IIRC the math worked out that 2H weapons were actually perfectly competitive with other options that took their buy in feat without taking power attack, and power attack just made you worse.
I mean, we know there are going to be a lot more class feat options than there are in the playtest. We also know that some of those feats are going to allow for combat strategies which were hard to pull off in the playtest without multiclassing (e.g. twf for rogues, archery for most). Even if "archer paladins" aren't yet a thing in the core rulebook, we can nonetheless make them work by printing more feats, a thing which is certain to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Character concept is a very nebulous idea that hasn't traditionally had one set of rules for what defines it. For some folks it is much more narrative and for others it is mechanical. PF2 looks like it is trying bridge its narrative and mechanical elements of character concept much more rigidly then PF1 did (hence the much stronger class gates and pushing things like combat styles into classes).
In PF1 class identity was a gambit of character defining to nearly meaningless. Fighter and rogue really didn't mean much as a character identity without a very strong and specific archetype, for example. While some classes, like Paladin, Sorcerer, and Oracle had very intense narrative elements tied to them, even if a lot of players ignored those narrative elements for the sake of having specific mechanical builds.
PF2 really wants all classes to have narrative identity, and if best at [xyz] is a part of that, then class feats really can't be an open grab bag of general feats, because class feats are supposed to tie in more deeply to character identity. If you want a ranger who is really focused on being the best archer in the world, then that character probably does need to multi-class into fighter because fighter feats should be generally stronger combat feats, while ranger feats related to archery should probably tie more into narrative ranger elements (I probably shouldn't have picked the ranger for this because I think the ranger is lacking in quality narrative and mechanical design spaces, and should probably be an archetype instead of core class, but that is a digression that will probably get more of a response than the rest of this post).
Personally I have issues across the board with the specifics of how PF2 is chasing class-based character definition, but I do appreciate that they have decided that they are a class based game and that means that classes should be meaningful to the game in narratively explainable contexts. In my ideal world, that would have meant scaling the number of classes back to probably 6 and turning many classes into archetypes that can be assembled with archetype feats, but in a lot of ways, PF2 is being limited by the same kind of attitudes that limited pathfinder when it first broke off from 3rd edition.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 really wants all classes to have narrative identity, and if best at [xyz] is a part of that, then class feats really can't be an open grab bag of general feats, because class feats are supposed to tie in more deeply to character identity. If you want a ranger who is really focused on being the best archer in the world, then that character probably does need to multi-class into fighter
If the only narrative contribution the Fighter is bringing to the table is "I fight real gud" then that's not really a "narrative" contribution.
I don't understand how Combat styles became tethered to "identity" but that's never been the case in previous editions, so it makes no sense to enforce that now.
You can foster certain styles over others indirectly, but directly allocating combat styles based on Class is the anti-thesis to DnD if you ask me. That's video game level stuff, and video games do that because they can't account for all of that.
If I were to describe each of the classes it would be something like this:
- Fighter - A battle hardened warrior with vigilant ability to adapt to opponents
- Cleric - A priest that channels the powers of his deity
- Wizard - A mage who has acquired the secrets of magic via study and patience
- Rogue - A (for lack of a synonym, since it used to be called thief) rogue that uses his wide skill set to make ends meet
Pretty basic stuff right
- Ranger - A warrior of the earth and wields its knowledge as well as a weapon
Could really do this for all of them.
And on NONE of the above descriptions include "I wield X weapons and I cannot wield Y weapons"
And the reason for that is there are a slew of types of those characters.
Now while some are comfortable with "Feats will come to fix the problem!", that's your prerogative, but that means buying more books, it means waiting for concepts that already exist for certain classes (i.e. Archer Paladin isn't in release, but Rogue, Ranger, and Fighter get it) which is frustrating because it limits concepts.
Then you're in this position where you "shoehorn" the Class that has access to the Class Feats that you need into the "Paladin" (in name alone) so that you can play the concept you want.
It's the exclusivity of the Combat Styles that's most frustrating.
And unless they offer "free archetype" solution, that's not very satisfying (at least with a free archetype, you can attempt to get the Archetype/Multiclass for the feat you want).
Without some kind of give on the Class Feat side, you're still in a position where you have to "not be so rogue like" just to get TWF.
Rogues were good at TWF before, because they could still get it, had the stats to support it, and had the damage/tactics to make it worth while (SA and Flanking).
Now the same Rogue has to choose "basic rogue" fighting tactics (which isn't inherently weaker than a different combat style) in order to keep Rogue abilities.
So any time you choose a Thrown Weapon Rogue, or TWF Rogue, you now have to be "less of a Rogue" instead of just grabbing a Rapier (also on par with the other choices) for FREE and getting all your normal abilities.
And this carries over to MOST of the Classes. It's either "play vanilla" or "pick your combat style" but as it stands, you cannot have both, and that's one of the biggest reasons I loved 3.0 through Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The second one is just a fancier version of the first.
The second one is actually more than that, because it includes "adaptation" to the enemy, but it can include things like the following:
Generals, Pirates, Gladiators, Duelists, etc.
Notice how those aren't specifically "I can wield X weapon better than anyone" they are spins on types of ways to fight combat (finesse combat, tactical combat, versatility combat, dirty combat, sailing combat).
And therein is the distinction that would give them narrative power, not simply "I am the best at wielding weapons" which is by definition nothing to do with the narrative.
Thankfully that isn't the case in PF2. To adequately wield a weapon you have to at most spend 1 General Feat.
Oh great, can you point me to the General Feat that allows for Double Slice, Many Shot, Cornugon Smash, Shatter Defenses, etc.
Or really any General Feat that betters the use of Thrown Weapons, Archery, TWF, etc. that isn't simply "martial weapon proficiency" which does nothing for any of those styles.
Even without multiclassing many classes let you do fun things with weapons.
Name one weapon specific Class Feat available to anyone outside of the Fighter and Ranger.
What they don't get is the same fun thing as fighter
Not what's being asked for. Being able to do something at all is not the same thing as "wanting what the fighter has". Currently a lot of combat styles are available in no capacity to anyone outside the Fighter.
In the archery example we had a super effective Divine Sorcerer Archer....
Anecdotal evidence of one player having a good time with a build that was almost certainly much worse than a standard version of the same class is not justification for allowing things to stand.
Everyone expects them to be different, which was the case even in PF1 when Classes could choose Combat Feats and Class Features.
Lets not fall into the trap of PF1 where the maths meant that if you weren't top 2-3 tier you weren't really doing the job.
It's not about competing against other classes, it's about competing with you current class and being punished for diversity.
I also think measuring yourself against other classes in certain lights (obviously a Sorcerer shouldn't outpace a Fighter archer) makes a lot of sense.
A Ranger and a Fighter should be the same level of formidable in combat with a bow if they both choose that path, the Ranger should just have to supplement his other abilities to compensate for the Fighters exceptional Bow skills.
As it stands now the Ranger is sacrificing his "supplemental" abilities in order to be good with the bow, and is therefore not good at his "Ranger" skills nor is he able to do the things a standard Ranger can do.
So by being "different" he is worse.
That's literally the opposite of PF1, where Rangers eventually got nearly every Combat Style in the APG, which was the second release. This edition is a step backwards in that regard.
In PF2 the buffing of the baseline means you can sutiably fullfill a job without being the best at it.
It's not about "being the best" it's about not hamstringing yourself just to fulfill a concept.
If you're always better off playing vanilla, that's a fault, not a benefit.
I especially think it makes no sense for other Melee classes to get the nerf bat when compared to a Fighter in terms of prowess. If all a Fighter has is "I'm the best" instead of "I can adapt my fighting style to any situation" then it's not really filling it's role.
Originally, Fighters were meant to work similar to the Brawler (swapping feats to suit the combat in question) as was evident with their ability to retrain feats in Core (and ability to get Brawler combat swapping).
Instead of putting everyone in "not as good as fighter" status, why not make their choice to specialize in a fighting style a hard choice for everyone else and a soft choice for the Fighter.
Fighters should be more than a cap on martial ability for other classes.
Archery as an example is basically unfeasible without certain feats in PF1, you'll be getting penalties all over the place.
Archery is totally feasible to anyone past level 3. I don't see options for Rapid Shot, Many Shot, etc. for the general public. Shot on the Run got ported with the action system, but that's not a pass on every Archery feat that was available to all classes (without costing them Class Features mind you).
And Combat Styles have been exclusive in PF1. Basically any class feature that adds damage in a specific way (I wouldn't even limit this concept to martials) was class locking that combat style.
I don't really know what this has to do with anything, but no they weren't exclusive. Anyone could take them, and the "damage boosts" you speak of were almost always other feats that were also available to all Classes.
Outside of Bonus Feats offered to certain classes (Ranger) or specific Archetypes (Zen Archer) I don't really see what you mean.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Midnight, I think you are misunderstanding Malk's comments, especially about archery.
Can you show me a PF1e build that is an effective archer and has zero archery-related feats or class features?
Because I can show you a PF2e build that is an effective archer and has zero archery-related feats or class features. It's called "anyone proficient with bows", more or less.
Malk's argument is that you don't need feats to be a decent archer anymore, meaning you can spend those feats on other things.
Your argument is that outside of certain classes, there are not feats that make you a better archer.
These two arguments are actually not incompatible - you are both correct.
FWIW, I think the problem is going to be solved in the final version with combat style-based archetypes - effectively, feats that anyone can take to be good at a given combat style, with the PF1e feat tree formalized as an archetype. Instead of Point-Blank Shot being the prereq for every archery feat, the Archer archetype will have a dedication with benefits similar to Point-Black Shot and the rest of the archery feats will be feats for that archetype.
I would be willing to put money on that happening, honestly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Midnight, I think you are misunderstanding Malk's comments, especially about archery.
I actually understand him perfectly because it's the same argument he made the last time I responded which my retort was:
I am not talking about +1's and removals of negatives
The game continues past level 1, which was the only time that PBS and Precise Shot came into play.
As soon as you claimed those two feats in PF1, you were free to start your actual archery build.
In fact, most Archery focused archetypes/classes just gave those away for free very early.
I understand weapons are less penalizing, but the buck doesn't stop there and pretending like that solved everything is ignoring the glaring Feats that you got past level 3.
Can you show me a PF1e build that is an effective archer and has zero archery-related feats or class features?
Can you show me how all classes can get Rapid Shot, Many Shot, etc. at all in PF2?
That's the argument, they could take Feats to be good at archery. They didn't lose Class Features to do that.
Because I can show you a PF2e build that is an effective archer and has zero archery-related feats or class features.
If your ability to be good at archery (which honestly, is less of an issue than TWF and Thrown Weapons atm) is perfected at level 1 how is that "effective"?
It's just the default. You're no better with a Bow than anyone else that picks it up.
The topic of this thread is meaningful customization. "Everyone is good with bows now" is not meaningful customization in the slightest. It's also super boring.
And again, numerical benefits (PBS/Precise Shot) are not what I'm talking about. There should be other options for those that want to pursue a combat style outside of "well I guess I'll give up X Class Feature".
It's less customization than PF1, by a lot. PF1 General Feats - 2 + Class Features is still greater than Class Feats in PF2. That's effectively the argument I'm hearing for archery.
Malk's argument is that you don't need feats to be a decent archer anymore, meaning you can spend those feats on other things.
You net 2 "taxes", and lose the other 8 over the course of 20 levels (depending on Class Features count of the class).
And again, a lot of Classes that allowed for those removed the tax feats. So you're really just down 8 Feats over all.
final version with combat style-based archetypes - effectively, feats that anyone can take to be good at a given combat style, with the PF1e feat tree formalized as an archetype. Instead of Point-Blank Shot being the prereq for every archery feat, the Archer archetype will have a dedication with benefits similar to Point-Black Shot and the rest of the archery feats will be feats for that archetype.
I would be willing to put money on that happening, honestly.
If you still have to spend Class Feats to access those Archetypes, it's not going to change the "favor vs flavor" issue, but it will at least remove some exclusivity.
Add this and Possible Cabbage's "General Feats can be spent on Class Feats" suggestion and I'll finally stop ranting about this.
And sorry Malk/Max Astro/anyone else, this is just something I'm very passionate about.
I don't expect the exact same edition, but I do expect this level of customization to be possible in PF2. TBH, it's almost a deal breaker for me if it's not realized in some way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the best DPR archers in PF1 are, IIRC the Warpriest, the Inquisitor, and the Occultist, classes which don't have "good with bows" on the label, but have other class features which synergize with any kind of combat that lets you full attack no matter what. IIRC the PF1 ranger finishes below not only those three and the fighter but also the luring cavalier, a medium focusing on the champion spirit, a sohei monk, and a tempered champion paladin.
I don't know if "accidentally the best with bows because of class features you get" is necessarily new. It's just (so far) going where it probably should (so it's less accidental.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And sorry Malk/Max Astro/anyone else, this is just something I'm very passionate about.
I totally understand!
I'm super passionate about the monster design in the playtest and I'd be arguing just as hard if I felt like that wasn't going to be realized in the final version.
You just don't see that from me much because everyone loved the monster design so there's no chance it'll change much. :)
And debating you has helped me form my own opinions on things I didn't previously have strong opinions about, so I certainly won't hold that against you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if "accidentally the best with bows because of class features you get" is necessarily new. It's just (so far) going where it probably should (so it's less accidental.)
But even with those Class Features that augmented it, they were still able to select Rapid Shot, Many Shot, etc.
Thus the issue. Now it's "pick judgements/holy weapon or pick your combat style".
The two did not compete and now they do. It was the same story for Paladin as well (due to smite) but nonetheless, they did get two pools to choose from, where they could allocate as necessary.
It now more deliberate, but a lot less workable.
Sneak Attack is a combat style defining feature.
Class defining (SA, Rage, Casting spells, Smite) are distinctly different than ubiquitous Combat styles, and having to differentiate that is silly.
Obviously, what is in your hands does not define you as a class. Being able to Rage/Cast Spells/Smite do
Let's not be intentionally obtuse and try to say that throwing knives as a combat style is the same thing as calling on your deity to smite the enemy.
They aren't and you know that.
PF1 feats are exclusive because of all the pre-reqs not because of any classes or concept.
Pre-requisites that were possible to achieve across almost all classes, sometimes completely by-passable via Class Features or bonus feats, etc.
And I thought one of the main goals of the changes was to remove things like Pre-requisites (you know, one of the most house ruled away things), not just repackage them under the new banner of "Class Feat Exclusives".
And debating you has helped me form my own opinions on things I didn't previously have strong opinions about, so I certainly won't hold that against you.
And that alone makes it all worth it. Talking with those here has helped me refine my views certainly.
Before I thought the only solution was move them to General Feats, I now see a lot of avenues that would assuage my worries.
Time will tell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the only combat style that actually needs feats to operate effectively is maybe TWF. Thrown weapons benefit from Quickdraw, but it honestly benefits more from a Returning rune and no class but the Paladin gets that free. The thing is that most weapon feats don't just make you universally better at using the weapon the way PF1 feats did. They usually give you new actions or activities you can utilize as appropriate. But they don't always play nice with another class's baseline features.
Let's consider some of those vaunted Fighter or Ranger Archery feats. Double Shot and Favored Aim are both cool options to have in the quiver. But they both take 2 actions. That means that for Malk's Caster archer, those would actually be suboptimal choices compared to Magic Striker. You can't use those 2 action feats and a 2 action spell in the same round.
The Paladin may have similar issues. On an average Paladin turn, they may want to spend an action to use a Champion Power, an action to activate Blade of Justice, and their last action to attack. 2 action activities are less appealing to them, as well. On the other hand, Ranged Reprisal gives them a unique niche for front line archery. (Albeit one that would benefit from having the Fighter's feat to not provoke AoE, I'll grant.)
Twin Takedown and Double Slice are the only feats I can think of that really make or break a fighting style. Well, I suppose Hunted Shot, but that's super married to Hunt Target. Though so is Twin Takedown. No class without Hunt Target wants those feats, so they should definitely stay Ranger only. But Double Slice makes a huge difference in your DPR for TWF. I think every martial class will probably want an equivalent-- though caster classes probably won't because it doesn't play nice with casting.
I suppose shields are in this boat, too. The shield options for fighters and paladins seem really good, though shields still seem solid without them. And I'm not honestly sure that those feats are great fits for other classes. I think a shield using barbarian is a really cool concept, but I'd think expect something a lot more explosive and offense oriented. Clerics might legit want to tank, but they could probably use some stuff more suited to being able to cast/strike/raise shield in the same round, or infusing magic into their shield now that Emblazon Symbol is vestigial.
But in comparison, I really wouldn't say Brutish Shove is something you'd strictly want because you are swinging a two handed weapon around. Or dueling parry if you want to use a one handed weapon. I suppose Swipe might be appealing for folks outside of Barbarians/Fighters?
The paradigm between combat feats has just changed so much between editions. PF1 combat feats weren't class locked, but they also felt a lot more mandatory. Every melee character wanted power attack. Every TWF wanting TWF, Improved TWF, and Double Slice. Every archer wants PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Manyshot. Every shield bashed wants Shield Master and all its prereqs. Where as PF2 feats seem closer to Snapshot or Cornugon Smash that only particular builds want anyway. Even Cornugon Smash is a bad example because that makes the Intimidate a free action and the PF2 counterparts are not so universally good. It's also an example of a combat style that many classes have unique ways to execute already.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Twin Takedown and Double Slice are the only feats I can think of that really make or break a fighting style.
Just to kind of outline just what's in the core that is going to fall into this category of "combat style" where you're using a single pool to fill two holes:
- whirlwind attack line
- shatter defenses line
- throw anything line
- cleave line
- archery line (no replacement for rapid or many)
- thrown weapon line (rapid shot applies here too)
- step up line
That's just core.
Is the general consensus still thinking the above is going to make it into all classes without cost to those classes in the same capacity as PF1?
I mean you open it up better with things like Brute Rogue, but then strip half the Feats you'd use to make that work.
If Class Feats got some further scaling to compensate then I could see a whole line being in a single feat, which is another way to deal with the issue. But even if we talk just Core there's no place for the above lines to go but class Feats territory. Before, albeit not always good and sometimes required Class Features help with archetypes, but they were possible.
And I'm not one to say PF1 was perfect, a bunch of the above Feat lines in PF1 are downright bad (looking at you Whirlwind attack) but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. Heck WWA was overpowered in 3.5 if you ran spiked chain Trip, but I am afraid customization is being sacrificed in favor of extremely straightforward class design.
While some may find that appealing, it's the exact reason I don't want to play 5e.
Probably my last go at this I suppose. Is it a disaster? Not at all. It's just extremely 4e meets 5e in that department for me, and planning builds through fear lines was huge for our group. We love it. I love it. Losing it is rough, as trying to bring some new and interesting combination to the table every time was a lot of fun for us.
I might be in the minority on that, but it's one of the more defining characteristics of PF for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, upon further reflection, the ultimate in "You must be this tall to ride" feats, Double Slice, wouldn't actually be great on a barbarian. They can't rage > move > Double Slice. They'd be better suited to something more like Twin Takedown, so they can pounce from enemy to enemy blades first. This solidifies something in my mind: Double Slice shouldn't be a general feat. If it becomes a trap option for classes that would want it conceptually, it should remain a class locked option and those other classes should get things that gel better with their class features but allow a similar style.
Now, to be clear, I agree with Midnightoker that some classes feel stretched too thin for class feats. I just think there are better solutions than making combat feats into general feats. My current favorite remains class paths, or a free archetype as Midnightoker would put it. .
Just to kind of outline just what's in the core that is going to fall into this category of "combat style" where you're using a single pool to fill two holes:
- whirlwind attack line
- shatter defenses line
- throw anything line
- cleave line
- archery line (no replacement for rapid or many)
- thrown weapon line (rapid shot applies here too)
- step up lineThat's just core.
Sorry, to be clear, are you citing these all as valid PF1 combat styles that should have PF2 equivalents? Because several of them don't exist in PF2, and I'm not sure they have a reason to. Throw Anything seems rather pointless given how much damage falls behind without using magic weapons and bombs now being classified as a martial weapon. The step up line feels rather silly in a game where AoO isn't the norm. Playtest Fighters, Barbarians, Bards, Rogues, and Monks all had personal options analogous to Shatter Defenses and/or Dazzling Display. Many Shot was too strong a feat and frankly shouldn't exist because it creates a "one true archer" path and Rapid Shot isn't that far behind it.
Plus several of them didn't feel especially more open in PF1. To be GOOD at cleaving, you had to be a dwarf, which is way more restrictive than the current class gating. The prerequisites for Whirlwind attack were so arduous that I you had to plan extremely well to accommodate it all.
Is the general consensus still thinking the above is going to make it into all classes without cost to those classes in the same capacity as PF1?
I am not sure I quite follow you here either, but if I do: I think most of those weren't really "combat styles" to begin with so much as they were very particular tricks you could do with questionable pay off. (Too little for Throw Anything, too much for Manyshot.) And frankly the prerequisites of said tricks were usually so strenuous only martial characters with bonus feats could take them. Those bonus feats basically served as the same currency as class feats. (I mean, have you ever seen a Paladin with Whirlwind attack instead of Fey Foundling and Greater Mercy?)
I would rather have explicit gatekeeping than defacto gatekeeping, TBH. Yes, the former may technically be more restrictive, but if only a small subset of characters can even utilize a feat anyway, I don't want it cluttering up the reading for every other character.
And again, I agree some classes feel spread too thin and that should be fixed. Paladins, monks, Rangers, Alchemists, and to a certain extent druids all feel like they don't have enough class feats to cover everything a single character with their PF1 versions could do. (Druids were probably too flexible and got to much default stuff, though.) But I don't think the fault lies in class gating feats, nor do I think removing those restrictions would really alleviate the problem.
Meanwhile, I actually think the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue feel way less restrictive. A fighter gets less combat feats, but the relax prerequisites let me mix and match to a much greater degree, and removes the need to take a lot of bland stuff. Whirlwind Attack not needing Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, and base attack bonus +4 means people will actually take Whirlwind Attack now. I suspect Paizo thinks that feats like that are quite strong and shouldn't come entirely cheap, and while I think 14th level might be a tad late for it I strongly prefer it as a class feat than a feat only fighters can really afford anyway.
By the way, I'm not really addressing casting classes here, and that's intentional. I don't really think casters should have the same level of access to combat styles because they have spells. Martials should have some combat tricks to make up for not having spells. PF1 prevented this through slow BAB and prerequisites. PF2 prevents it by limiting it to multiclassing and half speed feat access. And PF2 gishes still seem WAY stronger to me, at least without extremely high system mastery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idk if rapid shot was too powerful as it was effectively the TWF of bows and gave throwing builds an extra attack if they chose to TWF.
After reading your post and thinking of how casters used to work (the first recommendation was to never multiclass). I thought that they might have probably been thinking the same thing for martials, and they forced it by having all those pre-reqs for the trully game changing feats.
I dont know how pre-reqs would change going forward in PF2 besides what we have seen so far.
Rapid shot was actually better than the TWF feat for at least 2 reasons.
1) Archers have to move less than melee combatants, meaning archers got more full attacks off.
2) TWF, as a fighting style, means giving up the raw single hit damage of two handed weapons. You still use the same bow whether or not you use Rapid Shot, so getting the extra attacks is a no brainer.
But what really got dangerous was when you started to combine rapid shot with manyshot, plus haste, plus some sort of static damage booster like smite, favored/instant enemy, or weapon training/specialization. The sheer number of attacks archers could pour out round after round was absurd, and represented no meaningful reduction in damage per hit. Even the bane of flurry, DR, was easily bypassed by archers. This made the archer the best combat style in the game and created this "one true bowman" path.
Comparatively, there are a lot more ways to do a ranged character than following that one feat path now. The Ranger's crossbow feats and precision edge actually creates a heavy single hit damage alternative to being a machine gun. Casters have magical striker and can easily cast and attack in the same turn. Rogues are better served using their actions on stealth, distraction, or Dread Striker to make enemies flat-footed than they would be by fighter feats. Paladins can survive on the front-lines with their armor and punish enemies with ranged reprisal.
The end result is that ranged combat feels a lot more varied to me. I'm somewhat persuaded by arguments that doesn't deal enough damage as a whole, but that's got very little to do with feats and more to do with nerfs to composite damage and the volley trait.
Okay I get it more now, and to that I respond that there were plenty of other ranged options like Ranged Maneuver, Overwatch Style for a more reactive archer. However, what most people looked at was the combat statistics and I can't deny it made for the "one true path" mentality. Just like every fullcaster needed to be single or you were doing it wrong.
I am glad that mentality is leaving even if it's for a little while (until more books are released and people have the time to find all the builds).
Overwatch Style is cool, but it has Rapid Shot (and a bunch of other one true path feats) as prerequisite, so it really didn't escape the path as so much as present another perk to walking it. Ranged Trip and Disarm were cool, but not really substantial enough to build a character around.
PF1 combat feats weren't class locked, but they also felt a lot more mandatory. Every melee character wanted power attack. Every TWF wanting TWF, Improved TWF, and Double Slice. Every archer wants PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Manyshot. Every shield bashed wants Shield Master and all its prereqs.
If only because of Prereqs. You sadly needed some of those to get to other feats, heck you need some of those for an actual Style Feat(Really now?).
Remove them from being needed as everything or even bake some of them into the base combat kit and you'll find room to actually make some changes.
Put a clearer way; how many times were they picked because you "Had to have them" over being picked because "You had to have X to get Y".
I mean come on, if you're melee and and aren't going TWF there's no getting around needing to take Power attack for... basically everything. Or Combat Expertise(Holy Sarenrae are you kidding me?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The second issue that threads into that is that you are having to use class feats to get them, thus focusing less on improving your classes "feature" set. I content that is functionally the same as opting to spend your limited pool of feats in PF1 on picking up combat style feats instead of the various numerous feats that could improve on your classs feature set (metamagic, extra talent, spell focus etc.)
PF1 however I'm not losing out on Brawler Knockout. Or Manuver Training. Or Awesome blow.
Actually I'll make it easier.
PF1 I'm not forced to pick between between a class Feature and Power Attack as a Monk. If I want it in PF2, I have to give up 2 monk abilities. Or post pone them till later and question, after a certain point, is it REALLY worth going back for lower ranked Feats?
Fast example; say I do get Power Attack on my Monk(Why doesn't matter, I want it). I spend my level 2 feat on Fighter Dedication, my Level 4 feat on Power Attack. I'm level 6 now and picking a feat. If I double back and pick up Flying Kick, something I would really like to have in the build, is that worth skipping a level 6 Feat? Next time I could pick would be level 8... but would picking up a level 4 or 6 feat be WORTH skipping a level 8 feat till level 10?
You aren't paying with Feats. You're paying with Leveled Class Features, and those are going to be worth just as much if not more than before I feel. You're probably going to always want to buy on level if possible so the moment you decide to skip that level/feat, it's probably dead to you.
In addition, how many of those Class Feature feats from PF1 are usually over in General Feats, not Combat?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the thread "The Customization Bottleneck" Link the OP said:
"Basically every major aspect of customization has to be done with class feats. ... Most major facets of a character are all competing for the same 8 to 11 class feat slots and very little scales without further and constant investment that uses yet more of those slots. This is the bottleneck."
To which Jason Bulhman said:
"Yup.. this is a problem..."
This, to me, is the crux of the problem and encompasses the lack of combat option customization as well as other things. In PF1e you could throw a general feat into lots of different things and, if your class was giving you useful class features like Casting, your feat choices were pretty free. In PF2 class features compete with otherwise spontaneous customization choices.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be incredible if your feat choices gave you the whole tree when you're leveling up, without the necessity to be picking up tax feats. Improved X or Y is just unnecessary, it would be nice if the feats down the line would be "Your previous feat now allow you to do this as well", rather than just an "improved" version of something that you already can do and should've been getting better naturally.
If you pick Animal Companion as your character playstyle in the beginning, don't make the player pay for that choices by being obligated to pick every new feat in that tree. It only gates you instead of actually being pre-requisites, as in something you need to do something else, not just a slightly more specialized/optimized way of doing what your character has been doing for many levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, WaterLeshe is right that the customization bottleneck is real. Though I think Lightning Raven's solution would be a better fix than making combat feats general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, WaterLeshe is right that the customization bottleneck is real. Though I think Lightning Raven's solution would be a better fix than making combat feats general.
Yep, I think it's a pretty good idea too. I've been wide open to some pretty out-there concepts to try out to fix the bottle neck if it is still present in the final version of the game, though.
Yeah, WaterLeshe is right that the customization bottleneck is real. Though I think Lightning Raven's solution would be a better fix than making combat feats general.
I can agree with that for sure.
If I take Cleave, and then eventually it just advances on it's own to subsume the feats that were taxed later, that would certainly give you "bang" for your buck.
It's not that much different than your proposed Class Paths/Free Archtypes in terms of what it allows, and it's relatively on par with what they plan to do with Skill Feats (at least, most people were huge fans of Catfall, so I'd assume they're going to pursue that).
That said, your suggestion would give a lot more freedom and the ability to add "variants" of the progression (instead of selecting Great Cleave you can select the new Feat X from the most recent book which is also in the same Class Path for instance).
In fact, I would prefer the latter, since it scales a lot closer to how Spells scale for casters.
I was not aware that Jason had recognized the bottleneck though, since I hadn't heard of any ideas/plans to address it.
That does make me feel better to know they recognize it as an issue.
PF1 I'm not forced to pick between between a class Feature and Power Attack as a Monk. If I want it in PF2, I have to give up 2 monk abilities. Or post pone them till later and question, after a certain point, is it REALLY worth going back for lower ranked Feats?
I think this is more of a "not enough space in the playtest" issue than anything else, as with a lot of similar cases.
Paizo has, imo, a very cool idea in the playtest of having different classes have different versions of similar feats. I strongly expect that to be expanded on in the final version, with a lot of the holes in the playtest closed that way.
For example, I suspect Monks will have a class feat similar to Power Attack that the same kind of builds are going to want - but instead of working exactly like the Fighter version, it will have a Monk flavor to it and slightly different mechanics.
I think this approach of "each class has a slightly different way of achieving a given effect" is wonderful both for giving each class a thematic niche as well as increasing the amount of customization that multiclassing can provide.
Basically agreeing with what Captain Morgan said above, about how just giving Barbarians Double Slice doesn't really make sense with their action economy, and it would make a lot more sense for them to have their own TWF feat that matches their style better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to point out, Monks already have a way better version of Power Attack with Tiger Slash.
Just to point out, Monks already have a way better version of Power Attack with Tiger Slash.
Mechanically, sure. But I still want a one-inch punch for thematic reasons.
or it could (and probably will) be simply a waste of pages making dozens of feats when 5 would have done
This is my fear as well.
If Reach Spell is any indication of what's to come, then I'll be frustrated. I understand there's not much else you can do here, but if you're going to have Class Feats that remain the same across several classes, then you need to put Class Feats in a section instead of under the Class themselves and give it a "Monk/Fighter/Class" tag.
Though I think the above would be super confusing to new players and could cause a lot of them to take feats they don't actually qualify for.
Not sure how you diversify things like "Reach Spell" to make it unique, I'd expect Sudden Charge and several others that get ported to other classes to be in the same boat though.
The Playtest book had organization issues in general, so I'm sure it'll be configured in a much more sound way by that time (at nearly 700 pages, I hope so)
I think Reach spell is a bad example - that is a place where Paizo was caught between "this is a basic metamagic that most casters should have" and "the design of the system is such that metamagic feats are class feats".
Invariably there will be one or two of those cases. However, taking a look at how the other metamagic feats work gives a much broader view - each caster has their own "flavor" of metamagic, which gives more distinctness to them.
A major reason I'm in favor of this is because I like classes to be distinct. I'd rather have 12 classes that each have their own one-of-a-kind approach to problem solving than 30 classes with massive overlap - something I feel started to be an issue in 1e.
Not that I want classes to be pidgeonholed, that being said. Every martial class should be able to two hand, two weapon, sword and board, etc. But each class should have a different way of approaching it with their class feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Reach spell is a bad example - that is a place where Paizo was caught between "this is a basic metamagic that most casters should have" and "the design of the system is such that metamagic feats are class feats".
I think Captain Morgan said it best, there's not much to do with Reach Spell though.
That said, a "Class Path" for casters that basically amounts to a "school" would be mighty cool (possibly tie it to bloodlines for Sorcerors, domains for Clerics, etc.)
Then you can just move "Reach Spell" and whatever else has overlap to those respective paths.
A "Deceiver" path that includes Illusion based variations, or a "Pyromancer" path that varies AoE fire spells and such come to mind.
That way you accomplish Archetypes, Multiclassing, Metamagic, and Combat Styles all in one mechanic, which ultimately would be extremely tidy (if you ask me).
Then throw down the "one free archetype" and wash your hands of it.
Makes it extremely easy to support long term, and then you can restrict paths the same way you restrict Archetypes/Multiclass with a certain benchmark prerequisite to enter (I do think 16 X ability score is a BIT steep though for a path).
I know the Jason, Mark and the gang are all busy, but since Jason has acknowledged the bottleneck exists, I'd be curious to hear what his thoughts were on resolving it...
I suppose I'll have to be patient on that front :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A major reason I'm in favor of this is because I like classes to be distinct. I'd rather have 12 classes that each have their own one-of-a-kind approach to problem solving than 30 classes with massive overlap - something I feel started to be an issue in 1e.
Sure, if that could be achieved, it'd be fine. But "separate but equal" doesn't have a stellar track record, and examples from the playtest weren't exactly inspiring, and there will always be someone wanting to do something outside of the narrow confines of a developer's concept of a specific class's "~fantasy~", and new classes' approaches to various feats will invariably become copy paste practice with insipid splashes of class paint thrown on top.
I just think it'd be more realistic to create a fighting style feat pool that everyone can draw from and dollop their class's flavor on top of. Smiting with a standard Power Attack is a pretty paladiny way to do the two hand thing.
Not that it matters, I have a feeling the final version stuck to their guns about individual class fighting style feats. I'm interested in their solution to the bottleneck problem, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A major reason I'm in favor of this is because I like classes to be distinct. I'd rather have 12 classes that each have their own one-of-a-kind approach to problem solving than 30 classes with massive overlap - something I feel started to be an issue in 1e.Sure, if that could be achieved, it'd be fine. But "separate but equal" doesn't have a stellar track record, and examples from the playtest weren't exactly inspiring, and there will always be someone wanting to do something outside of the narrow confines of a developer's concept of a specific class's "~fantasy~", and new classes' approaches to various feats will invariably become copy paste practice with insipid splashes of class paint thrown on top.
I just think it'd be more realistic to create a fighting style feat pool that everyone can draw from and dollop their class's flavor on top of. Smiting with a standard Power Attack is a pretty paladiny way to do the two hand thing.
Not that it matters, I have a feeling the final version stuck to their guns about individual class fighting style feats. I'm interested in their solution to the bottleneck problem, though.
Paladins got their own version of Power Attack too, actually, and ironically it is called Smite Evil. It's maybe too high level (plus alignment locked) but it is VERY powerful, especially compared to power attack.
I think maybe hung up on Power Attack being the shorthand people are using for "feats everyone should be able to take." I'm not even convinced fighters should take Power Attack-- the only time I'm sure it increases damage is when you are trying to punch through Resistance. The Monk, Paladin, and Barbarian versions of the feat are all significantly better, albeit higher level. Which feels like a pretty great reason to not just give everyone access to a lackluster power attack.
In the thread "The Customization Bottleneck" Link the OP said:
"Basically every major aspect of customization has to be done with class feats. ... Most major facets of a character are all competing for the same 8 to 11 class feat slots and very little scales without further and constant investment that uses yet more of those slots. This is the bottleneck."
To which Jason Bulhman said:
"Yup.. this is a problem..."
This, to me, is the crux of the problem and encompasses the lack of combat option customization as well as other things. In PF1e you could throw a general feat into lots of different things and, if your class was giving you useful class features like Casting, your feat choices were pretty free. In PF2 class features compete with otherwise spontaneous customization choices.
Jason Bulmahn mentioned a solution in the January 16th Know Direction interview. Joe M.'s transcript said,
Which systems were deliberately taken to the extreme? Resonance, obviously. Archetypes. “We thought people really weren’t going to like them. But most people liked them just fine.” (But everyone hated the pirate archetype.) Fix: archetypes now have other types of feats internal. I think he means(?), spend the class feat to buy into pirate, but then you can spend a skill feat to get a pirate-specific skill feat, instead of everything running through class feats—the customization bottleneck discussed on here.
Was there a backup plan for archetypes? There was an opportunity to possibly go back to PF1-style multiclassing. This system would be more forgiving, but still some of the same problems: not good at the job your party needs you to be good at while still not being good at the job you’re trying to pick up . . . unless over time we release a lot of broken bits trying to fix that. JB talks about swapping out class feature archetypes as very possible to build in in the future, but the point here was to focus on class feats since that’s new and needs testing and that’s what you’re supposed to spend to customize your character and express your character idea.
Thus, the developers have been finding ways to use the non-class feats for customization.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason B on skill Feats to help compensate
Yikes... not exactly helping the bottle neck at all unless the skill Feats are going to be able to pick up non-skill like Archetype Feats, that does nothing to solve the bottleneck we're discussing here.
If that's the only thing they concede that's pretty disappointing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jason B on skill Feats to help compensateYikes... not exactly helping the bottle neck at all unless the skill Feats are going to be able to pick up non-skill like Archetype Feats, that does nothing to solve the bottleneck we're discussing here.
If that's the only thing they concede that's pretty disappointing.
The Pirate Dedication in the Playtest Rulebook had 6 archetype feats associated with it. Rope Runner, Sea Legs, and Roll with the Ship are about skills anyways. In contract, Heave Ho, Boarding Action, and Plunder are special attacks. Imagine that all of them except Pirate Dedication are moved to skill feats. Then the character can become a pirate, learn a few special attacks, and lose only one class feat to that customization.
Or imagine an Archer Dedication, which has some combat-oriented feature of its own such as Manyshot, and Improved Precise Shot is a skill feat requiring Archer Dedication rather than an archetype feat. Once again, two combat-oriented feats that cost only one class feat and one skill feat.
Jason B on skill Feats to help compensateYikes... not exactly helping the bottle neck at all unless the skill Feats are going to be able to pick up non-skill like Archetype Feats, that does nothing to solve the bottleneck we're discussing here.
If that's the only thing they concede that's pretty disappointing.
The Pirate Dedication in the Playtest Rulebook had 6 archetype feats associated with it. Rope Runner, Sea Legs, and Roll with the Ship are about skills anyways. In contract, Heave Ho, Boarding Action, and Plunder are special attacks. Imagine that all of them except Pirate Dedication are moved to skill feats. Then the character can become a pirate, learn a few special attacks, and lose only one class feat to that customization.
Or imagine an Archer Dedication, which has some combat-oriented feature of its own such as Manyshot, and Improved Precise Shot is a skill feat requiring Archer Dedication rather than an archetype feat. Once again, two combat-oriented feats that cost only one class feat and one skill feat.
Oh sure if they allow that, but if I'm reading this right he only plans to make the first three pirate Feats (that are skill based) Skill Feat accessible.
To me that's just common sense, otherwise you're really starving people out of the Skill based archetype Feats (the class ones will be the only ones taken if you have to spend class feats for all of them)
Otherwise Rogues are going to be insanely strong, since they could complete archetypes and multiclassing much much faster. Which would certainly take the Jack of All Trades stick to a whole other level lol
Combat customization is the bottle neck at the moment, or at least the issue of narrative and combat competing in the same space
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would honestly like to see some class feats moved to skill feats, possibly skill feats that require that class. Like Wind Step could be a skill feat that requires Expert Acrobatics and "Monk" instead of something that competes with Wolf Drag and Ki Blast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason B on skill Feats to help compensateYikes... not exactly helping the bottle neck at all unless the skill Feats are going to be able to pick up non-skill like Archetype Feats, that does nothing to solve the bottleneck we're discussing here.
If that's the only thing they concede that's pretty disappointing.
I don't think Jason was saying those archetype changes are going to solve the customization bottleneck. It was part of a question about extreme changes and archetypes, not him saying "We solved this other only somewhat related problem." Mathmuse is connecting dots with his post there. Dots that make sense to connect, as these changes could help the bottleneck a little, but they weren't dots Jason intended to connect.
The reason why I actually listen to the twitches despite hating twitch as a format is that summaries often miss context like this, and then people run wild with misinformation. I'd advise that if you hear about something on a twitch secondhand that makes you find concerning, you should listen to the relevant twitch yourself. Playing telephone with this information can get bad fast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jason B on skill Feats to help compensateYikes... not exactly helping the bottle neck at all unless the skill Feats are going to be able to pick up non-skill like Archetype Feats, that does nothing to solve the bottleneck we're discussing here.
If that's the only thing they concede that's pretty disappointing.
I don't think Jason was saying those archetype changes are going to solve the customization bottleneck. It was part of a question about extreme changes and archetypes, not him saying "We solved this other only somewhat related problem." Mathmuse is connecting dots with his post there. Dots that make sense to connect, as these changes could help the bottleneck a little, but they weren't dots Jason intended to connect.
The reason why I actually listen to the twitches despite hating twitch as a format is that summaries often miss context like this, and then people run wild with misinformation. I'd advise that if you hear about something on a twitch secondhand that makes you find concerning, you should listen to the relevant twitch yourself. Playing telephone with this information can get bad fast.
Yes, I do jump to a conclusion like that. I would use the mechanics of class-locked skill feats to solve the bottleneck problem, so I presume that the Paizo designers would do so, also.
For example, I did so when Draco18s complained that my rewritten snare rules where ineffective for combat (my snares are pre-combat) and he would not want to spend class feats on a ranger's snares. I moved my rewritten Snare Savant ranger feat into a ranger-specific clause in my skill feat Hidden Snares.
I don't think that class feats were meant to be solely about combat, but many people in these forums complain about spending a class feat for a perk that does not help combat.