Meaningful customization


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It's very gamey, and there's gonna be a lot of table variation on whether it breaks suspension of disbelief or not. It's effectively magic, and a lot of people don't like martial characters getting "magic but not magic" type effects.

Personally I've always wanted martial characters to have more magic-adjacent abilities, so it doesn't bother me as much.

Even players who like the feat, though, tend to not react well when it is used against them, I have learned from experience. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

(A little side track)
I can see someone yelling at the arch-mage, "hey your robe stinks and your dissertation could be made by a 5 yr old you faker! You call that magic? My grandma farts with more magic than you have in a pinky finger!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

(A little side track)

I can see someone yelling at the arch-mage, "hey your robe stinks and your dissertation could be made by a 5 yr old you faker! You call that magic? My grandma farts with more magic than you have in a pinky finger!"

Perhaps wisdom.

A great example is Jafar being baited into wishing to be a genie, intelligent doesn't mean wise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

It's very gamey, and there's gonna be a lot of table variation on whether it breaks suspension of disbelief or not. It's effectively magic, and a lot of people don't like martial characters getting "magic but not magic" type effects.

Personally I've always wanted martial characters to have more magic-adjacent abilities, so it doesn't bother me as much.

Even players who like the feat, though, tend to not react well when it is used against them, I have learned from experience. XD

The real issue is that it's basically impossible to oppose the Antagonizer, tbh. 10+HD+Wis is an absolutely trivial check for anyone who would take this feat since they're going to invest character resources into Intimidate being powerful. For comparison, in PF2 Antagonize would be a will save based on your Intimidate DC.


Hmm, an Antagonize like Skill feat that is easy to avoid at low level, but becomes almost impossible to avoid when you become legendary in Intimidate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so a bit back I saw a post saying that it was an issue that your combat style and class features come from the same pool, and as such it draws away from your features to make your combat style work.

I can see where this is coming from but every time I see this argument come up and the inevitable comparison to PF1 I see a very important detail left out.

You don't need NEARLY as much investment to be good at different combat styles as you do in PF1.

In PF1 just to not be trash as an Archer you needed Precise Shot which also required Point Blank Shot. And to keep up at all you needed Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and quite possibly Deadly Aim.

In PF2, to be a decent Archer you need to be proficient with a bow. Bam, assuming you have the Dex to hit (something also needed in PF1) you are now a decent Archer. Now of course there are feats for certain classes to improve on the style, and other classes will need to invest a little more with multiclass to get that, which isn't great. But the gap between a fearless Archer and an Archer focusing with feats in PF2 is LOADS smaller than a featless Archer versus a focused Archer in PF2.

And let's not forget that in PF1 while your combat feats may not have impinged on your class features (except that a lot of class features had feats to enhance them too) they DID impinge on the PF1 equivalent of general feats and skill feats, which meant that characters very often were pressured into focusing their feats on customizing or enhancing their combat capabilities over anything else, especially if they have a feat-intensive build.

I just think this is an important point, combat styles don't require so much work to make viable compared to PF1, which means that some focusing on combat styles being class locked or multiclass locked or drawing on the same pool as other features is FAR less of an issue.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see that as a compete assessment of PF1.
I've seen numerous archer builds in PF1. And you are correct that there are several feats that every single one of them took.
But what you leave out is that they still each ended up feeling (mechanically) like very different characters. There has been consistent meaningful customization.

None of that says anything useful about PF2.
One could turn your argument on its head and claim that PF1 gave you more options to be less optimal at archery in exchange for more customization and PF2 takes that away in the name of consistency, which means that PF2 archers become cookie-cutter. Now I think both of us would agree that this isn't a fair evaluation of PF2. But it is no less fair than your evaluation of PF1.

Ultimately the history of PF1 is written. It was a huge success. Now it has been eclipsed and clinging to the past is foolish. But ignoring the past is also foolish.

Can PF2 match the success of PF1? Time will tell.
But if you want to contrast PF2 to PF1 and your tone presents PF1 as a deeply flawed system, then your conclusions are likely questionable.


I mean, PF1 martial customisation *is* kinda flawed. I can shower my players with greater artifact weapons, but unless they perfectly fit their build, they're thoroughly useless and are going to get forgotten in an inventory list, unless they can find a way to sell them.
It's what's happening in my campaign. They have items worth more than double their regular weapons, but they can't use them, because their feats and builds are specific to one exclusive item, and that's not it. Is it my fault? Possibly. I could turn the sword into cold iron, or change it to an elven blade. I could turn the spear into a glaive. I could change the crossbow into a composite longbow. That would solve the issue, and make the items usable.
Does this happen in PF2? Nope, running the same exact campaign and I have the issue of those items needing to be scaled back - because everyone can fit them in with minimal effort.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You as the GM have control over almost every aspect of the game, the exception being what the PCs want, think, and do. So why is it a problem that the PCs don't like the items you are giving them? Why is it a problem that PCs can choose to specialize in 1 weapon, skill, or ability? Why is it a problem that they would want to do different things even if they all take the exact same feats?. In PF1 the class you choose affects how you use feats a lot, even when they are the same. Ex: Inquisitor vs Warpriest vs Ranger archers.

The PCs shouldn't be forced to use an item the GM gives, even if it goes against their build/character. Otherwise what choice is there? Certainly non from the PC.

Besides part of meaningful choices means that when you switch weapons you are better at 1 weapon in exchange for being worse in other. It sounds like PF2 has less meaningful choice when it comes to weapons from your post.

**********
Just to restate my view.

Its not bad that items are more useful for more people and that GM have it easier on what they can give. But, in a discussion about meaningful choice being able to use anything by its very nature means there is no meaningful choice (as everything is the same).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:

Why is it a problem that PCs can choose to specialize in 1 weapon, skill, or ability? (snip)

**********
Just to restate my view.

Its not bad that items are more useful for more people and that GM have it easier on what they can give. But, in a discussion about meaningful choice being able to use anything by its very nature means there is no meaningful choice (as everything is the same).

"Can choose to specialize in one weapon" is a bit disingenuous when martial characters more or less had to specialize on in one weapon.

Being able to use any weapon still leaves meaningful choice- what weapon do you actually use? Now, instead of needing to lock that choice in so that 20% or more of your feats turn off if you're using something else, you just… make that choice, and change your mind later if you want.

With weapon properties being what they are, the choice is at least a little more meaningful.


Uuuuh, for starters, sometimes the items are part of the lore.

And that’s kind of it, really. I don’t really need another reason. They’re cool to have. If I change them, they’re no longer as fitting.

But that’s not how pathfinder 1 works.
So, I welcome the change, because it lets me focus on making stories interesting rather than mechanically functional.

Having meaningful choice shouldn’t mean “locking yourself into a single unique choice no matter the circumstances”. That’s not a choice. That’s removing choices.

Grand Lodge

Edge93 wrote:


In PF2, to be a decent Archer you need to be proficient with a bow. Bam, assuming you have the Dex to hit (something also needed in PF1) you are now a decent Archer. Now of course there are feats for certain classes to improve on the style, and other classes will need to invest a little more with multiclass to get that, which isn't great. But the gap between a fearless Archer and an Archer focusing with feats in PF2 is LOADS smaller than a featless Archer versus a focused Archer in PF2.

You need to max out your dex, and you need to keep your bow fully upgraded. Because if you don't, the tight math of PF2 means that you'll fail.


Martial characters did not have to specialize in a weapon, they had to specialize in a form of combat, and maybe get some feats to remove penalties (Crossbow Mastery, Shield Mastery, etc.). People did chose to specialize in a single weapon, but that was because Enchanting multiple weapons was largely seen as a waste of money.

So maybe even more clear. Being able to use any weapon well without any investment doesn't give much choice. The PF2 weapon properties are awesome for the most part and it would had been nice if PF1 had gotten similar properties (people can thankfully house rule them in).

********************
I agree that sometimes its cool to have an item (specially if its part of the lore). But still, being part of the lore does not invalidate the want of the player, that can still say, "nope I prefer to use this thing".

I see meaningful choice as a spectrum. On one side you have no specialization and can use anything okay but you wont be the best by any means. On the other you have 1 trick ponies, able to do one thing better than anyone else, but everything else just fails.

Meaningful choice should allow someone to move along this extremes and chose how their character will look in the end.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
in◆⃟ wrote:
You need to max out your dex, and you need to keep your bow fully upgraded. Because if you don't, the tight math of PF2 means that you'll fail.

Uh...you needed to do that in PF1, too. And it's a smaller investement, stat-wise, than in PF1, since you get much more in the way of stat-boosts in PF2.


Temperans wrote:
Martial characters did not have to specialize in a weapon, they had to specialize in a form of combat, and maybe get some feats to remove penalties (Crossbow Mastery, Shield Mastery, etc.). People did chose to specialize in a single weapon, but that was because Enchanting multiple weapons was largely seen as a waste of money.

And also because there are feats that let you use Dex on a specific weapon, or traits for using weapons made specifically of a certain material, or high level feats that just plainly say "the weapon you chose at lv1 when you got Weapon Focus".

Temperans wrote:
Meaningful choice should allow someone to move along this extremes and chose how their character will look in the end.

So... like a Fighter's weapon groups?


Only use 1 weapon is not really true anyway. If we take away weapon focus , improved critical feats, assuming you have profiency and are not talking about ranged weapons, it is mostly about broad categories. Fighter is a bit tighter with their weapon groups but for rest of the martials it is more like:
1) Two handed weapon
2) Shield and one handed weapon
3) Two handed reach weapon.
4) Two weapons
5) Finessable weapon
6) Rare exceptions (Whip comes to mind as an example.)

So as long as the weapon you find fits within your broad category you will be fine with it. And I personally do not think it is unreasonable that a character whose fighting style is normally with reach weapon doing BFC doesn't do as well with sword and board.

Barbarian doesn't really care if they are using a greatsword, great axe or earthbreaker for the most part.


Ediwir wrote:
And also because there are feats that let you use Dex on a specific weapon, or traits for using weapons made specifically of a certain material, or high level feats that just plainly say "the weapon you chose at lv1 when you got Weapon Focus".

I wont deny that there are many feats that require Weapon Focus on a weapon or benefit only a single weapon. But, most of the feats were not that. Those that were, are mostly Fighter feats, which fighters have ways to share with an entire group (Martial Versatility/Mastery feat and the Weapon Specialist Advance Weapon Training).

'Ediwir wrote:
So... like a Fighter's weapon groups?

I don't know what you mean. Fighter's weapon groups do allow fighters to use any weapon in a group well, which most other classes can't do. Like I said above they do have some ways to share single weapon feats; Few other classes can do it, and its usually because they count as fighter for feats while also being human.

However, Fighters didn't get enough skills, magic, or ability to make them stand out like other more focused classes. (until Archetypes, Advance Armor/Weapon Training, and Weapon/Armor/Shield Mastery feats came out)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, are people actually arguing that the specificity of PF1 weapon focus was a good thing? I feel like weapons are one of the least controversial improvements of the playtest. There have just been so many improvements to facilitate you using whatever weapon you want, and differences them feel much pronounced. What exactly are people wistful for here?


Temperans wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
And also because there are feats that let you use Dex on a specific weapon, or traits for using weapons made specifically of a certain material, or high level feats that just plainly say "the weapon you chose at lv1 when you got Weapon Focus".

I wont deny that there are many feats that require Weapon Focus on a weapon or benefit only a single weapon. But, most of the feats were not that. Those that were, are mostly Fighter feats, which fighters have ways to share with an entire group (Martial Versatility/Mastery feat and the Weapon Specialist Advance Weapon Training).

'Ediwir wrote:
So... like a Fighter's weapon groups?

I don't know what you mean. Fighter's weapon groups do allow fighters to use any weapon in a group well, which most other classes can't do. Like I said above they do have some ways to share single weapon feats; Few other classes can do it, and its usually because they count as fighter for feats while also being human.

However, Fighters didn't get enough skills, magic, or ability to make them stand out like other more focused classes. (until Archetypes, Advance Armor/Weapon Training, and Weapon/Armor/Shield Mastery feats came out)

A solution of "just throw more feats at it" isn't very pragmatic or conducive to having a flexible yet optimal way to approach an encounter, especially when it takes time (and by relation, encounters and levels, plus additional resources) to accomplish such a goal compared to just going the simplest and quickest route. Why would I use a Bastard Sword at 3rd level when I can just use a Longsword at 1st level?

And Weapon Groups via training wasn't really applicable when you consider that Weapon Focus had more exclusive mechanics (singling out weapons versus groups of weapons), and when a lot of those weapons were same-y, the "one true weapon" choice always came out on top. Why use a Bastard Sword by 3rd level when you've been using that Longsword since 1st level, and have probably sank a Weapon Focus feat or something into it already?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Why use a Bastard Sword by 3rd level when you've been using that Longsword since 1st level, and have probably sank a Weapon Focus feat or something into it already?

Because Retraining.

Come on, if it's completely 'valid' to retrain skill ranks from Sense Motive into Climb for 4 sessions and then retrain back into Sense Motive, isn't it also valid to retrain Weapon Focus(Longsword) to Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword)?

There's also the idea of back up weapons and more unique abilities. A fighter in my group is focused on Falchions, but is holding onto a khopesh he has no feats for. Why?

Khopesh cuts through Mummy DR. In a Mummy heavy game.

Sure that's a specific thing but most players I've seen like having "Main weapon" and alternate back up, meaning the backup does either different elemental damage or just different Physical.

That said, messing around with a homerule that lets you give Weapon Focus or weapon targeting feats to Fighter Weapon groups instead. So you'd get like Weapon Focus(Thrown) rather than Weapon Focus(Throwing Axe). Along with porting PE2 weapon traits back to PF1.


I mean, I am glad that weapon focus (and it's ilk) are gone. Issues of specificity aside, "add 1 to a number on a specific situation" is kind of the least interesting thing you could do with a feat. Some people are getting sacred geometry or possessed hand with their feat, other people get to increment a number.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Wait, are people actually arguing that the specificity of PF1 weapon focus was a good thing? I feel like weapons are one of the least controversial improvements of the playtest. There have just been so many improvements to facilitate you using whatever weapon you want, and differences them feel much pronounced. What exactly are people wistful for here?

Weapon Focus isnt good since it's just a +x feat. But things like Ascetic Style/Form (you choose 1 weapon but might unlock more options with lv up) or Multishot (it affects only 1 type of weapon) are good.

I agree that PF2 weapons are much better than PF1 weapons. And it makes what you choose as your main weapon (if any) a lot more meaningful than in PF1.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Even as someone who genuinely prefers having the same weapon throughout her character's career (if you try to give my earth breaker wielding shoanti barbarian a greatsword because you think it fits the "lore" then I am going to give you a very mean look as I sell it to the first merchant I find) PF2's move to make weapon restrictions more lose is absolutely a positive.

Like, I can still play the way I want to play. Nothing's going to stop me from using a Maul forever (if I play PF2, which unless things improve significantly in other areas I will not) but in PF1 "using whatever you pick up off the ground" was pretty much a non-option for the majority of characters.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, really like how you can transfer runes from stuff you found to stuff you find. So if you want to keep your grandmother's axe for the whole campaign, you can make it keep up with you.


Temperans wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Wait, are people actually arguing that the specificity of PF1 weapon focus was a good thing? I feel like weapons are one of the least controversial improvements of the playtest. There have just been so many improvements to facilitate you using whatever weapon you want, and differences them feel much pronounced. What exactly are people wistful for here?

Weapon Focus isnt good since it's just a +x feat. But things like Ascetic Style/Form (you choose 1 weapon but might unlock more options with lv up) or Multishot (it affects only 1 type of weapon) are good.

I agree that PF2 weapons are much better than PF1 weapons. And it makes what you choose as your main weapon (if any) a lot more meaningful than in PF1.

OK, cool, I didn't understand your first response to Ediwir then.

I will note we still basically have Ascetic Style; monastic weaponry seems to cover most of it, can be taken at level 1, doesn't require Weapon Focus, and works for all weapons. Also, I suspect you were confusing Multishot (AKA Manyshot) with Snap Shot. The latter requires Weapon Focus, the former doesn't.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, I am glad that weapon focus (and it's ilk) are gone. Issues of specificity aside, "add 1 to a number on a specific situation" is kind of the least interesting thing you could do with a feat.

I'd posit that feats gatekeeping mundane abilities is even less interesting.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I, for one, really like how you can transfer runes from stuff you found to stuff you find. So if you want to keep your grandmother's axe for the whole campaign, you can make it keep up with you.

I always thought this was just how it worked in PF1, you just handwaved that a wizard scholar NPC did it. Oberoni fallacy bait on my part aside, I agree that this is an excellent part of PF2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

2e's weapons are looking good, and I like the fact that everyone has more effectiveness with non-focused weapons.

However, I'd be bummed if there was no way to focus in on one weapon or weapon type. Sometimes I have a character concept in mind that entails a certain kind of weapon. Lacking the ability to specialize means anything with a slight mechanical edge of my preferred weapon is going to exhert constant conscious and subconscious pressure to switch. This is an inevitable consequence of making it too easy to choose between two options at any point in time.

As for weapons that you have to wield because the GM wants to jerk off about their "lore" infused weapon-shaped macguffins... no thanks. I'll keep fighting with the combat style I built my character to enjoy. Maybe we can hire someone to weild it if it's that important.


Captain Morgan wrote:

OK, cool, I didn't understand your first response to Ediwir then.

I will note we still basically have Ascetic Style; monastic weaponry seems to cover most of it, can be taken at level 1, doesn't require Weapon Focus, and works for all weapons. Also, I suspect you were confusing Multishot (AKA Manyshot) with Snap Shot. The latter requires Weapon Focus, the former doesn't.

I was thinking of thinking of Manyshot (only works with bows). Normally I double check names, but didnt want to bother cross-referencing.


WatersLethe wrote:

2e's weapons are looking good, and I like the fact that everyone has more effectiveness with non-focused weapons.

However, I'd be bummed if there was no way to focus in on one weapon or weapon type. Sometimes I have a character concept in mind that entails a certain kind of weapon. Lacking the ability to specialize means anything with a slight mechanical edge of my preferred weapon is going to exhert constant conscious and subconscious pressure to switch. This is an inevitable consequence of making it too easy to choose between two options at any point in time.

As for weapons that you have to wield because the GM wants to jerk off about their "lore" infused weapon-shaped macguffins... no thanks. I'll keep fighting with the combat style I built my character to enjoy. Maybe we can hire someone to weild it if it's that important.

If it comes i think it will be with something similar to archetypes. Like giving up the fighter legendary with all weapons and sticking with legendary in one and getting something else instead. And maybe some class feats with a specific weapon... But i am really excited about what they said of artifacts. I wonder how they will implement that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weapon Master archetype. Hyper specialization could occur with a scale based on archetype feats, while also not being the go to option for everything. I wouldn't mind seeing that, but weapon specialization should be an the oddity, not the norm.


Albatoonoe wrote:
Weapon Master archetype. Hyper specialization could occur with a scale based on archetype feats, while also not being the go to option for everything. I wouldn't mind seeing that, but weapon specialization should be an the oddity, not the norm.

I mean i don't mind someone being better with an weapon than the others as long as they don't go back to the PF1/3.5 paradigm, i am perfect with falchions. Found a legendary sword... Oh yeah... Can't use that or will lose all my perks.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
oholoko wrote:
I mean i don't mind someone being better with an weapon than the others as long as they don't go back to the PF1/3.5 paradigm, i am perfect with falchions. Found a legendary sword... Oh yeah... Can't use that or will lose all my perks.

Personally, I'm with Arachnofiend. Depending on my character, that item might end up offloaded to the highest bidder.

A GM has a choice about what loot looks like. If they constantly drop items that force your character to use them despite preferring another kind of weapon, or exert a pressure to do so that cannot be ignored, they're not really playing well with the party.

Not saying every loot drop has to be tailored to the party, but it'd be nice if once in a while the legendary weapon was aligned with what someone in the party wants to use. I mean, the gods could have conspired to make it so that this particular hero was meant to find this particular weapon. This is fantasy, after all.

Personally, I'll be leaning into asking the GM if I can transfer the magical properties of the legendary weapon to my own. No? Okay, in the bag it goes, maybe it'll see the light of day some time. Maybe the next legendary item will be a good fit for me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm honestly not sure single weapon focus stuff is worth putting in the game at all, even as an archetype. Theoretically, if you have an archetype you can take to make you better at your shtick, you'll probably take it, especially if the trade off is being worse with stuff you won't use anyway. Which basically means you're getting something for nothing UNLESS you find a unique weapon that doesn't fit your specialty. So you basically become better than baseline characters unless something happens, and that something is extremely meta to predict.

Quote:
However, I'd be bummed if there was no way to focus in on one weapon or weapon type. Sometimes I have a character concept in mind that entails a certain kind of weapon. Lacking the ability to specialize means anything with a slight mechanical edge of my preferred weapon is going to exhert constant conscious and subconscious pressure to switch. This is an inevitable consequence of making it too easy to choose between two options at any point in time.

Well, the weapon groups seem to be a core part of every martial but barbarians at the moment, and I don't think that's going anywhere. And it's probably a solid middle ground-- it means your character is going to excel at either melee OR ranged for example, but won't be equally good at both. But you won't be screwed if you find a scimitar instead of a longsword.

Quote:
As for weapons that you have to wield because the GM wants to jerk off about their "lore" infused weapon-shaped macguffins... no thanks. I'll keep fighting with the combat style I built my character to enjoy. Maybe we can hire someone to weild it if it's that important.

I think this will be pretty rare in PF2. It wasn't much of an issue in published PF1 content, and rune swapping will make it less so. You'll only really see an issue with unique weapons, which are rarely strong enough to completely overshadow more conventional enchanted weaponry. They honestly seem to make better back up weapons. A dwarven thrower is a really nice ranged option. An Oathbow was an exciting find for our Ranger, but she's still only going to use it when targets are outside of the volley range. This is largely because their unique properties don't tend to make up in raw damage compared to what you can squeeze out of a basic +X weapon by slapping a bunch of property runes on it.

I mean, in homebrew games with homebrew items, it will probably continue to be an issue I guess, but at least people won't be losing Slashing Grace damage because they found a Kukri and not a Dagger and other such nonsense.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It feels like the PF1 granularity of specialization was too fine. It's better to do this with weapon groups than specific weapons.

Like if you are a master of the halberd, well all polearms are essentially a pointy part and a hacking part on a stick. So if you find a lucerne hammer, poleaxe, bardiche, a spontoon, a corseque, a bill, a fauchard-fork, or a glaive-guisarme everything they know about halberds should still be useful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Well, the weapon groups seem to be a core part of every martial but barbarians at the moment, and I don't think that's going anywhere. And it's probably a solid middle ground-- it means your character is going to excel at either melee OR ranged for example, but won't be equally good at both. But you won't be screwed if you find a scimitar instead of a longsword.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It feels like the PF1 granularity of specialization was too fine. It's better to do this with weapon groups than specific weapons.

Like if you are a master of the halberd, well all polearms are essentially a pointy part and a hacking part on a stick. So if you find a lucerne hammer, poleaxe, bardiche, a spontoon, a corseque, a bill, a fauchard-fork, or a glaive-guisarme everything they know about halberds should still be useful.

I agree. I think a weapon type is good enough. My prior posts are more based around characters that want to use things like starknives, polearms, whips, or kunai and being saddled with Legendary Longsword #121.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the precedent PF2 has set in the playtest for being better with certain weapons is a fine one, its just there isn't the option for that feel with all the variety of weapons.

Depending on what they choose for example, because of the options they open up with new actions a Fighter whose picked certain feats will be better with certain weapons than if he picked others, its just those weapon categories are broad styles of "two-handed" "open off hand" "ranged" and "one hand and shield" currently. I'd certainly like to see more granular choices based on the weapon groups rather their handedness but it must avoid just being a +1 to hit.

For example I'd like to be able to take the Two handed feat stuff and hammer stuff to really be a warhammer master, but that hammer stuff should be things like gaining a new Action to push enemies around on a hit (can combine with crit for big punts) etc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Wait, are people actually arguing that the specificity of PF1 weapon focus was a good thing? I feel like weapons are one of the least controversial improvements of the playtest. There have just been so many improvements to facilitate you using whatever weapon you want, and differences them feel much pronounced. What exactly are people wistful for here?

To be perfectly clear:

Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization/PBS/Precise Shot are not the Feats/Combat Styles I am referring to.

Those are just numerical feats, they provide no real "style" other than they exist.

Double Slice, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Cornugon Smash, Shatter Defenses, Multi-shot, Rapid Shot, etc.

Those feats are non-numerical, "combat style" based feats that provide new and interesting actions that differ from the standard attack.

All of those feats were available to anyone and did not require you to spend Class Features to get them (the new form Class Feats have taken).

The "weapons now let you operate without penalties" bit is not brought up, because that is not what I mean by forcing combat styles to compete with Class Features.

The above (and MANY others) are what I am speaking about. Double Slice has already taken up it's nest in Class Feats. As will the rest of these.

I personally think limiting Class choices to only things in Class Feats when it comes to Combat Style choices like the above is a poor decision because of the silo competition. Those Feats are not iconic Class Features or Class specific in any way.

Making every archer, twf, two handed weapon, thrown weapon, etc. all exactly the same because weapons no longer have penalties does not create "deep and meaningful combat styles". And then if I choose a combat style and wish to pursue it, I have to do that at the cost of being my class (which previously in PF1 is not the case).

PF2 has done nothing to address this. This is a staple of the game. It is a choice they made. It is a real concern that I have for competing in the same space as conceptual ideas for Classes (Lay on Hands, Ki, etc.) when there's a perfectly good General Feats area for them to live.

With Skill Feats getting their own silo, they no longer compete against combat skills. With Class Feats in their own silo, they don't compete with Generals either.

So the main reason for moving Combat Feats out of General was already resolved when they divided Skill Feats and Class Feats from those areas.

Now whether you like the above approach (Combat and Class features competing in the same silo) is up to you, but it was a deliberate choice that they made.

And to the argument "it helps with choice paralysis" no it doesn't, because Classes will all be getting their own version of these feats (Rogues are getting Double Slice for instance) which means if you build based on concept instead of Class (I want to play a TWF character) then you still have to comb every class to determine what kind you want to play.

Just to clarify.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Wait, are people actually arguing that the specificity of PF1 weapon focus was a good thing? I feel like weapons are one of the least controversial improvements of the playtest. There have just been so many improvements to facilitate you using whatever weapon you want, and differences them feel much pronounced. What exactly are people wistful for here?

To be perfectly clear:

Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization/PBS/Precise Shot are not the Feats/Combat Styles I am referring to.

Those are just numerical feats, they provide no real "style" other than they exist.

Double Slice, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Cornugon Smash, Shatter Defenses, Multi-shot, Rapid Shot, etc.

Those feats are non-numerical, "combat style" based feats that provide new and interesting actions that differ from the standard attack.

All of those feats were available to anyone and did not require you to spend Class Features to get them (the new form Class Feats have taken).

The "weapons now let you operate without penalties" bit is not brought up, because that is not what I mean by forcing combat styles to compete with Class Features.

The above (and MANY others) are what I am speaking about. Double Slice has already taken up it's nest in Class Feats. As will the rest of these.

I personally think limiting Class choices to only things in Class Feats when it comes to Combat Style choices like the above is a poor decision because of the silo competition. Those Feats are not iconic Class Features or Class specific in any way.

Making every archer, twf, two handed weapon, thrown weapon, etc. all exactly the same because weapons no longer have penalties does not create "deep and meaningful combat styles". And then if I choose a combat style and wish to pursue it, I have to do that at the cost of being my class (which previously in PF1 is not the case).

PF2 has done nothing to address this. This is a staple of the game. It is a choice they made. It is a real...

A separate combat/weapon feat category for martials can help, as I am also a bit worried about how animal companion feats can compete with twf ones in this game. So far the early feats are fine, since I can simply take the twin takedown feat at second level, but I wonder what will happen as more feats get added. Also, why are they called silos?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BluLion wrote:
A separate combat/weapon feat category for martials can help, as I am also a bit worried about how animal companion feats can compete with twf ones in this game. So far the early feats are fine, since I can simply take the twin takedown feat at second level, but I wonder what will happen as more feats get added. Also, why are they called silos?

Well the thing is, while I agree Martials could benefit from this, I believe the same logic could be applied to metamagic feats.

Reach Spell is not particularly interesting, class specific (almost all of the casters get it), nor should it ever compete with an actual Class Feature (nor did it in PF1).

In that way, Casters would be consumed with spending General's on those, and Martials on the aforementioned Combat Style Feats.

I know Prerequisites aren't loved, but wide-sweeping prerequisites would be fine for these (Proficiency with X weapons, Ability to cast X level spells).

Quote:
why are they called silos?

Silo refers generally to a container that has the same things (more commonly missile silos and grain silos).

I.E. a "Silo" in this case is the silo of "Class Feats" and in that silo it contains Combat Feats from PF1, as well as Class Features/Archetype Features from PF1 in the same "silo"

So a "grain" silo on a farm typically only contains the same things (grain in this case).

Basically they are allotting combat styles and class features as "belonging to the same silo", which I fundamentally disagree with but that's the crux of my argument.

Skill Feats are a true silo, as you can select only skill related feats from that Feat "silo".


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I find the idea about class feats eating into your class features sort of ridiculous. It holds for a couple of classes (funnily enough those that made 0 choices after level 1) but most classes already have their PF1 equivalent Class Features as part of the PF2 equivalent Class Features, or they had pools of talents etc to pull from already, some of which had to choose between combat effectiveness boosters and "other".

I feel if they had called each classes list of things they can pick a unique title instead of Feats we wouldn't have the critisism. Folks would just say "oh cool Fighters get Styles like Rogues got Talents now" and "OMG my cleric gets to make choices now? Bit of a shame domain powers aren't free but thats still nice."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I find the idea about class feats eating into your class features sort of ridiculous.

Because that is ridiculous and that's not what's being stated.

Previously, those Class Features lived along side General Feats (which contained Combat Feats).

So I could select my domain powers, and then select a Combat Feat (or whatever General Feat that suited the character).

In the case of the Fighter, I could select my archetype to replace Bravery (because most of the time people did that) and then select a Combat style feat.

Class Feats now contains both Class Features and Combat Styles and you do not get more Class Feats than you did Class Features + General Feats.

General Feats now currently has access to Skill Feats and what is left of General Feats (almost nothing, in the current state most will just opt for additional Skill Feats).

So now my Rogue who wants Double Slice (when previously I could just take General Feats to TWF) has to sacrifice Rogue Talents/Evasion to achieve the same concept.

I really don't understand what's so confusing about that. Previously you had more freedom, now you have less because you have to choose between class features and combat styles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we allowed general feats to be spent on class feats (and like multiclass dedications) would that help?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
If we allowed general feats to be spent on class feats (and like multiclass dedications) would that help?

That would certainly make a difference yes. If General Feats were truly General, and you could select ANY Feat with them, that would alleviate a lot of concerns (Open it up to Ancestry too, because why not).

I've also heard a "free Archetype" option, would would provide another interesting dynamic.

However, I think what you just suggested is the most intuitive, immediately applicable change that would be a vast improvement.

The only major argument against, is that 9/10 I think most would select Class Feat instead of the other General Feats, but honestly that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

EDIT: I suppose another Caveat would be that you have the same Feat listed in multiple places for different classes (Reach Spell for instance) which to me makes little sense. That said if all they did was what you suggested I would be perfectly content.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Reach Spell is not particularly interesting, class specific (almost all of the casters get it), nor should it ever compete with an actual Class Feature (nor did it in PF1).

While your general point remains salient for martials, I'd like to point out that this particular example doesn't sit right with me. Casters didn't really get class features for metamagic feats to compete with. So they basically were spending the one currency they had, general feats, to get them. There was a small smattering of powers that largely weren't worth talking about, and that's it.

For sorcerers and wizards, the best class features they have actually let them pick a metamagic feat every 4-6 levels, which is awfully close to the class feat paradigm we have now.

Not gonna argue the general point, as we have done that song and dance before. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

It feels like the PF1 granularity of specialization was too fine. It's better to do this with weapon groups than specific weapons.

Like if you are a master of the halberd, well all polearms are essentially a pointy part and a hacking part on a stick. So if you find a lucerne hammer, poleaxe, bardiche, a spontoon, a corseque, a bill, a fauchard-fork, or a glaive-guisarme everything they know about halberds should still be useful.

Yes. I think this is a very reasonable take.

There is a lot of room between having the ability to tone down how great and archer your character is in exchange for other perks, on the one hand, and having your great archer only be really great with the shortbow and lose half the effectiveness if wielding a longbow or crossbow.

I'm sure that there are those that want this level of granularity. But there seems to be no evidence that there is a huge market cry for longbow archers who are notable less skilled with a shortbow. (or halberd masters who can't quite get it with the glaive)

It is like, one empowers characters to refine where their coolness exists (all archery vs a lot of archery and some other things) and the other just constrains. It is an important distinction.


Captain Morgan wrote:


While your general point remains salient for martials, I'd like to point out that this particular example doesn't sit right with me. Casters didn't really get class features for metamagic feats to compete with. So they basically were spending the one currency they had, general feats, to get them. There was a small smattering of powers that largely weren't worth talking about, and that's it.

I actually agree on second thought.

But I would add that if the big proponent of this "class specific general feat" concept as they have is for giving classes their own take on a feat (or at least that's been a topic they've brought up as a way they could handle it) I'd like to see some of that come through in the metamagic feats instead of just copies of the same feat through all.

Definitely a fair counter though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


While your general point remains salient for martials, I'd like to point out that this particular example doesn't sit right with me. Casters didn't really get class features for metamagic feats to compete with. So they basically were spending the one currency they had, general feats, to get them. There was a small smattering of powers that largely weren't worth talking about, and that's it.

I actually agree on second thought.

But I would add that if the big proponent of this "class specific general feat" concept as they have is for giving classes their own take on a feat (or at least that's been a topic they've brought up as a way they could handle it) I'd like to see some of that come through in the metamagic feats instead of just copies of the same feat through all.

Definitely a fair counter though.

Actually, there are a lot of unique metamagic feats. I think there are probably more unique feats than there are copies, including some unique takes on similar concepts like Overwhelming spell or some of the status removal feats. Cleric in particular has tons. The big ones that seem to be shared are reach and widen, and frankly I dunno how much can be done to spice those suckers up. They are pretty straightforward.

I suspect what might be causing this feeling of dissatisfaction might have less to do with metamagic, and more to do with how much design overlap the sorcerer and wizard have we each other. They have a loooot of the same feats and the sorcerer is still struggling to get out from the wizard's shadow a bit. Giving them access to other spell lists was a good step, but unless some of those lists get buffed I suspect arcane will still be the default.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

2e's weapons are looking good, and I like the fact that everyone has more effectiveness with non-focused weapons.

However, I'd be bummed if there was no way to focus in on one weapon or weapon type. Sometimes I have a character concept in mind that entails a certain kind of weapon. Lacking the ability to specialize means anything with a slight mechanical edge of my preferred weapon is going to exhert constant conscious and subconscious pressure to switch. This is an inevitable consequence of making it too easy to choose between two options at any point in time.

As for weapons that you have to wield because the GM wants to jerk off about their "lore" infused weapon-shaped macguffins... no thanks. I'll keep fighting with the combat style I built my character to enjoy. Maybe we can hire someone to weild it if it's that important.

I have to point out that all pressure placed on a character to use something they found which they weren't planning for when they created their character, makes the GM a jerk. I have to admit one of my favorite characters (going way back to 2nd edition AD&D was a Paladin with the swashbuckling kit applied) had that exact sort of pressure that hit him.

In their first big adventure, they discovered a black two-handed flame tongue sword, and we gathered enough information to know that the 'big bad' we were going to fight, we would need magic weapons to do damage. That weapon was the only or one of maybe two magic items we had available to us. I was the only member of the party that was capable of wielding it, despite my preference for a rapier, and finesse fighting.

However, it was a wonderful story, that he took the blade, and wielded it. It was funny the encounters where he darted down halls, and tumbled past the first line of enemies cartwheeling through them with his two handed sword to pass them up and either get behind them, or to get at the creature in the back. He had our most powerful magic item, and it wasn't something he'd have chosen. But given the choices, he was prepared to do what it took to destroy the Evil we were facing, and bring the light of justice to the dungeon.

He still only wore studded leather armor, so was reasonably nimble, despite his having a bulky blade compared to his preferences. But the flaming blade did fine towards adding to his smiting of evil, for the purposes he needed it to.

So I'm all for treasure to often be serendipitous advantageous to the party, meeting the needs of certain members. But on the other hand, sometimes items that aren't your most likely choices are still fine, and actually build a wonderful curve into the story that you might not otherwise have had.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

As someone who often runs Adventure Paths, I've run into a variant of the problem on occasion.

"Wow, this is an incredibly awesome artifact starknife with really amazing artwork and intricate Desna-themed lore that Paizo has designed. Too bad no one in the party can use a starknife without dumping half their effectiveness so no one will ever pick it up."

Or you have the "Kingmaker Solution" - every single artifact weapon in Kingmaker was a bastard sword, and came with a sidebar instructing the GM to change it into a weapon your party might actually use. Which is fine and dandy, but again... kinda means I can't use any of that nice artwork?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Pathfinder 2nd Edition appears to restrict classes more than Pathfinder 1st Edition. The players cannot mix-and-match abilities by level-based multiclassing. Many classes have branches, such as the bard's muses and the druid's orders, that force them to specialize. In contract, their skills are mostly independent of class, determined by a one-size-fits-all proficiency system. Proficiency prevents specialization for better bonuses.

While I agree with most of the rest of Mathmuse's post, I disagree with this.

Most branches allow you to dabble in others (indeed, you can easily have a full two of them as a Bard, if you like), and for the most part I think Multiclass Feats allow as much freedom as level-based multiclassing in most (though not all) circumstances. While Skills are easier to think outside the box with, and I feel like (especially with the new doubled Proficiency bonuses) Proficiency in and of itself is specializing in certain skills, and doing so quite effectively.

The big area where customization is gonna be reduced from PF1 is Feats, specifically in regard to how Class Feats work, but I think it makes up for that in other areas.

This doesn't net as much customization as PF1 had, but it probably does do more than the PF1 core rulebook, which I feel is as much as we can expect a core rulebook to allow.

I am still waiting to see if two weapon and great weapon fighting worth the name is going to be gated behind Fighter (as is archery come to think of it) as it is in the playtest (Ranger being linked to hunt target makes their version really bad, and as bad as Vital Strike... Soryy two action huge penalties power attack is, it is the only hit stuff really hard option) also waiting to see the offensive champion, but so far classes look far more straight jacketed, simply because the few combat-feats worth having are alk fighter, so everyone else is pick something that doesn't suck to badly until I am forced to pay the feat tax for something passable. I also am nervous how badly screwed the 1-6 casters will be, thematically and mechanically they were among mt favourite classes, and PF2 multiclassing does not do them justice at all, so hope they make a stronger showing of holding to theme than champion and ranger have.

51 to 100 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Meaningful customization All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.