| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Concepts that are viable/possible that don't depend on power or things that should be level gated (teleport) should be possible from level 1. It is good to let players play the character they want to play from as now level as possible.
Low levels are the most often played levels, level 1 is the most common level to start at. So if a concept is viable at higher levels, but not lower levels, that's a lot of waiting for a player to play the concept they want to play.
For example: Someone wants to make a heavily armored Wizard, a very normal thing that has no conceptual reason in to be restricted to higher level. It's impossible at level 1, at level 2 it's possible with Paladin roleplay restrictions (that aren't related to the concept). At level 3 it's possible as a human with Fighter dedication (a more acceptable multiclass restriction), but not possible for a non-human, non-Fighter MC until level 11. But the Ability score increases make it very easy to have a dexterity score of 16 that makes heavy armor strictly worse than medium armor, which you could get just with the 4 boosts every 5 levels at level 10.
Trading power now for power later is awful. Playing a character at level X doesn't mean it will be played at level Y to balance out, people switch characters. And a level is a very long time of playing, so a concept being weaker or stronger at a certain level has a very apparent effect that isn't balanced out by other levels.
There are a lot of things that should start at level 1:
Characters should be able to play a multiclass character from level 1.
The relative distribution of ability scores defines what the character concept/is better worse at. That kind of thing should change with retraining, not leveling up.
The balance between casters and martials should be the same across levels 1-20. Balancing at will vs limited use abilities is one thing, but having some classes be weaker at low levels in exchange for being stronger at high levels is not fun. Currently some spellcasters are relatively weaker compared to martials at low levels than they are at high levels.
The relative effectiveness of various combat styles shouldn't change from level 1-20. Currently 2 handed damage does 1d12+4=10.5 / 1d8+4=8.5 = 23.5% more damage at level 1, but 6d12+7=46 / 6d8+7=34 = 35.3% more at level 20. And a high Dex character with no Str does 1d6=3.5 / 1d6+4=7.5 = 46.7% of a high Str character with the same weapon at level 1, but 6d6=21 / 6d6+7=28 = 75% at level 20. Also a shortbow user might do 1d6=3.5 / 1d12+4=10.5 = 33.3% of a 2 handed weapon user at level 1, but 6d6+2=23 / 6d12+7 = 50% at level 20. Those relative differences shouldn't change so much, how comparatively effective different concepts are shouldn't change so much with level.
Some things obviously should change with level. Characters should be more powerful at higher level, their bonuses to hit and their damage should increase with their level. Some amount of their endurance, or amount of resources, should increase with level, but they should still have a meaningful amount for their concept starting from level 1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested in this subject. I recently tried to make my own game system based on the idea that all characters should feel awesome, and I found it hard to decide what should be restricted to higher levels. If flight is going to be a thing the GM has to deal with, why not have it available from level 1 for someone who wants to specialise in that? If teleportation doesn't break high-level play, then it doesn't (necessarily) break low level play.
A lot of things make more sense for a character to have from day one than for them to pick it up while adventuring (languages, darkvision, etc.) And if your character concept is "greataxe-wielding spellcaster" then you shouldn't have to start out as a non-greataxe-wielding spellcaster or greataxe-wielding non-caster at level 1.
But if you give the player everything at level 1, levelling up won't mean much. So my question is: what would you like to start out with, and what would you prefer to wait for?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having magic is considered an important asset for a character, and for good reason.
Being able to wear heavy armor is considered a strong asset too, though we could discuss the real benefit it gives in the playtest.
The point is, you can't have everything 'for free' at level 1.
You say: but that way I have to wait a lot of time to fulfill my character concept!
It's true. Tone it down, make your character grow into what you figure it to be.
What is my character concept is "a heavily-armored Wizard who rages in battle with her greataxe, and can inspire the same courage into her allies via rousing speeches"?
I'm exaggerating, but maybe not too much. There's nothing wrong in such a character concept, it's just not feasible at level 1; or else the Bard, the Barbarian and the Sorcerer in the group will give you very bad looks.
What if my character concept is "a heavily-armored Wizard who rages in battle with her greataxe, and can inspire the same courage into her allies via rousing speeches"?
The thing is, that could exist without breaking game balance. A character like that who could cast one spell per day, and rage for two rounds per day, and use bardic performance for one round per day, and who had MAD stat requirements, and whose hit points and accuracy weren't as good as a Fighter doesn't sound overpowered to me.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue I take with the "All(most all) concepts should be available at first level" mindset is that it feels like it's a very lazy way to do things, it basically means you don't really want to explore things like "Why did the wizard start using a greataxe?" so much as you just want the wizard with the greataxe. Who knows, maybe he was a normal wizard and he only used the greataxe as a desperate last stand to save his party when all his spells ran out and he never learned a damage cantrip. From there he just liked using the greataxe and got the Fighter or Barbarian to teach him how to use one. Or he used one he scavenged to chop down trees in the wilderness to keep himself warm when he got lost in the high alpine mountains and since that axe saved his life he's going to keep it and learn how to use it.
Stuff like that is what you rip out of the game if you can ship out a ready made concept at level one with all the bells, whistles and trimmings. I think that the idea that level one characters aren't particularly that awesome or are really not that far off from their non adventuring counterparts brings them a bit of a humanity that frankly a lot of PF2 characters I've seen in the past, have utterly lacked.
TL,DR; you do you, I think it's a bit lazy but I don't speak for the world so rock on buddy. :)
In a normal D&D-type game, the wizard won't use the greataxe in a desperate last stand to save the party (and then adopt it into his build later). Unless the player is completely incompetent (or the PC is a secret greataxe-specialist wizard who doesn't carry a greataxe) there's going to be a better option than picking up a weapon he doesn't know how to use because he lacks the weapon proficiency and the stats to be competent in melee.
Maybe that would make a good system, though: adaptive feats that aren't defined until you need them. If you unexpectedly need to be good at a particular weapon (or whatver), you gain that ability, but from then on it's permanent and you can't change it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly just think that you should be happy that some of these options are even available in PF2. They weren’t in PF1 no matter what level you were. While some people disagree, I think that the new multiclassing system is a vast improvement over PF1s. For the theoretical wizard that has been mentioned, he would never be able to wear that heavy armor and cast spells very reliably, and would never be able to hit more than the broad side of a barn with that great axe. If he also wanted to rage or inspire courage it would directly stunt his spell casting progression. In my opinion PF2 all of a sudden looks a bit more accommodating and that’s just the playtest not core or later books when other classes are added.
Disclaimer: I don’t know every feat chain, item or weird rule interaction in PF1 so exceptions to the stuff I said above may well exist and I just don’t know about them. If they do exist I would still call them exceptions not the rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly just think that you should be happy that some of these options are even available in PF2.I think you're missing the point. Maybe the OP's example of a wizard wielding a greataxe was a little extreme, but an ability that is only available at a high level is in some ways worse than that ability not existing at all. At least if it doesn't exist, it can be added in a later splatbook or be achieved by a player's creativity.
If a player wants Blind Fight, its very existance as a tenth level feat precludes its use for at least half the game.
Correct me if I’m wrong but a large part of what the OP seems to be complaining about is the D20 level and class model in general. If you want someone running around in full plate throwing around disintegrate and teleport at 1st level you are looking for a different system. The D20 systems are built around the idea that certain things require alot of experience and dedication to achieve and will come at the cost of not being able to learn something else. The Golarion setting and others are built around that. Sorry, I don’t know what to tell you other than that you’re SOL and need to look elsewhere.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blind-Fighting being restricted to 10th level characters sounds very different from Teleport and Disintegrate being restricted to 10th level characters. A level 1 wizard with a Great-axe and Blind-fighting was possible in PF1 (albeit not very optimal) if you took the right feats/traits. A level 1 wizard in platemail was not, but could exist if we wanted it to (and could be balanced out with a small spell failure %).
Incidentally, in my experimental D20 system, all spells start at level 1 and can be heightened, including the ones you named. So a Disintegrate might say something like: "Make a ranged spell attack. On a hit, the target takes 2d6 damage per Tier of the spell. If the target is reduced below 0 hit points, they turn to dust." And a first Tier Teleport spell might have a range limit of 20 feet.
My example might not have gotten across what I was getting at, the 1st half of the OP’s post can be summed up as: Level 1 characters should have immediate access to all innate class abilities, all feats and all spells.
Now there are plenty of systems where this is true, though they almost universally don’t have a class and level system because they are irrelevant with that setup. They can be quite good and I play some of them myself but PF and other d20 games are not in that group of systems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested in this subject. I recently tried to make my own game system based on the idea that all characters should feel awesome, and I found it hard to decide what should be restricted to higher levels. If flight is going to be a thing the GM has to deal with, why not have it available from level 1 for someone who wants to specialise in that? If teleportation doesn't break high-level play, then it doesn't (necessarily) break low level play.
This is a huge part of why I like Spheres of Power so well. It removes most level gates. The reason it can do that is that you are not able to change your abilities from day to day (with a couple of very limited exceptions). You get abilities from level 1 that are capable of trivializing a specific kind of challenge, like surviving in the wilderness without water. Since you can't change your abilities, though, that's a fairly permanent part of your character. You can't decide to only trivialize need for water when you're in a desert. That means two things. One, one character can't trivialize most challenges. Two, a GM can reliably make a character have an opportunity to shine by providing a problem they are well-equipped for and can reliably challenge a character/party by ensuring there are problems for which the group does not have a silver bullet.
If you allow a character to have access to all abilities (even if not all on a given day), then you have to make sure no ability is overly disruptive. You have to pick between access to all abilities but none are powerful enough to be truly disruptive or access to only some abilities but they can be disruptive. High level Vancian magic is such a narrative problem because it gives complete access to an enormous list of highly disruptive abilities.
In case my conclusion isn't clear by this point, dynamically swappable abilities is the problem. Martial Flexibility, prepared Vancian spellcasters, etc are what need to go.
Having magic is considered an important asset for a character, and for good reason.
Being able to wear heavy armor is considered a strong asset too, though we could discuss the real benefit it gives in the playtest.
The point is, you can't have everything 'for free' at level 1.You say: but that way I have to wait a lot of time to fulfill my character concept!
It's true. Tone it down, make your character grow into what you figure it to be.
What is my character concept is "a heavily-armored Wizard who rages in battle with her greataxe, and can inspire the same courage into her allies via rousing speeches"?
I'm exaggerating, but maybe not too much. There's nothing wrong in such a character concept, it's just not feasible at level 1; or else the Bard, the Barbarian and the Sorcerer in the group will give you very bad looks.
You don't need everything free at level 1. There should be possible tradeoffs, like using your first level class feat on a wizard to get heavy armor proficiency instead of something related to better casting (I know they don't currently get a level 1 class feat, but all classes should to have some free choice and make interesting combinations from level 1).
Heavy armor isn't some very powerful thing. Currently armor needs to be reworked, but even after a rework heavy armor should still have some tradeoffs. So heavy armor is not always better, but what you want to wear depends on your ability scores. Wizards will still like Dex for ranged touch attacks and reflex saves, so heavy armor shouldn't be some great boon. Currently Paladin dedication gives heavy armor, it isn't too powerful for a class feat. Or their could be a class feat for medium armor and some other benefit. But the armor system needs complete change, and things will have to be balanced from whatever the new system looks like.
For the inspiring courage, there absolutely should be a level 1 enchantment school power/spell that inspires/boosts your allies.
Well inspire courage is a cantrip, it’s just only available to bards. Plus there’s a divine 1st level full party buff called bless, though I’m not sure that it’s enchantment.
You don't need everything free at level 1. There should be possible tradeoffs, like using your first level class feat on a wizard to get heavy armor proficiency instead of something related to better casting (I know they don't currently get a level 1 class feat, but all classes should to have some free choice and make interesting combinations from level 1).While I think something similar to this should come at some point. I don't think this should be in the core rulebook, but rather something to implement in an advanced players guide instead.
Understandable, but Wizards will need a level 1 class feat for it to be possible.
Understandable, but Wizards will need a level 1 class feat for it to be possible.Or lose Arcane School (it would make sense that a warrior wizard with better weapon and armor proficiency never had the time to specialize in a certain school or get the benefits of universal knowledge) or maybe lose the Arcane Focus if the other is too high a price.
All good options, but I think the balance of the wizard class as a whole needs quite a change. Having most of their power come from spell slots means they scale in power a lot more than other classes, since each spell level is stronger than the last (clerics and bards have less of this problem because a lot of their power comes from channel energy/inspire courage, which keeps about the same power from 1 to 20).
I'd like if getting the school powers wasn't automatic, but you could use a class feat to select one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, "Wizard who has Hvy Armour Proficiency with the trade-off of a limited access to spells" already exists. It's The Cleric.
There's certainly a lot of class concepts that should be viable at level 1, because they're cool ideas. But once you get into specific mechanics and powers like teleporting, that feels expendable. I'd be happy with power/spells that encouraged mobility at low levels that moved up to teleportation at mid-levels.
I mean, "Wizard who has Hvy Armour Proficiency with the trade-off of a limited access to spells" already exists. It's The Cleric.
There's certainly a lot of class concepts that should be viable at level 1, because they're cool ideas. But once you get into specific mechanics and powers like teleporting, that feels expendable. I'd be happy with power/spells that encouraged mobility at low levels that moved up to teleportation at mid-levels.
That's not the concept of cleric at all? They follow gods for their power, that's a pretty different conceptual difference.
And yeah, things like teleportation should be level gated.
And yeah, things like teleportation should be level gated.
OK, but why? I can certainly imagine a teleportation specialist who can perform limited forms of teleportation from level 1 without breaking the game. That could be an interesting character theme - moving allies into useful positions, teleporting objects so they fall on an enemy's head, shifting enemies short distances to drop them off a convenient cliff...
Is it to make levelling up to the point where you can teleport more exciting? Is it to make it easier for adventure designers who can make a low-level dungeon and be confident that the PCs won't be able to 'cheat' their way around it?
And yeah, things like teleportation should be level gated.OK, but why? I can certainly imagine a teleportation specialist who can perform limited forms of teleportation from level 1 without breaking the game. That could be an interesting character theme - moving allies into useful positions, teleporting objects so they fall on an enemy's head, shifting enemies short distances to drop them off a convenient cliff...
Is it to make levelling up to the point where you can teleport more exciting? Is it to make it easier for adventure designers who can make a low-level dungeon and be confident that the PCs won't be able to 'cheat' their way around it?
I would like to level gate it for world building reasons. If teleportation was available at level 1 it could be considered normal and not significant, but I guess limiting it and restricting it to specialists could also work for that.
I guess to me teleportation just feels like something very powerful. But i guess summoning monsters is also possible at level 1, so limited teleportation should be fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having every concept available immediately eliminates progression. "Everything is the same, just with bigger numbers" is not interesting progression, it's just number inflation.
It's perfectly okay to have things you can't do at level 1 that you can do later. Yes, that might include heavy armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having every concept available immediately eliminates progression. "Everything is the same, just with bigger numbers" is not interesting progression, it's just number inflation.
It's perfectly okay to have things you can't do at level 1 that you can do later. Yes, that might include heavy armor.
Obviously everything shouldn't be available for a given character, but they should be able to do their main thing, which should be more complicated than "I cast spells" or "I use weapons".
And you still have progression, at higher levels you can do more things with more power.
No, not really. If every concept should be available at level 1, every option needed to build every concept needs to be available at level 1. Otherwise, you don't really meet the goal.
A wizard who wants to learn to wear armor has a goal, and gets to progress to meet it. Just having everyone able to do that right off the bat eliminates that progression and creates bland sameness amongst all the classes instead.
If that's the goal, what you probably really want is a classless system.
Yes, I think classless (or loose classes, like Martial / Trickster / Caster) is what I want. A system where you can choose "Teleportation Magic" and "Armored Caster" at level 1 to fit your Teleportation Knight concept. As you level up you can choose to gain further abilities, like Rage or Summoning Magic.
No, not really. If every concept should be available at level 1, every option needed to build every concept needs to be available at level 1. Otherwise, you don't really meet the goal.
With a limited number of selections you won't be able to take all the options, my point was for a given character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The crux isn't that many people want to play the full extent of every concept from level 1, but to have the full set of seeds for their concept. If my idea is a mage that throws meteors and turns into a fire elemental, I don't want that from level 1, but I might want fire magic so those things have something to naturally progress from. If I want to play a heavily armoured mage that uses magic super adamtine full plate, it might be reasonable that there's some armour option at level 1 for that to grow from.
where the line is drawn is the question. Is casting in armour too strong for level 1? What about limited flight as some races might get? A swim speed? Having an animal companion? What levels is it valid for these to come into play? If it's above 1, what seeds can a character plant early to grow ino them? Every option must be examined individually, and these answers might change as teh game evolves and splat books happen.
The crux isn't that many people want to play the full extent of every concept from level 1, but to have the full set of seeds for their concept. If my idea is a mage that throws meteors and turns into a fire elemental, I don't want that from level 1, but I might want fire magic so those things have something to naturally progress from. If I want to play a heavily armoured mage that uses magic super adamtine full plate, it might be reasonable that there's some armour option at level 1 for that to grow from.
where the line is drawn is the question. Is casting in armour too strong for level 1? What about limited flight as some races might get? A swim speed? Having an animal companion? What levels is it valid for these to come into play? If it's above 1, what seeds can a character plant early to grow ino them? Every option must be examined individually, and these answers might change as teh game evolves and splat books happen.
I see your point.
For casting in armor I chose it as an example because it's something that's not to strong that it should be disallowed in the current setup. But if the system was different then yes it might not be good to allow heavy armor at level 1, but some other armor instead.
More important to me is concepts and combat styles stay somewhat consistent in their viability. Not having wizards start worse than fighters, but get more of an increase in power as they level. Or having heavy armor get worse as characters level because ability scores increase so much. Or monks starting with lower AC than medium armor users, but ending up with very high AC. Or strength mattering a lot for damage at level 1, but having that benefit relatively decrease as they level. Or weapon damage scaling less than monster HP so encounters should end up longer, but having damage spells scale at the same rate as monster HP and affecting more targets as the level becomes higher so encounters should end up shorter.
Is casting in armour too strong for level 1? What about limited flight as some races might get? A swim speed? Having an animal companion? What levels is it valid for these to come into play?
Those are pretty fundamental questions, and all game systems are going to have their own answer.
The reason I was experimenting with my own game system was to see if I could answer "yes" without breaking everything. Turning into a fire elemental at level 1? Yes! With limited duration, of course. Throw meteors too? Yes! As long as they're fairly small and weak. Fly with wings whenever you want? Yes! Since that's going to be a possibility, we'll design the world so that all enemies you're likely to meet outdoors have a ranged option or their own flying ability...
PF2 was looking like a system where the answer was often "no", as is D&D 5e, so it seemed like there could be a gap in the market...
I'm okay with the PF2 (aka D&D4) multiclass system, but I also don't think it is a complete solution. Its good at some things, but not others. Better would be having several different multiclass options, which is admittedly tricky with the PF2 rules.
Imagine if all three multiclass systems were available together:
D&D1/D&D2 - Simultaneous Class advancement.
D&D3/PF1 - Class chosen upon reaching a new level.
D&D4/PF2 - Multiclass through Feats.
You could have a character who started as a Paladin who dabbled in Sorcery, adventured for a bit, became a Fallen Paladin, and served as a Rogue for a bit before finding his calling as a Fighter/Wizard.
Level 1 - Paladin 2
Level 2 - Paladin w/Sorcerer Discipline 2
Level 3 - Fallen Paladin w/Sorcerer 2 + Rogue 1
Level 4 - Fallen Paladin w/Sorcerer 2 + Rogue 2
Level 5 - Fallen Paladin w/Sorcerer 2 + Rogue 2 + Fighter 1/Wizard 1
Alas, all of this would be moot if players were free to design their own character classes. That would be a significant step forward.
Is casting in armour too strong for level 1? What about limited flight as some races might get? A swim speed? Having an animal companion? What levels is it valid for these to come into play?Those are pretty fundamental questions, and all game systems are going to have their own answer.
The reason I was experimenting with my own game system was to see if I could answer "yes" without breaking everything. Turning into a fire elemental at level 1? Yes! With limited duration, of course. Throw meteors too? Yes! As long as they're fairly small and weak. Fly with wings whenever you want? Yes! Since that's going to be a possibility, we'll design the world so that all enemies you're likely to meet outdoors have a ranged option or their own flying ability...
PF2 was looking like a system where the answer was often "no", as is D&D 5e, so it seemed like there could be a gap in the market...
But where does it end? Is it just the GMs job to say yes all the time and balance the game themselves? Because at that point you're not really playing an RPG you're making your own. I have enough stuff I need to do to GM a game. I don't want to have to create the game while GMing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's the game system's job to say Yes, and the GM's job to put up with whatever ridiculous thing the player creates as a result. That's the Pathfinder 1 way!
But where does it end? Is it just the GMs job to say yes all the time and balance the game themselves? Because at that point you're not really playing an RPG you're making your own. I have enough stuff I need to do to GM a game. I don't want to have to create the game while GMing.Is casting in armour too strong for level 1? What about limited flight as some races might get? A swim speed? Having an animal companion? What levels is it valid for these to come into play?Those are pretty fundamental questions, and all game systems are going to have their own answer.
The reason I was experimenting with my own game system was to see if I could answer "yes" without breaking everything. Turning into a fire elemental at level 1? Yes! With limited duration, of course. Throw meteors too? Yes! As long as they're fairly small and weak. Fly with wings whenever you want? Yes! Since that's going to be a possibility, we'll design the world so that all enemies you're likely to meet outdoors have a ranged option or their own flying ability...
PF2 was looking like a system where the answer was often "no", as is D&D 5e, so it seemed like there could be a gap in the market...
His point was to make a system with all those options. The GM wouldn't have to do anything.
I mean, "Wizard who has Hvy Armour Proficiency with the trade-off of a limited access to spells" already exists. It's The Cleric.That's not the concept of cleric at all? They follow gods for their power, that's a pretty different conceptual difference.
The difference between a Divine Necromancer's spells and an Arcane Necromancer's spells is largely a matter of flavour text and campaign expectations. Whatever source the rulesbook says their class' spells come from (bloodline, spellbooks, nature, deities) is 100% flavour text, and can be switched out as groups like it.
The difference between a Divine Necromancer's spells and an Arcane Necromancer's spells is largely a matter of flavour text and campaign expectations. Whatever source the rulesbook says their class' spells come from (bloodline, spellbooks, nature, deities) is 100% flavour text, and can be switched out as groups like it.I mean, "Wizard who has Hvy Armour Proficiency with the trade-off of a limited access to spells" already exists. It's The Cleric.That's not the concept of cleric at all? They follow gods for their power, that's a pretty different conceptual difference.
There are also a lot of mechanical differences in the spells they have access too, like healing spells vs damage/control spells. Having to ignore all those other spells is a bit too limiting (even some of the necromancy spells are different)
That's another example of something that becomes very confusing when you try to design your own d20 system.
There's no logical reason we couldn't have medical wizards who specialise in healing magic. And why should a cleric of the fire god have to be good at healing / negative energy? But if you abandon the traditional spell list divide, what's left to distinguish divine and arcane from one another?
That's another example of something that becomes very confusing when you try to design your own d20 system.
There's no logical reason we couldn't have medical wizards who specialise in healing magic. And why should a cleric of the fire god have to be good at healing / negative energy? But if you abandon the traditional spell list divide, what's left to distinguish divine and arcane from one another?
Other class features. You could also have methods for each character to construct the list of spells they have access to, with each kind of wizard/cleric having access to different spells. Than some spells would have more clerics/kinds of clerics being able/easier to gain access to some spells and more wizards/kinds of wizards being able/easier to gain access to other spells.
Heavily armored wizards aren't a balance issue, but they're also not very accessible until later levels, which is against the explicitly stated goals of PF2 to make character concepts work at lower levels. It's why we have the new multiclassing system, because hand picking what features you want for your character concept instead of a whole package that you're mostly ignoring means concepts can get off the ground faster.
I think things like battle wizards can be handled with archetypes that have a spellcasting requirement. If you take the dedication feat, you gain access to heavy armor, and then there's other archetype feats you can take to further push the battlemage concept - limited weapon use, still using blasting magic primarily, but a more war-themed dealio where the wizard is more about using spells to become a good frontline combatant using touch attacks or something.
I had a similar writeup for flying races, where a Strix or similar race by default can't fly, but meet the prerequisite for the Flyer archetype that's available at level 1 for any race that has wings. You could be a flightless member of the race if you choose, but you can spend class feats, stat boosts, whatever to get higher level things earlier. It at least lays a possible way to grant powerful effects for particular concepts without needing to adjust the vanilla options available to most characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never start a campaign below level 3 personally. Low level characters are boring and squishy. You'd really have to give level ones a lot to make me want to play as or run a game for them.
My favorite range in PF1 to play and DM for is 10+, because that's when things get exciting.
I had a similar writeup for flying races[/url], where a Strix or similar race by default can't fly, but meet the prerequisite for the Flyer archetype that's available at level 1 for any race that has wings. You could be a flightless member of the race if you choose, but you can spend class feats, stat boosts, whatever to get higher level things earlier. It at least lays a possible way to grant powerful effects for particular concepts without needing to adjust the vanilla options available to most characters.
I see this as a case for less siloing. With less siloing, heritage feats might be able to do this.