In the discussion of the Paizo Blog: Halfway to Doomsday the topic of class feats, ancestry feats, skill feats, versus general feats arose. One subtopic related to this was whether they should all be named "feat" because they served different roles. Jason Bulmanh suggested a separate thread.
Folks.. this thread is really not for arguing about the use of the word feat, but it has been made clear that some feel that the adjective delineation is not sufficient.
If folks want to continue the discussion, please start another thread (and try not to use big text to make your point, it not necessary).
Thus, I am creating this thread to discuss whether class feats, ancestry feats, skill feats, and general feats should have different names.
First, I was to discuss their roles and why they are different. Second, I will review some names.
Mechanically, Pathfinder 2nd Edition gives out ancestry feats, class feats, skill feats, and general feats at different times. The usual pattern is:
Levels that grant ancestry feats: 1, 5, 9, 13, 17
Levels that grant class feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
Levels that grant skill feats: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
Levels that grant general feats: 3, 7, 11, 15, 19
This pattern is not set in stone. For example, the granting of class feats depends on class:
Alchemist feats: 1, (2), 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
Babarian feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
Bard feats: 1**, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, (18), 20
Cleric feats: 1*, (2), 4, (6), 8, 14, 20
Druid feats: 1**, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 18, 20
Fighter feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
Monk feats: 1, (2), 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
Paladin feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
Ranger feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
Rogue feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20
Sorcerer feats: 1*, (2), 4, 8, 14, (18), 20
Wizard feats: 1*, (2), 4, (6), 8, (10), 14, (18), 20
() - no class feats of this level available, so it grants a feat of lower level.
* no class feat granted at this level.
** 1st-level class feat selected by order or muse
Why are these kinds of feats kept separate? We can learn some reasons from Pathfinder 1st Edition.
1. Some selected features depend on class features and have no meaning outside of that class. For example, a barbarian's rage powers require the barbarian rage feature, and would be useless to a non-barbarian character.
2. Some selected features are thematic to a particular class or ancestry and would break the theme if allowed elsewhere. A human is supposed to lack inherent magic, except for inner sorcerous power often described as not being fully human, so a gnome's casual Dancing Lights or Speak with Animals would not fit a human character. This reason is weak with regard to feats, because feats can require racial prerequisites.
3. Some selected features become multiplicatively more powerful if combined together. A feature that adds a higher critical hit range combines too well with a feature that increases critical hit damage, so we wouldn't want those to mix.
4. Some selected features are weaker than standard feats and would not be selected if a feat were offered as an alternative. The Advanced Player's Guide traits were meant to fall in this role. The feat Additional Traits offered two traits, so as shorthand we say that a PF1 trait is half as powerful as a PF1 feat. In practice, the strongest traits are more powerful than the weakest feats, but that does not matter because people would still select the strongest feats instead of the strongest traits.
5. Many players overspecialize their characters, known as min-maxing. A min-maxed character is problematic for crafting an adventure. In their area of expertise, a min-maxed character is too powerful for ordinary challenges, and the challenges appropriate for that character leave the rest of the party sidelined. Outside their area of expertise, the reverse happens. A min-maxed character is too weak for ordinary challenges, and the challenge appropriate for that character are easily handled by the rest of the party without the min-maxed character. Forcing selection of feats outside an obvious specialty, such as combat, reduces min-maxing.
6. Separate feats reduce the number of feats a player needs to examine during character creation or leveling up. For example, a player creating a human monk does need not consider any elf ancestry feats nor fighter class feats.
The problem is that by naming every selected feature as "feats," they no longer feel separated. Some people have reported that their players did not realize the lists were separate and selected class feats instead of skill or general feats.
Good names might make the reason for these separations more obvious. For example, "class feats" suggest that the feats are separated because they are thematic for the class. Words denoting power would emphaize reason 3, that the feats are too powerful to be available to all characters. Words denoting frivolity would emphasize reason 4, that the feats are too weak to compete against other feats.
The selected features of Pathfinder 1st Edition classes offer our first alternatives to the name "feat."
1. Alchemists have discoveries.
2. Barbarians have rage powers.
3. Bards have performances and masterpieces.
4. Clerics have domains that offer domain powers.
5. Druids have nothing.
6. Fighters gained advanced weapon training from Weapon Master's Handbook and advanced armor training from Armor Master's Handbook.
7. Monks gained style feats from Ultimate Combat that offered stances.
8. Paladins have mercies.
9. Rangers have combat styles.
10. Rogues have talents.
11. Sorcerers have bloodlines that offer bloodline powers.
12. Wizards have schools that offer school powers.
Outside the Core Rulebook (alchemists are honorary core now), we have a few more names.
13. Cavaliers have orders that offer order abilities.
14. Gunslingers have deeds.
15. Inquisitors have judgments.
16. Magi have arcana.
17. Oracles have revelations.
18. Shifters have aspects.
19. Summoner eidolons have evolutions.
20. Vigilantes, like rogues, have talents.
21. Witches have hexes.
22. Ninja and mesmerists have tricks.
23. Arcanists have exploits.
24. Warpriests have blessings.
25. Occultists have focus powers and implements.
26. Psychics have amplifications.
The Paizo Blog discussion had other suggestions. For example:
Ya, I would go with Class Feats, General Feats, Ancestral Qualities, and Skill Talents instead of calling everything a "Feat."
What are your ideas and opinions?
EDIT: Oops, I forgot a sixth reason for separating feats. Sorry, I am sick this week and not clearheaded. Fortunately, I am still in the one-hour edit period, so I added it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, I have an opinion of my own.
I want ancestry feats to become backgrounds. No, I do not mean an overlap with the Background feature of Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Instead, I want ancestry feats to be absorbed into the backgrounds. Any ancestry feat that is genetic will be automatically given by the ancestry and any ancestry feat that is cultural would become a background. For example, we currently have Weapon Familiarity under Dwarf ancestry.
WEAPON FAMILIARITY (DWARF) FEAT 1
Dwarf
Your kin have instilled in you an affinity for hardhitting weapons, and you prefer them to more elegant arms.
You are trained with the battleaxe, pick, and warhammer. In addition, you gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons. For the purpose of proficiencies, you treat martial dwarf weapons as simple weapons and exotic dwarf weapons as martial weapons.
It would become:
DWARVEN WARRIOR BACKGROUND
Prerequisite You must have dwarf ancestry.
As a warrior in your dwarven clan, you gained an affinity for hardhitting weapons from your kin.
Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Strength or Constitution, and one is a free ability boost.
You are trained with the battleaxe, pick, and warhammer. In addition, you gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons. For the purpose of proficiencies, you treat martial dwarf weapons as simple weapons and exotic dwarf weapons as martial weapons.
You’re trained in the Warfare Lore skill.
Class feats would claim the name feat. Characters would receive a feat at 1st level and every even level.
Skill and general feats would be merged and renamed lesson. Characters would receive a lesson at every odd level, including 1st level.
Feats would be stronger in combat than lessons that apply to combat. But lessons would have more uses out of combat. The ancestry feat part of a background could be pretty weak, more like a Pathfinder 1st Edition trait, because other parts of the background could make up for it.
Wizard feats: 1*, (2), 4, (6), 8, (10), 14, (18), 20
() - no class feats of this level available, so it grants a feat of lower level.
You should have included a notation for feats-not-granted.
eg.:Wizard feats: 1*, (2), 4, (6), 8, (10), [12], 14, [16], (18), 20
[] - no feat granted (subsumed by class feature)
So that all classes have the entire list and it can be located and compared. Only full casters have this issue, but its as much an issue as everything else.
Wizard feats: 1*, (2), 4, (6), 8, (10), 14, (18), 20
() - no class feats of this level available, so it grants a feat of lower level.You should have included a notation for feats-not-granted.
eg.:Wizard feats: 1*, (2), 4, (6), 8, (10), [12], 14, [16], (18), 20
[] - no feat granted (subsumed by class feature)So that all classes have the entire list and it can be located and compared. Only full casters have this issue, but its as much an issue as everything else.
I wasn't up to speculating why those classes skipped class feats at those levels, such as "subsumed by class feature." I brought up the 1st-level feats that existed but could not be taken at 1st level, because I could not imply, "Wizards don't get a 1st-level feat," when the class listed several 1st-level feats. I could skip the 12th-level and 16th-level wizard feats that were neither granted nor listed.
Draco18s, do you have an opinion on the names of the feat groupings?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer all the things that behave like feats be named [adjective] Feat, since it allows you to have rules text which applies to all feats and does not need to call out talents, discoveries, rage powers, etc.
I mean, having something refer to just "feats" or "class feats" future proofs us against options for new classes which are added later. Since rules text which calls out: discoveries, rage powers, masterpieces, talents, etc. most likely will not include Phrenic Amplifications, Focus Powers, Shifter Aspects, etc. So calling all those things "Feats" is preferable to me.
I prefer all the things that behave like feats ...
How do feats behave? In Pathfinder 1st Edition, we had feats, traits, and selectable lists of class features with names like discoveries, rage powers, etc. Pathfinder 2nd Edition dropped the traits, renamed the selectable lists of class features as class feats, moved most combat feats to class feats, and moved the rest of the feats to general feats and skill feats. Some playtesters complain that class feats don't feel like feats because of the class restrictions. The waters are muddied, so I don't know what "behave like feats" means.
I mean, having something refer to just "feats" or "class feats" future proofs us against options for new classes which are added later. Since rules text which calls out: discoveries, rage powers, masterpieces, talents, etc. most likely will not include Phrenic Amplifications, Focus Powers, Shifter Aspects, etc. So calling all those things "Feats" is preferable to me.
I have wondered about future proofing, since Pathfinder 2nd Edition will gain new classes. For example, if Paizo reintroduces the ninja class and wants it to have access to half of the rogue class feats, how should they phrase that? Rewrite them as part of the ninja class, like the barbarian and fighter versions of Sudden Charge, and leave future rogue feats as forever non-ninja? Start listing the classes that can take a feat, like Pathfinder 1st Edition does with the spell lists for new spells?
Draco18s, do you have an opinion on the names of the feat groupings?
I more or less don't care. I can see why people have an issue with "everything's a feat" but it doesn't bother me.
What bothers me is the "everything else": namely, feats are so bland in a majority of cases that not-having them is about as effective.
- I never once used Reach Spell (due to the action economy of the game)
- I am unlikely to ever use Boulder Roll (due to the fact that it costs 2 actions)
- Mountain Roots has been (and probably will be a majority of the time) irrelevant (because its so situational)
- Quick Jump, Powerful Leap, and Wall Jump are unlikely to ever make a difference (for me, I did see them utilized by someone else in Chapter 2)
- Skill Feats as whole make me want to stab someone. I care about none of them and some of them are aggressively pointless (prior to update 1.2 with the removal of signature skills, the only class that could ever take full advantage of the ONLY skill feat for Arcana was the Alchemist: that's not a general skill feat, that's a class feat, and a crappy one at that).
I could go on, but I won't because I've done so in other threads.
I think the Feat/Quality/Talent thing does feel like a nicer way of bringing about distinction to the different feats that we have now. As for the whole "how do we future proof stuff" if you just stick a new name tag to the umbrella category, you don't need to worry about that. Future skill feats would just be future "Talents" and future Ancestry feats would just be new "Qualities" while new classes would still have new "Feats"! The background thing does sound interesting, but I think that would just bloat the already giant background list we have unless you gutted some of them to make way for the racial ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My preference takes a different angle... I want Feats to enable bold new actions and anything that doesn't to be called something else.
So, by that metric, anything that increases proficency would not be considered a Feat (except maybe untrained to trained as that unlocks some actions) but Skill Feats, for instance, would remain as is. Marginal improvement is not a feat...but it is important for a system.
As noted elsewhere... I'm fond of separating profiency out completely into it's own system (skill increases joined by defense increases and offense increases) letting feats focus on being exciting (rather than mandatory).
That all influences naming.
--| Traits for non-actions (toughness and kind).
--| Profiency for TEML improvement.
--| Feats for new actions.
Class, Skill, Ancestry would remain but contain Traits and Feats.
I like the Feat name. It quickly confers this is a configurable option for some aspect of the game. It is the name that kind of options took since I started playing that game, which creates an important emotional link with my past and somehow helps me feel I am still playing that game I love and have spent most of my leisure time with.
Of course, I have an opinion of my own.
I want ancestry feats to become backgrounds. No, I do not mean an overlap with the Background feature of Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Instead, I want ancestry feats to be absorbed into the backgrounds. Any ancestry feat that is genetic will be automatically given by the ancestry and any ancestry feat that is cultural would become a background. For example, we currently have Weapon Familiarity under Dwarf ancestry.
WEAPON FAMILIARITY (DWARF) FEAT 1
Dwarf
Your kin have instilled in you an affinity for hardhitting weapons, and you prefer them to more elegant arms.
You are trained with the battleaxe, pick, and warhammer. In addition, you gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons. For the purpose of proficiencies, you treat martial dwarf weapons as simple weapons and exotic dwarf weapons as martial weapons.It would become:
DWARVEN WARRIOR BACKGROUND
Prerequisite You must have dwarf ancestry.
As a warrior in your dwarven clan, you gained an affinity for hardhitting weapons from your kin.
Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Strength or Constitution, and one is a free ability boost.
You are trained with the battleaxe, pick, and warhammer. In addition, you gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons. For the purpose of proficiencies, you treat martial dwarf weapons as simple weapons and exotic dwarf weapons as martial weapons.
You’re trained in the Warfare Lore skill.Class feats would claim the name feat. Characters would receive a feat at 1st level and every even level.
Skill and general feats would be merged and renamed lesson. Characters would receive a lesson at every odd level, including 1st level.
Feats would be stronger in combat than lessons that apply to combat. But lessons would have more uses out of combat. The ancestry feat part of a background could be pretty weak, more like a Pathfinder 1st Edition trait, because other parts of the background could make up for it.
While I have my own issues with ancestry feats, I don't much care for this solution. I would rather keep a "job" separate from a race. After all, this sort of system would necessitate having to create a "warrior" version for all the core races, than a scholar, than a merchant, and so forth. I'd rather characters just pick up those options if they want them for the build via a feat.
My own personal stake on all these names is that its mostly a semantic issue that I don't really have a strong opinion on. If renaming things differently allows less confusion over the power level of a skill feat vs a class feat, by all means go ahead. If new players find using feat for everything more helpful, than that is okay too.
While I have my own issues with ancestry feats, I don't much care for this solution. I would rather keep a "job" separate from a race. After all, this sort of system would necessitate having to create a "warrior" version for all the core races, than a scholar, than a merchant, and so forth. I'd rather characters just pick up those options if they want them for the build via a feat.
My vision also has a Dwarven Giantslayer based on the Ancestral Hatred and Giant Bane dwarf feats, a Dwarven Mountaineer based on Mountain Roots and Rock Runner dwarf feats, and a Dwarven Stoneworker based on the Stonecunning dwarf feat. And similiar ancestry-based backgrounds for all ancestries, such as Shoanti Tribesman for human nomads.
If a job, such as Giant Bane, is given by an ancestry feat, is is separate from the race? For Dwarven Warrior, I removed the Quick Repair feat from the Warrior background and replaced it with the Weapon Familiarity (Dwarf) feat. Adding the ancestry requirement was the only other change. I suppose I could have created a generic version, Hammer Warrior, without the ancestry requirement and simply said as flavor that dwarves favor the Hammer Warrior background.
The background thing does sound interesting, but I think that would just bloat the already giant background list we have unless you gutted some of them to make way for the racial ones.
My plans would expand that list of 19 backgrounds on pages 38 and 39 three-fold! That would be six whole pages.
Add in that the Doomsday Dawn book added six campaign-based backgrounds to the 19 in the rulebook, and I predict lots of background bloat even without my backgrounds that are transplanted ancestry feats.
My vision also has a Dwarven Giantslayer based on the Ancestral Hatred and Giant Bane dwarf feats, a Dwarven Mountaineer based on Mountain Roots and Rock Runner dwarf feats, and a Dwarven Stoneworker based on the Stonecunning dwarf feat. And similiar ancestry-based backgrounds for all ancestries, such as Shoanti Tribesman for human nomads.
I like this set-up and I suspect that system as is would naturally drift in this direction (e.g. each splatbook will introduce more backgrounds and eventually they'll start to get into this terrain).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ancestry: gives you your base stats in my ideal system.
Heredity: gives you a package of physical Heredity Benefits for a given sub-race.
Background: I like the idea of rolling ancestry feats into backgrounds, but then you would need to have either a ton of alternate background benefits for each ancestry and/or heritage, or have a subcategory of backgrounds with a cultural trait that you can gain in addition to your main background. This has potential, though. I would roll language options into here too.
Class Feature: basic training you get for free.
Class Option: specialized training you can choose to invest in. No longer has the feel of paying a feat tax to buy back options. I'd also make both spell slots and spell proficiency into class options so every class has the same number of options. It would also facilitate players that want to build half-casters with more metamagic options.
General Talent: this is where I'm actually putting ancestry feats and general feats. Both original pools are rolled into one set with appropriate traits and prerequisites. (I also advocate archetype feats being general instead of costing class options.)
Skill Achievement: skill feats.
End result:
1 Ancestry
1 Heredity / 4 Heredity Benefits
3 Backgrounds (1 professional, 1 heritage, 1 cultural)
11 Class Options
10 General Feats
10 Skill Achievements
Aren't they kind of like that already? I'm fairly certain every skill feat also has the general tag, and in fact I thought this meant you could take a skill feat as a general feat. If this is not the case then I can see where there's some confusion. I still can't understand why the rest are confusing people though...Class Feature
Ancestry Boon
Skill Talent
General FeatIf we HAVE to keep Skill Feats, I think Talent works, but I still think Skill Feats need to just be General Feats that have a '/Skill'/ Trait so that Rogues still have to choose from that List.
Power levels. They are all called feats, yet some types are obviously far more powerful than others.
There is a lot of baggage with the term feat, too. That is where a lot of the feelings people have that they are being forced to "buy" back things that were "free" in 1e comes from. So it isn't so much confusion as it is lack of clarity, and a connection to preconceived notions.