if Paizo is still publishing.

I don't mind that, I really don't care for 5e, and half of my group just wants to play. Combined with me moving in December, I am mostly going to be building and running playtest with just myself and my wife. We both prefer PF1 and want PF2 to turn out well, we don't mind slogging through a broken system.

My only real gripe is that I don't see the point of play-testing a bestiary that is based off of design decisions that were a mistake, and that they had moved on from. We are providing them data that agrees that they were smart to move away from an iteration that was never meant to be published. They could correct that, any data they collect using the flawed bestiary is less useful, because it wasn't what was intended for the test.

This last part upsets me so much because classes that add in a second ability score, or otherwise get a scaling bonus that goes from +3 to +6 over the course of 20 levels literally fixes all the math and has no consequences for the 4 tiered success system because attack rolls don't have critical failures.

Adding in 8 or so abilities to the

...

I theory crafted this in the equipment section, check my thread on WEAPONFINDER.

[Syndrous]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Ocean and syndrous you guys got it on the nose. Its what I've been trying to express we are most definitely not playing the finished product.

If your group can't handle the play test it might be best to just wait till the final product comes out.

I think about testing D&D next before it was officially 5th edition and I was ready to burn that thing.

My issue is I want to playtest, even if I am a player rather than DM and my players want to get out of what they see as a sinking ship at this point. One of my guys is a straight 5e enthusiast, he only played because I am one of 5 English speaking DM's where we are stationed. He worships the ground Matt Mercer walks on and believes that any DM style but Mercer's is badwrongfun. He has convinced them to move on to 5e, and revisit Pathfinder in 2-3 years if Paizo is still publishing.

I don't mind that, I really don't care for 5e, and half of my group just wants to play. Combined with me moving in December, I am mostly going to be building and running playtest with just myself and my wife. We both prefer PF1 and want PF2 to turn out well, we don't mind slogging through a broken system.

My only real gripe is that I don't see the point of play-testing a bestiary that is based off of design decisions that were a mistake, and that they had moved on from. We are providing them data that agrees that they were smart to move away from an iteration that was never meant to be published. They could correct that, any data they collect using the flawed bestiary is less useful, because it wasn't what was intended for the test.

This last part upsets me so much because classes that add in a second ability score, or otherwise get a scaling bonus that goes from +3 to +6 over the course of 20 levels literally fixes all the math and has no consequences for the 4 tiered success system because attack rolls don't have critical failures.

Adding

...

I'm the last poster in the thread.

Getting back to the topic at hand, of class-gated feats, I really feel they should consist more of in-combat tactical abilities, role-fulfillment abilities and thematically appropriate feats.

The Fighter for instance is supposed to be a master of in your face and tactical combat. Give the fighter feats that allow him to assume a tactical position and provide his allies with an increased benefit when they flank enemies that he is also flanking. The increased pool of reactions is a great baseline for Fighters, focus on more feats that expand on that concept, allowing more AoO's, or reactions to knock your teammates out of harms way. Hell, even the archery, dual wield, open hand, sword and board, and two handed stylistic abilities they have could be expanded on, if the classes focus was less as a weapon master.

[master_marshmallow]

Personally, I think flexibility should be a 1st level ability.

[Vic Ferrari]

Syndrous wrote:

The second part of this is dropping the +level pseudo-BAB we currently have attached to proficiency and recalculating values to match. I'm a fan of Proficiency bonuses as a flat scale that doesn't completely overshadow ability scores. We have ability scores, they should matter, the entire idea of adding level to a roll is numbers porn, and can make tracking difficult for folks like those I play with who can be rediculously bad at math

Yes, I am playing with and without the +Level treadmill, I enjoy it more without, and I still find the 4-Tiers of Success deal to be somewhat of a time-sink.

[Elorebaen]

Data Lore 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 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.

That is pretty much where I stand on the subject.

[Syndrous]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

The second part of this is dropping the +level pseudo-BAB we currently have attached to proficiency and recalculating values to match. I'm a fan of Proficiency bonuses as a flat scale that doesn't completely overshadow ability scores. We have ability scores, they should matter, the entire idea of adding level to a roll is numbers porn, and can make tracking difficult for folks like those I play with who can be rediculously bad at math

Yes, I am playing with and without the +Level treadmill, I enjoy it more without, and I still find the 4-Tiers of Success deal to be somewhat of a time-sink.

Did removing +level require much math on the Monster/Skill DC side of things, and does the proficiency bonus then feel like it is supporting your ability scores rather than overshadowing them like it currently does?

I assume you lowered the DC's/AC/hit bonuses by the creature rating or hazard rating for traps.

[Vic Ferrari]

Syndrous wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

The second part of this is dropping the +level pseudo-BAB we currently have attached to proficiency and recalculating values to match. I'm a fan of Proficiency bonuses as a flat scale that doesn't completely overshadow ability scores. We have ability scores, they should matter, the entire idea of adding level to a roll is numbers porn, and can make tracking difficult for folks like those I play with who can be rediculously bad at math

Yes, I am playing with and without the +Level treadmill, I enjoy it more without, and I still find the 4-Tiers of Success deal to be somewhat of a time-sink.

Did removing +level require much math on the Monster/Skill DC side of things, and does the proficiency bonus then feel like it is supporting your ability scores rather than overshadowing them like it currently does?

I assume you lowered the DC's/AC/hit bonuses by the creature rating or hazard rating for traps.

Yes, level is omitted from everything (monsters, etc), it opens up the threat range, you don't auto-crit as much on lower level monsters, and have a chance to hit higher level monsters without needing a natural 20, etc.

Your ability scores feel more impactful (and E, M, L proficiency); I do not like item bonuses and extra weapon damage dice, to keep up, coming from magic.

[Syndrous]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

The second part of this is dropping the +level pseudo-BAB we currently have attached to proficiency and recalculating values to match. I'm a fan of Proficiency bonuses as a flat scale that doesn't completely overshadow ability scores. We have ability scores, they should matter, the entire idea of adding level to a roll is numbers porn, and can make tracking difficult for folks like those I play with who can be rediculously bad at math

Yes, I am playing with and without the +Level treadmill, I enjoy it more without, and I still find the 4-Tiers of Success deal to be somewhat of a time-sink.

Did removing +level require much math on the Monster/Skill DC side of things, and does the proficiency bonus then feel like it is supporting your ability scores rather than overshadowing them like it currently does?

I assume you lowered the DC's/AC/hit bonuses by the creature rating or hazard rating for traps.

Yes, level is omitted from everything (monsters, etc), it opens up the threat range, you don't auto-crit as much on lower level monsters, and have a chance to hit higher level monsters without needing a natural 20, etc.

Your ability scores feel more impactful (and E, M, L proficiency); I do not like item bonuses and extra weapon damage dice, to keep up, coming from magic.

Hmmm I'm going to need to keep this in mind in the event the system squeeks through as it is.

Did you stick with - 2, 0, +1,+2,+3 or did you jump to -2, 0, +2, +4, +6?

[Vic Ferrari]

Syndrous wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

The second part of this is dropping the +level pseudo-BAB we currently have attached to proficiency and recalculating values to match. I'm a fan of Proficiency bonuses as a flat scale that doesn't completely overshadow ability scores. We have ability scores, they should matter, the entire idea of adding level to a roll is numbers porn, and can make tracking difficult for folks like those I play with who can be rediculously bad at math

Yes, I am playing with and without the +Level treadmill, I enjoy it more without, and I still find the 4-Tiers of Success deal to be somewhat of a time-sink.

Did removing +level require much math on the Monster/Skill DC side of things, and does the proficiency bonus then feel like it is supporting your ability scores rather than overshadowing them like it currently does?

I assume you lowered the DC's/AC/hit bonuses by the creature rating or hazard rating for traps.

Yes, level is omitted from everything (monsters, etc), it opens up the threat range, you don't auto-crit as much on lower level monsters, and have a chance to hit higher level monsters without needing a natural 20, etc.

Your ability scores feel more impactful (and E, M, L proficiency); I do not like item bonuses and extra weapon damage dice, to keep up, coming from magic.

Hmmm I'm going to need to keep this in mind in the event the system squeeks through as it is.

Did you stick with - 2, 0, +1,+2,+3 or did you jump to -2, 0, +2, +4, +6?

Everything stays the same. Though, I have a house-rule where you gain the essential +1 to +5 item bonus to Attacks, AC, and Saves from Trained proficiency and Level instead, same with extra weapon damage dice (for those campaigns low on magic items).

[Zman0]

Syndrous wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Syndrous wrote:

The second part of this is dropping the +level pseudo-BAB we currently have attached to proficiency and recalculating values to match. I'm a fan of Proficiency bonuses as a flat scale that doesn't completely overshadow ability scores. We have ability scores, they should matter, the entire idea of adding level to a roll is numbers porn, and can make tracking difficult for folks like those I play with who can be rediculously bad at math

Yes, I am playing with and without the +Level treadmill, I enjoy it more without, and I still find the 4-Tiers of Success deal to be somewhat of a time-sink.

Did removing +level require much math on the Monster/Skill DC side of things, and does the proficiency bonus then feel like it is supporting your ability scores rather than overshadowing them like it currently does?

I assume you lowered the DC's/AC/hit bonuses by the creature rating or hazard rating for traps.

Here, this should help.

You'll find that if you strip out level scaling the proficiency system shines much better.

[Fluff]

Belisar wrote:

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.

What left me feeling utterly cold on class feats is the fact that you basically pick a subset of your PF1 class abilities. You don't get divine health, mercy, aura of courage, etc. Instead you get a subset of the above. It's not possible to have even the CRB version of a paladin anymore, you don't have enough class feats.

[WatersLethe]

Fluff wrote:

What left me feeling utterly cold on class feats is the fact that you basically pick a subset of your PF1 class abilities. You don't get divine health, mercy, aura of courage, etc. Instead you get a subset of the above. It's not possible to have even the CRB version of a paladin anymore, you don't have enough class feats.

Then, importantly, if you want to be a character with those iconic class features *and* distinguish yourself in another manner, you are blocked from doing so.

In PF1e you can be an unarchetyped paladin with all those cool class features, then spend your feats to distinguish yourself as an awesome archer.

In PF2e you have to trade out some of those class features in order to multiclass as Fighter to have a chance of claiming that you're better with a bow than any other unarchetyped paladin.

That's just an example. The same can be said for any number of things you would have spent feats on to boost in PF1e.

If everyone is equally effective at a particular thing, then you don't feel like you've built a unique character.

That feeling is very, very important.

[Midnightoker]

Fluff wrote:

What left me feeling utterly cold on class feats is the fact that you basically pick a subset of your PF1 class abilities. You don't get divine health, mercy, aura of courage, etc. Instead you get a subset of the above. It's not possible to have even the CRB version of a paladin anymore, you don't have enough class feats.

I think that's why differentiating combat/metamagic/etc. focus into General Feats makes the most sense, because you are essentially giving up the ability to play your class in order to be good at combat.

Thus creating the flavor vs favor choice, which is kinda the antithesis of the intended goal of feeling unique.

I'm not opposed to making classes choose between Class native abilities (some paladin's choosing smite over lay on hands would make sense) but not at the cost of being entirely agnostic of Paladin features in general just so they can be good at loosing an arrow.

It seems like when they designed Class Feats with the Fighter as the central Class in mind, which is what leads to a lot of originally general feats being sectioned off to the Fighter.

What should have happened, is the Fighter should have gotten stronger definition applied to his General Feats through his Class Feats either via Weapons, Armor, Feat Traits, Skill Feats that interact with Combat, etc.

Instead, they roped off a bunch of feats which isn't really fun for anyone. The Fighter is still the same Fighter he was before, he just has exclusive rights to a bunch of feats everyone else used to have but is just as bland as he was originally (and now if you want to select any "interesting" Fighter choices, you do that at the expense of combat ability).

Now they have stated that the reasoning behind this was the addition of "free" abilities being applied to a lot of weapons (so everyone can do certain things now), but I really don't see how that's the case (especially for things like TWF).

[Staffan Johansson]

Mekkis wrote:

But the Pathfinder core rulebook does allow you to play an archer fighter, an archer ranger, an archer cleric and an archer paladin. And they're all buildable and effective.

Only by making their archery work pretty much the same. Well, I assume the cleric is making up for her mediocre attack bonus with a spell of some sort, but other than that they all follow the path of high Dex, point-blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, and so on.

I'd rather see them do archery differently for each class. Perhaps the archer ranger's focus is a variety of trick shots and debuffs, the fighter is more about barrages, and the paladin makes few shots, but those few hit really hard. Or something like that, I'm just spitballing.

[Midnightoker]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I'd rather see them do archery differently for each class. Perhaps the archer ranger's focus is a variety of trick shots and debuffs, the fighter is more about barrages, and the paladin makes few shots, but those few hit really hard. Or something like that, I'm just spitballing.

But if you make that Class Feat, then Paladins, Rangers, etc. all have to choose to be good at Archery over being able to use Lay on Hands, Snares, etc.

Now allowing them to take a Class Feat that modifies all ranged attack actions i.e. something niche to that class that they only have to take once that modifies all their standard Archery, then you might have something.

As is, it's "pick your class or pick your combat style, but you can't have both". It's not very "rogue" just to have your own version of Double Slice but slightly different.

Classes are way to Feat starved at the moment to be able to keep a Combat style while also maintaining an identity (at least the non-caster classes, as casters don't really need a lot of combat feats)

[master_marshmallow]

Hopefully, curing the feat tax dilemma is an important enough goal that a scaling feat would replace the formerly requisite chains of feats to define a combat style, so spending the rest of your feats can invest into class features.

[Leedwashere]

Midnightoker wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I'd rather see them do archery differently for each class. Perhaps the archer ranger's focus is a variety of trick shots and debuffs, the fighter is more about barrages, and the paladin makes few shots, but those few hit really hard. Or something like that, I'm just spitballing.

But if you make that Class Feat, then Paladins, Rangers, etc. all have to choose to be good at Archery over being able to use Lay on Hands, Snares, etc.

Now allowing them to take a Class Feat that modifies all ranged attack actions i.e. something niche to that class that they only have to take once that modifies all their standard Archery, then you might have something.

As is, it's "pick your class or pick your combat style, but you can't have both". It's not very "rogue" just to have your own version of Double Slice but slightly different.

Classes are way to Feat starved at the moment to be able to keep a Combat style while also maintaining an identity (at least the non-caster classes, as casters don't really need a lot of combat feats)

This post has made me get off the fence on this one. I was struggling with the conflict between all users of a combat style following the same path regardless of class, classes setting themselves apart by doing a combat style differently than other classes, and the thought of having to reproduce the same combat style across infinite classes in infinite combinations. (Infinite is hyperbole, yes, but we should make the game as future-proof as possible)

And now everything has resolved. Yes, all combat styles should be universally achievable by all classes. There's nothing about archery or two-weapon fighting or sword and board or anything that requires class-gating.

Right now we're trading one absurdity (all characters perform a style the same way) for another, equal absurdity (all members of [class] perform this combat style the same way).

But there are some classes that would naturally want put a different spin on those concepts. And that should, in fact, be modeled by having a class feat that alters the way the combat style works, rather than granting the combat style in a specific way. And the classes which don't have anything particularly interesting to offer a combat style would still be able to effectively use that combat style if they want, they just wouldn't get anything special for doing so.

So under a system like this, if you're a rogue, you can two-weapon fight all you want. Or you can choose to two-weapon fight like a rogue if you're invested in the idea. Similarly any paladin can be an archer, but if they want to they can be an archer in the paladin style. It's not required, but is helpful and provides synergy with other class feats and features if you take it. But it doesn't cripple your concept (by effectively locking you out of being effective an entire combat style) if you don't care enough or have higher priorities than emphasizing it.

[master_marshmallow]

It seems specifically for paladins and clerics, there's already lore dealing with the favored weapon. Instead of these, improving the combat style instead would be better.

[Leedwashere]

Thinking a little bit further about implementation, I would make the basic style building blocks like Power Attack, Point Blank Shot, Double Slice, and so on into general feats. Then give each character a general feat at level 1. There are, after all, level 1 general feats which I'm guessing are only level 1 so that things like the General Training human ancestry feat can give them out.

Then if you have a class feat that alters a style, it would probably start with something along the lines of: "When you use double slice..."

[Excaliburproxy]

I think handling "out of concept" mechanics through multiclassing would be fine if there were more class feats or if you gained more of your "core" class abilities automatically rather than only gated behind feats.

I will reiterate something that I have either said or implied in other threads:
In PF1, you made important decisions about your build whenever you got a feat and whenever you got a "talent" (either a literal talent or a class feature that you could trade out via the archetype system).
In PF2, your only meaningful build decisions come from your class feats, resulting in you making important decisions half as often. I don't care for this.

Like: if you just had more "class" feats then each class's list of feats can just be a curated list of abilities that are associated with that class.

You know what also might be cool? Maybe everyone could get a "subclass" or "achetype" automatically at certain levels.