| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There seem to be many who have issues not with the class system itself, just with the choices made for some of the class features in relation to character concept flexibility.
A possible solution could be to limit class features to only the most basic ones, and the more controversial ones could be made into feats instead.
Alternatively, every class feature could be converted into feats instead to maximize customization.
Does this sound feasible or am I crazy? Thoughts?
It is feasible. Many systems do already, though the only one I know of is GURPS (which I've also not played). You get the advantage of being able to customize your character to the fullest, but the disadvantage of being relatively unapproachable. Similar to Pathfinder 1, imagine gaining a level where you can select a feat, and you trawl through the list of 1000 options. Classes provide a good framework to make interacting with the system easier. You select your class at first level, and have a limited selection of feats that go along with that class's character every other level.
Goodbye Woodland Stride...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If class features were converted into feats and given extra feat slots, then martials would end up with almost double the class feat slots of casters, since casters gain almost no class features as it is.
This would then exacerbate the issue of martials being innately better at multiclassing due to having more class feats to spend.
Not to mention that you might as well collapse most martial classes into each other at this point, since there wouldn't be much to differentiate them from each other.
Plus if you tried to avoid this by giving casters the same number of class feats now that all features are class feats, martials will complain that casters get the same number of class feats and spells, which would make them seem innately better.
Overall, I think this approach would have too many problems to be worth it. Especially considering that I personally like each class having some sort of unique identity, which often comes from their core class features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would then exacerbate the issue of martials being innately better at multiclassing due to having more class feats to spend.
Don't all classes gain the same number of class feats? The exception being many classes get one of their level 1 feats based on some other selection (eg. Druid order), but you can't multiclass with level 1 feats anyway. Sorcerers were updated to get class feats the same as other classes so as to not be forced into developing their bloodline for those who didn't want to, though honestly they could probably just get the bloodline improvements for free, rather than having to spend class feats on them since at first glance sorcerers seem the weakest of the bunch.
Edit: Just reviewed, I did not realize that Expert / Master spellcaster stole the spot of a class feat. That seems odd considering Legendary spellcaster does not....
Not to mention that class differentiation is maintained by the fact that feats are class locked.
Unless you mean by way of multi-class dedications.
A trait could be added to prevent some of the converted features from being used for multi-class dedications.
I think the feat selection disparity could be an issue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Just reviewed, I did not realize that Expert / Master spellcaster stole the spot of a class feat. That seems odd considering Legendary spellcaster does not....
Yup, most full casters currently lose out on 3 class feats compared to others at levels 1, 12, and 16. While the first level feat can't be used for Multiclass Dedication, it is an opportunity to get something from your primary class prior to multiclassing, so it is still relevant for characters looking to multiclass.
As for Legendary Spellcasting, that likely doesn't count as a class feat because casters do not naturally gain a new level of spells when they hit 19th level. The intent seems to be that casters cannot get both a spell level increase and a class feature at the same time, which means the only spot for Expert/Master is to remove class feats (which sucks, because the feature doesn't actually do anything when all casters get it at the same time & all enemies factor the bonus into their saves).
Unless you mean by way of multi-class dedications.
A trait could be added to prevent some of the converted features from being used for multi-class dedications.
No offense, but have you thought about what the reaction to such a trait would be? People are already complaining that they can't cherry pick certain powerful class features (DEX dmg) through multiclassing. Can you image how they'd respond to a trait which did nothing except limit "pick a class feat" to "pick a class feat, except not those which have trait X?"
I’d really like to see more customization possibilities, a Class Feat every level really seems like a good thing to me.
Urg, are we really bringing back a thread where basically everyone who chimed in said, "This would be awful?" You just want to strip the only notable class feature off casters and force 99% of them to buy it back with feats. Which would then be in addition to having to buy back proficiency increases in order to keep up with enemy saves. So between levels 11-17, casters would only get 1 real choice of feat while other classes got around 6 feat choices. Not exactly very fun.
At this point, if both spells and class features are stripped from all classes and turned into feats - what you really want is a classless system. At most with some type of "path" that limits selecting feats outside of your path you picked being 1/2 your level at max. Because otherwise, you've stripped classes to the point of being meaningless - which is coincidentally one of the main complaints against Ancestries which should be getting an update later today to help address that exact problem.
No offense, but have you thought about what the reaction to such a trait would be? People are already complaining that they can't cherry pick certain powerful class features (DEX dmg) through multiclassing. Can you image how they'd respond to a trait which did nothing except limit "pick a class feat" to "pick a class feat, except not those which have trait X?"
I didn't because it would be no different than how it multiclass builds work now.
Right now you can't pick which class features you get from a dedication.If you take some or all class features and convert them to feats with a "Feature" trait that prevents it to be picked through dedications, then multi-class builds lose nothing.
Actual members of the class gain greater flexibility, which is my intent with this idea.
At this point, if both spells and class features are stripped from all classes and turned into feats - what you really want is a classless system. At most with some type of "path" that limits selecting feats outside of your path you picked being 1/2 your level at max. Because otherwise, you've stripped classes to the point of being meaningless - which is coincidentally one of the main complaints against Ancestries which should be getting an update later today to help address that exact problem.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
And it would require all class feats to not be class locked which I know no one is suggesting.
If class features were converted into feats and given extra feat slots, then martials would end up with almost double the class feat slots of casters, since casters gain almost no class features as it is.
Kinda like how Rogues get literally are just given 2x the number of Skill Feats?
Yeah I'd think that is the sort of thing that would require re-balancing.
No offense, but have you thought about what the reaction to such a trait would be? People are already complaining that they can't cherry pick certain powerful class features (DEX dmg) through multiclassing. Can you image how they'd respond to a trait which did nothing except limit "pick a class feat" to "pick a class feat, except not those which have trait X?"I didn't because it would be no different than how it multiclass builds work now.
Right now you can't pick which class features you get from a dedication.
If you take some or all class features and convert them to feats with a "Feature" trait that prevents it to be picked through dedications, then multi-class builds lose nothing.
Actual members of the class gain greater flexibility, which is my intent with this idea.
The end result may be the same, but the perception would change greatly. Instead of "you can pick feats, features are not feats" you would change it to "you can pick feats, but not those feats." Which naturally lends greater weight to the question of "Why not?" Especially when proponents use the same argument of wanting greater flexibility to justify why there shouldn't be an additional, seemingly artificial, restriction of selecting one feat over another feat of the exact same category.
Flexibility can be nice, but too much can destroy any attempts at identity in my opinion. Take the chained summoner's eidolon in PF1. While the intent was certainly to have their great flexibility allow players to make any theme they wanted, not once did I see a thematic Eidolon at my table. Not a single one even had a name or personality, they were just formless amalgamations of whatever features were seen as most powerful.
At this point, if both spells and class features are stripped from all classes and turned into feats - what you really want is a classless system. At most with some type of "path" that limits selecting feats outside of your path you picked being 1/2 your level at max. Because otherwise, you've stripped classes to the point of being meaningless - which is coincidentally one of the main complaints against Ancestries which should be getting an update later today to help address that exact problem.I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
And it would require all class feats to not be class locked which I know no one is suggesting.
Not explicitly. But if classes are reduced to a bucket of feats, with the ability to take a feat (Multiclass Dedication) to pull from other buckets of feats, then there is not much left to define being a class. At that point, you'd save precious page space by just making the class section a list of feats and saying you had to pick a starting path from them and couldn't take feats outside that path without multiclass dedication and it's 1/2 level restriction.
And no, I don't agree that optional feats are enough to define something if you can choose not to take them - which was part of people's issues with the original implementation of Ancestries stripping racial features and turning them into feats you had to buy back. And while perception of the 1.4 Ancestries is likely not settled yet, the reactions I've seen so far seem to be a mix of "a step in the right direction" and "not enough" in regards to giving ancestries enough features built in to feel distinct from each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take the chained summoner's eidolon in PF1. While the intent was certainly to have their great flexibility allow players to make any theme they wanted, not once did I see a thematic Eidolon at my table.
To be fair, part of the problem there were that many of the flavorful options were quite underpowered. The 4-EP breath weapon attack, for instance, would have been an interesting option if it were once-every-1d4-rounds like an actual dragon, but once-per-day just made it useless. These options were never addressed in the Unchained Summoner. The problem with the summoner wasn't that he had too many options to cherry pick from, it was that there was a relatively small number of options that vastly outclassed the others. It's very hard to create something thematic like a winged serpent that swallows enemies whole when it is vastly inferior to what you could create by just slapping as many attacks as possible on the thing and calling it a day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The end result may be the same, but the perception would change greatly. Instead of "you can pick feats, features are not feats" you would change it to "you can pick feats, but not those feats." Which naturally lends greater weight to the question of "Why not?" Especially when proponents use the same argument of wanting greater flexibility to justify why there shouldn't be an additional, seemingly artificial, restriction of selecting one feat over another feat of the exact same category.
That is a fair enough point, but there has to be some middle ground.
Even if it's just implementing something like Totems, Orders or Rogue's Technique for every class.They don't all have to have the same choices, but they should have thematically appropriate choices of some kind instead of fully locking down a single exclusive one.
---
...1e Summoner stuff...
Too many choices isn't nearly as big a problem as unbalanced choices, or not having choices at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take the chained summoner's eidolon in PF1. While the intent was certainly to have their great flexibility allow players to make any theme they wanted, not once did I see a thematic Eidolon at my table.
My unchained eidolon is thematic. Per rules I could have one more set of attacks than I do because giving my eidolon more limbs is dumb (ok, ok, I'm working on getting wings, but those are expensive!).
Blue 'bold and his desert drake.
Is the eidolon a friggin' tank? Yes. Can the eidolon hit like a truck? Yes. Is it min-maxed to hell? No.