I said it's the start of "Bad wrong fun" because part of the discussion was about how eventually Paizo will release enough material where that can definetly return. I see the stance that, "other classes specially caster" should get martial feats because it messes with fighters as very much the start of that. Even more specially when the debate is whether Class feats are a bottleneck.
I think it is sad that Fighters didnt had it originally, but its specifically why it should had been made core in PF2e. That was such a great mechanics people where willing to dip 5 lvs of 5 just to get it. Also, I always saw the Key feature of Fighters as being Armor/Weapon masters. Their bonus feats are just the easiest way to represent it; Even still they even got lots of Fighter Exclusive feats and where the best at using Equipment/Weapon/Armor Tricks.
As for the casters losing out with feats. A caster that multiclasses loses out on Metamagic and other quality of life upgrades, they have less health (so less front line), and the feats they get would generally be under level.
On the other hand, martials that multiclass lose out on some abilities while getting progressively better spell progression (from what I remember reading). Their high health makes them more capable of standing in the front line, where touch spells can have great effects even if underlevel.
I agree with you on the advanced training . They were the best thing to ever happen to fighters and took far long to arrive at. And not from the main design team either
Thanks for your insight on feat trades . I will admit to not knowing much about the quality of life trades such as metamagic and the others through not having played the playtest in detail - so I appreciate it . Time will tell when we see the final text of these feats though
Hmm that's one thing that people supporting PF2e apparently dont get.
PF1E IS BUILT OF MATH BUFFS.
Everything in the system is made so that low level characters are very weak, and every feat, item, class, skill, trait, etc. is made to make that weak character not weak. That was done by using Math buffs while also adding some new abilities every so often.
They keep saying how everyone just took Math feats, but half the feats people with system mastery picked arent even Math fixes (unless they were pre-reqs). A lot of the feats they take enable you to do something different with your resources, while pushing what ever parameter you were trying to max: Besides what choice is there when its expected to have X amount of stats or you just get poofed?
Example: I was once playing Kingmaker as a Summoner with a Bodyguard Eidolon, I meant it to go in front of me at all times unless I wanted to use Summon Monster. Well the GM decided to send us into the room and I was placed as the second to enter. Zombies appeared ate my brain and I failed the save, I died the next round.
Anyways my point is that PF2e solved the Math fix problem, they solved the feat tax problem, they solved the skills arent very useful for mosts problem, they fixed the magic item reliance problem: An then they go backwards and mess with Archetypes, Multiclassing, Class ability/Feat progression. Its to the point where any character that wanted to just dip for X archetype, while it self having Y archetype and Z feat needs to use up 5-7 class feats, that's (if I did the math correctly) at least 10th level. You know how soon that was available in PF1e? 2nd level, and you still had all your feats and class abilities from both classes.
I didn't play the Playtest (no group and too awkward to search for one). But I did read through a lot of stuff.
Metamagic and other magic feats are just one of those things that people dont look at much at first. But once you realize how useful they are, it's very easy to use them to get awesome stuff. It's how Widened Daze Fireball became a thing eventually. And why Magic Trick and Spell Mastery/Perfection are such a great feats in PF1e.
It should be pointed out that we are comparing core pf2 to all of pf1. I believe that feat-classing is simply the base, and is designed to be simple for new players to be able to multiclass easily. I believe Gesalt classes are something that is planned.
Hmm that's one thing that people supporting PF2e apparently dont get.
PF1E IS BUILT OF MATH BUFFS.
Everything in the system is made so that low level characters are very weak, and every feat, item, class, skill, trait, etc. is made to make that weak character not weak. That was done by using Math buffs while also adding some new abilities every so often.
They keep saying how everyone just took Math feats, but half the feats people with system mastery picked arent even Math fixes (unless they were pre-reqs). A lot of the feats they take enable you to do something different with your resources, while pushing what ever parameter you were trying to max: Besides what choice is there when its expected to have X amount of stats or you just get poofed?
Example: I was once playing Kingmaker as a Summoner with a Bodyguard Eidolon, I meant it to go in front of me at all times unless I wanted to use Summon Monster. Well the GM decided to send us into the room and I was placed as the second to enter. Zombies appeared ate my brain and I failed the save, I died the next round.
Anyways my point is that PF2e solved the Math fix problem, they solved the feat tax problem, they solved the skills arent very useful for mosts problem, they fixed the magic item reliance problem: An then they go backwards and mess with Archetypes, Multiclassing, Class ability/Feat progression. Its to the point where any character that wanted to just dip for X archetype, while it self having Y archetype and Z feat needs to use up 5-7 class feats, that's (if I did the math correctly) at least 10th level. You know how soon that was available in PF1e? 2nd level, and you still had all your feats and class abilities from both classes.
Controversial. I'm not sure PF2 solved any of those...
Well paizo made gestalt rules should be fun and might help a bit with the problems that might appear. But I doubt many GMs are going to use it, at least at first.
We don’t really care about your X/Y/Z paradigm because it led to a lot more negative results.
1. Developers couldn’t give early access to cool features since everything was poachable (Aka the Paladin problem)
2. Leaving it opened for most players is a trap since in PF1 nearly all multiclassing is a negative for your character.
3. Now everyone has full access to all their main class features and is not restricted for them on multiclassing/archetyping. You can now have your level 20 capstone feat and still dabble in other classes.
4. Math scaling being fairly equal between classes means that a lot of the reason most of the multiclass builds were done just aren’t needed anymore. Yes there are some cool builds that miss out, but let’s not kid ourselves the main reason 95% of dipping was done was to boost math issues with your main class.
And yes we know that PF1 is built off math buffs. We get it we’ve all played the game a lot and if you’d have read the thread you’d have seen that. But guess what we think that makes for a s*!%ty game and system and thankfully Paizo agreed with us. I’ve made and played optimized characters. I know the end result of every guide out there was to make your feat chain (whether that be archery, spell perfection, demoralize, trip, shatter defenses, vital strike, outflank/paired opportunist, etc) and then support the rest with math while ignoring everything to do with non combat abilities. I’ve played that game and it sucks. Good riddance.
Anyways my point is that PF2e solved the Math fix problem, they solved the feat tax problem, they solved the skills arent very useful for mosts problem, they fixed the magic item reliance problem: An then they go backwards and mess with Archetypes, Multiclassing, Class ability/Feat progression. Its to the point where any character that wanted to just dip for X archetype, while it self having Y archetype and Z feat needs to use up 5-7 class feats, that's (if I did the math correctly) at least 10th level. You know how soon that was available in PF1e? 2nd level, and you still had all your feats and class abilities from both classes.
Ok, show me what things a wizard 5/fighter 5 gets. Versus what things a fighter 9/swashbuckler 1 gets. Versus a cleric 3/wizard 3/mystic theurge 4. Versus a druid 10. And let's also compare a fighter 10 to a fighter 9/wizard 1. And for kicks let's also do a heavens oracle 8/paladin 2.
Do you not see how wide the power disparity between all of these level 10 setups are? Knowing how exactly to make the multiclassing work and which combos would/wouldn't work is part of the heavy gatekeeping that exists in 1E.
Though, I really do I feel like should response to Temperans summary. I will take what I believe is his arguments, and give my own rebuttal to each. These are purely my own opinions.
"Classes get to few Class Feat slots and are too diverse. This may cause problems for character that should be simple, but dont have enough feats to pay for: dedication, archetype, Class ability loss, etc."
Ancestry, Skills and General Feats are something we should consider, and I don't think waiting to level 2 to fully realize your character is a terrible burden, but what I think is more important is that the modular nature of pf2 makes it much easier to fill niches the core rulebook does not. If there is a strong demand for bow druids, all paizo needs to do is give druids more bow feats, or an archer dedication. In addition, if there are two few feats, it would be a simple homebrew fix of simply increasing the number you get, and official play can potentially benefit from official loot or campaign feats.
"We aren't talking about those feats [we like skill feats being a thing]. We are talking about character not being able to be their class if the want to fight."
The game gives you choice between advancing your primary class identity, or splashing into a secondary or even tertiary class identity. The player who focuses purely on their own class will always be more like that character who tri-classes unless we restrict their purists choices. Ancestry, skills and general feats can also help either flesh out your character. In pf1, tax feats were a big opportunity cost of playing in certain ways. Pf2 has just simplified the system, and makes it more clear what you are giving up in exchange for what.
"Yeah, it's great they removed feat taxes, but that's not the problem. The problem is you can't play X concept without losing your Class abilities."
The more you invest in fighter abilities, the less druidry you can be. Again, the only to prevent this is to put a cap on how druidry a character could potentially be and place everyone at that level.
If you want a more seamless hybrid, I am in favor of classes which are just naturally fighter/magic hybrids. We already have paladins, having a fighter type class with a choice of arcane/occult/primal (and possibly divine, but again paladin) spell list could be interesting. You could do the same with a rogue-like class. Or make them archetypes, dedications, etc. I don't know how they should be implemented, but I do want them to exist.
"For some concepts it's not okay. There are things that can't be done now, without having to multiclass and lose half your things."
See above, in order to get something, you must give something, and more content can smooth out concepts that are difficult to create at the moment. I think the number of pf1 concepts across years of books and play that can be recreated with just the player handbook is a testament to the flexibility of the system.
" Is it really that bad to get weapon (or weapon group) specific feats that aren't Class feats, just to show "hey look I'm good at this"? Even a lowly trick shot Skill feat."
I am in favor for weapon class feats, but I feel they are restrictive but offer a nice thematic tie and can be mechanically interesting. I feel individual weapon specializes suffers great restrictions and has lesser reward.
Though some very particular weapons could potentially be an exception. Japanese blades do have a very different flavor to western blades, so separating the katana from swords might work but I am iffy on it.
Weapon tag feats work the same way weapon class feats would, so things like monk weapons, racial weapons, etc work for me.
"We dont want to steal from Fighters and it's nice martial classes get different play styles"
If a fighter wants to invest in spell-casting, they lose some of what makes them fighters. If a spell-caster wants to invest into fighting, they lose some of what makes them spell-casters. Hopefully in the future, we get a class that more seamlessly combines these elements.
You seem to be missing that if a fighter does want spec into wizard spells, they will also need to stop taking feats that will make them better at preforming their primary role as fighters.
A monk who wants to multi-class into druid may be forced to choose between ki powers or stances, or delay getting one, or being weaker at both. Just as druid may need to choose between an animal companion or wild-shift if they want to grab a monk dedication.
But regardless of this, the druid will still be a primal spellcaster with a connection to nature and the monk will still be the guy running around with no armor punching people.
As someone that would never have multiclassed in PF1 out of fear of accidently making a terrible character; but absolutely would multiclass in PF2 because making a mistake isn't going to mess you up as bad; I like the new multiclass system. Spend a feat; be able to do a cool thing; thats what feats are in PF2 the way I see it and the multiclassing sytem ties into that. PF2 as we currently stand is 0 days old and PF1 was out for a decade so of course there are options that aren't in it yet.
PF2 raised the floor; I didn't lower the ceiling. It looks like its going to be much harder to accidently make a rogue that can't succesfully sneak attack or a sorcerer that can't hit anything or a fighter that goes down after two hits. It also made it; as others have mentioned, possible to more front load a class without having everyone dip 1 level into to get everything (the devs don't have to make as many comprimises for 'balance' [i.e. a dip that should obviously be taken is just another feat tax]). If the cost of doing this is that some concepts aren't avaiable day one; but have to wait a little while for those options to be published; I'm okay with that.
Second I don’t think it’s correct to call metamagic and combat feats a corollary. Martial had combat feats but often the best usage of them was casters like clerics who could use them with high level spells. On the flip side metamagic feats are completely useless for martials and not accessible. But now in PF2 it will go both ways. For someone to be good at magic or at combat they will need to find a way to invest in it.
I will attempt to clarify. I was not making some power usage or comparison between the metamagic feats and the combative feats.
I was pointing out how the casters all had access to the metamagics and those feats functioned the same for them. (Sorcerer and Quicken being an exception I am aware of.)
And I was comparing that to the combat feats functioning the same for martial characters.
I am *thrilled* that martials are looking better in the new system. The Fighter in particular in having an identity different from the other martial types. I was an advocate during the previews and playtest for the Fighter being able to get Legendary in both weapons and armor.
I’m not sure why you should care so much that they got legendary in those. After all they got legendary in that pretty much in PF1 and it did them no good. Math bonuses is not a class identity. Weapon training gave them a significant advantage in to hit over anyone in first edition. As well there was armor training and the advanced versions of each. It still didn’t help much. Having an identity means being able to do something that others can’t. Fighters just didn’t have it.
And one thing I’d like to follow up on the advanced training brought up earlier. This is to respond to the earlier post about advanced training being a class feature. Over half of the advanced training from not sides is math enhancers. A bunch of the rest is letting you make up for having awful skills. There is very little in there that counts as being an actual “Feature”. As in less than five across all advanced weapon/armor training.
So, something I feel is that Druids probably shouldn't be a weapons class. That's more something for martial characters. So I feel Druids needing a dedication feat for something like Fighter or Ranger to get feats that work well with a bow makes sense to me. That's going out of the main what the Druid does.
Something else I feel is that if a Druid player bought a bow and arrows and got proficiency for the bow, they've invested into using the bow. I somewhat understand not feeling this way without specific feats, but it does feel like significant investment to me, especially once one starts getting into magical bows. Also, such a character would probably prioritize Dexterity a bit more than other Druids.
My issue with the Druid needing a longbow argument is the disparity of things that casters have historically gotten over martials in both power and versatility. I don’t think it is fair or has been fair that casters have been able to be attain the same level of power in martial weapons as martials without the same dedication to martial training. If casters can just have the same feats that martials get, I don’t see a point in having martials period.
Saint Evil wrote:
And ironic to me is that Pf2 martials finally have there own styles as shown by how Fighter and Rogue TWF is different.
Was the rogue’s twf feat revealed, and if so, can you point me to it? I’ve been waiting to see how it worked.
I am sorry in advance, but that comment made me a bit mad when I went through all that effort to be relatively impartial. I honestly dont even care what they do in the end, I know they'll make a good choice; but that's no reason to just flat out ignore the discussion of a real issue someone has.
long speech:
Arakasius wrote:
We don’t really care about your X/Y/Z paradigm because it led to a lot more negative results.
1. Developers couldn’t give early access to cool features since everything was poachable (Aka the Paladin problem)
2. Leaving it opened for most players is a trap since in PF1 nearly all multiclassing is a negative for your character.
3. Now everyone has full access to all their main class features and is not restricted for them on multiclassing/archetyping. You can now have your level 20 capstone feat and still dabble in other classes.
4. Math scaling being fairly equal between classes means that a lot of the reason most of the multiclass builds were done just aren’t needed anymore. Yes there are some cool builds that miss out, but let’s not kid ourselves the main reason 95% of dipping was done was to boost math issues with your main class.
And yes we know that PF1 is built off math buffs. We get it we’ve all played the game a lot and if you’d have read the thread you’d have seen that. But guess what we think that makes for a s%+@ty game and system and thankfully Paizo agreed with us. I’ve made and played optimized characters. I know the end result of every guide out there was to make your feat chain (whether that be archery, spell perfection, demoralize, trip, shatter defenses, vital strike, outflank/paired opportunist, etc) and then support the rest with math while ignoring everything to do with non combat abilities. I’ve played that game and it sucks. Good riddance.
I gave the X/Y/Z example because people keep asking for an example that in PF2e: Loses features and/or can't be done in a reasonable amount of levels. People also complained that the examples were too specific and/or that druid was hard to compare. Now your straight up and tell me you dont care about my example, "because it led to negative results"? Since when was that the benchmark I thought this was a discussion on costumisability bottle neck.
But thank you for showing me your true colors, now I know you can't be debated with.
******************
1. No one asked for early access, no one asked to poach things. They only wanted to feel like leveling up wasn't a choice between playing your concept and sacrifising everything for it.
2. The whole multiclassing is mostly a negative is just a lie. Most of the stories about bad multiclassing comes from people playing something, when it just didnt work that way. For example playing Fighter/Wizard expecting to be this awesome frontline that shoots fireballs, when in reality it plays more like a beefy low caster with self defense tools.
3. Full access to their main features? Have you been reading the same thread? The whole point of it was that there is a severe bottleneck just waiting to happen if it not fixed correctly, and you are saying you keep everything.
Archetype you can only have one PF1e style archetype, so not really open. And feat style archetype are very restrictive so specially given the bottle neck. Good luck taking multiple and still getting Class feats.
The lv 20 capstone has always been more of a cherry on top of the Class Sunday. Most of them are/were marginally useful except for specific builds (Divination Wizard), so making them better just seems like a patch.
4. Didn't I say this was a good thing that math got balance? I swear I thought I did. Let me say it again, ITS GREAT THE MATH IS FIXED. That's isnt the point of discussion; its wether Class feats are a bottle neck and the potential trouble it can cause if not fixed. Yes may multiclass options are about fixing the math, yes it's good it doesn't have to be that way, but why must it kill all the multiclassing that was done for the cool abilities?
You accuse me of not having read the thread, even though I clearly pointed out how I read it and tried to keep remember it clearly. But have you read my posts, I mean clearly read it? Did I say that I didnt like how they fix the Math?
Temperans wrote:
Anyways my point is that PF2e solved the Math fix problem, they solved the feat tax problem, they solved the skills arent very useful for mosts problem, they fixed the magic item reliance problem:...
Fixing the math is no excuse to simultaneously kick flavorful build in the gut. Just because you look at guides and only that minmaxed options and ignore all flavor/out-combat options, burning yourself out doesn't mean everyone does the same. I myself built many multiclass characters taking flavorful/out-combat options to help build my character.
*************
So pls can we get our stupid biases out of the discussion on wether this is actually an issue, and stop with this stupid moving of the goal post?
multiclass builds Cyouni asked for:
Cyouni wrote:
Ok, show me what things a wizard 5/fighter 5 gets. Versus what things a fighter 9/swashbuckler 1 gets. Versus a cleric 3/wizard 3/mystic theurge 4. Versus a druid 10. And let's also compare a fighter 10 to a fighter 9/wizard 1. And for kicks let's also do a heavens oracle 8/paladin 2.
Do you not see how wide the power disparity between all of these level 10 setups are? Knowing how exactly to make the multiclassing work and which combos would/wouldn't work is part of the heavy gatekeeping that exists in 1E.
* Wizard 5/Fighter 5 gets: 3rd level casting, basic familiar/arcane bond, Arcane School, Weapon/Armor Training, 5 bonus feats, Bravery 2. Usual playstyle: Blaster/front liner. How I would play it: Crowd/Area control, buffer, and anti mook; dont try to out damage or out tank others, instead support them from the back and help them get the kill without dealing with the lesser enemies as much.
* Fighter 9/Swashbuckler 1 gets: Weapon/Armor Training 2, Bravery 3, 1st lv Deeds, Panache, Weapon Finesse with all Light/1-handed weapons, and can use Cha for Int pre-reqs. Usual playstyle: Its practically just regular Dex Fighter, but with upgraded Weapon finesse and Deed. How I would play it: Crit fishing Falcata Dex Fighter using Buckler Duelist and Falcata Swashbuckler with heightened defenses. Falcata Swashbuckler let's me use Dex to hit with Falcatas, while Buckler Duelist Boosts my defense and Gives me +3 to attack and damage at lv 9 (Strong Swing only replaces Weapon Training 1); I would also get AAT (for a shield feat) and retrain a feat for AWT (probably for Armed Bravery).
* Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 4 gets: 4th level spells from both classes, a domain, 2d6 channel energy, a basic familiar/arcane bond, and 1 bonus feat. Usual playstyle: If I remember right this was played as a pure buffer. How I would play it: Buffer and Battle field control; Start by casting a buff spell with relatively high duration and then cast things like Aggresive Thundercloud to help with damage, if needed cast some wall/pit spells, etc.
* Its a Druid 10, asking me what its has is basically listing the bestiary, animal companion options, and druid spells.
* Fighter 10 gets: 6-8 bonus feats, Armor/Weapon Training 2, Bravery 2. Its a very diverse class so it doesnt have a usual playstyle besides try to get big damage numbers. How I play it depends on my goals: for a tank I try to build shield and armor feats with some attack feats; for a dps, I try to stack multiple feats with cool effects, Ex: Cleaving Smash. I also personally don't like Power Attack and only grab it if it's a pre-req or want the extra damage.
* Fighter 9/Wizard 1 gets basically the same as Fighter 10, but a few magical tricks. Honestly, I would just use the extra magic to cast things like Shield when needed or to make sure I land a long a difficult shot using a ranged weapon; over it just get much better utility and a few out of combat uses.
* Oracle 8/Paladin 2 also get a bunch of stuff so it's hard to say, usually they get Life mystery or try to go for Cha to AC. Usually its played as a health tank using Life Oracle to keep allies alive while maintaining yourself alive via LoH. It does have some combat utility as well with Smite Evil and the Cleric spell list. With this how I play it depends on my goal, health tank or tanky caster.
Man that was long, I think it's been like 2 hours since I started typing.
Btw Advance Weapon/Armor training was not just math bonuses, although many of it were because again that's how PF1e worked which PF2e changed.
AAT and AWT also had things like Sacrifising armor/weapon to negate a crit. Getting Armor/Weapon/Shield/Item Mastery feats, which should had been posted and enhanced, I mean Cut from the Air/Spellcut and Sprightly Armor (to name a few) where awesome and flavorful. Also Warrior Spirit was a great ability, a lot more versatile than even Magus Arcane weapon at the cost of fewer uses and standard action.
The real problem with fighters is that everyone was stuck with the idea of "must have large damage bonus" combined with other classes just having been straight up better designed (cough Vigilantes cough). I agree it's a great thing that Fighters finally have their own thing.
That shouldn't take things from everyone else in the process.
[Edit: Man my typing is mush after those long posts, I keep erasing things and forgetting to edit things accordingly. I originally mean I dont disagree, but erased the dis and forgot to also erase the don't. Facepalm]
So what do you think a fighter should be able to do then? Because it sounds like if you take a big step back you want all the things a fighter gets to be not feat locked and available to all. Fine, but then what do fighters get instead? Or have I missed something somewhere
You can use the weapons much more effectively in this edition but fighters can do it better. And if you want to soon you have to be more like them...
I'm going to be as clear as I possibly can because it seems that I'm not getting my point across:
1. I want to be able to say I'm invested in a weapon. As a character in a roleplaying game, I feel that should always be an option, just as you can invest in different skills, or invest in different classes.
I can't remember who said it but this reminds me of a favorite quote I have. "Don't build a concept. Build a character". You can have a Elf who likes longbows and wildshape but that should be an afterthought, not the identity of the character. Focusing on hyper specific builds who do things A, B and C and only A, B and C is a terrible way to play RPG's. That's just my 2 cents anyway.
I feel like part of the problem was "casters who do martial stuff" (e.g. Magi, Inquisitors, Battle Clerics/Oracles/Shamans, Occultists, etc.) were darn near everyone's favorite thing in PF1. But I feel like martials getting stuff casters would love to have but can't have without significant cost, is extremely important in PF2.
It might be terrible but it should be possible and it definetly was possible for the last 10+ years even before pathfinder and even through 5e.
It's still very possible. Complaining that getting bonuses to using a longbow also gives you bonuses to a certain type of melee weapon is like complaining you were given a free pizza. At worst just don't eat the pizza, at best make some room for that pizza.
It honestly seems like the person I was replying too wants their cake and to eat it too. "I want to be hyper-focused on 3 things but if I have viable options besides those 3 things I won't be happy" is such an odd complaint.
I think Temperan's suggestions are being made in good faith, I just don't think he sees the consequences of those suggestions.
Full access to class features may sound nice, but then you just end up with the pf1 problem where some of your class features does absolutely nothing for your character and you just trade them for features that you suit you better. In pf1, you have one long list of features and a lot of alternative lists of potential bundles you can swap out of your class for another bundle. In pf2, you get the very bare-bone requirements of being that class and get to choose what abilities are important to your class.
Not being forced to choose between your class and another class also sounds nice. But that means you would need to have a resource which you could use to multi-class without taking away from your main-class, and you can't use that resource to benefit your main-class. Either everyone multi-classes and removes the option of being a purist, or multi-classes simply become objectively better than purists.
Either the purist will always be better at their niche because they exclusively spend their resources improving that niche, or the multi-classer is just objective better.
It is possible that there is not enough feats to fully flesh out your character, to which I propose the radical idea you give everyone more feats in homebrew and in official play, additional feats can be given out as an official reward like magic items.
Hmm, I get what you are saying but to me it sounds like they already have a pepperoni and a sausage pizza, but wants to pay to have double pepperoni without needing to buy another pizza.
Hmm yeah I can see how it could be troublesome specially for multiclassing if all feats are open. But then there should be some feats that are universal that any character could get without much investment. I thought General and Skill feats would be those, but then they are still missing some core functions.
It also doesn't make much sense at least to me to change a Class feat for an PF1e archetype by default. I can see a Class feat charge to get get Class feat access to said archetype, but not for the archetype itself.
You can specialize. The only difference between PF1 and PF2 is that martial specialization (but not competence) goes through martial classes. Just like how everything non-martial (or hell just non fighter, plenty of gated martial stuff in PF1) was gated through non-martial classes in PF1. It is having everyone play by the same rules. Well non-martial stuff comes out behind a little still (as you can't buy basic proficiency in casting with General Feats.)
It is hard to envision because we can all imagine ourselves doing martial stuff with just enough training (until we get to the super human stuff at least) but we can't do that vis a vis turning into a frog. What we don't translate is that turning into a frog IS something you can do with just enough training in the fantasy environment. Dedications represent going in for that training, but its picking up something you haven't yet been focused on for the majority of your adult life. It is hard to change rails, and you almost always give up your focus on something else.
So learning to use your blade strikes to enable an easy grapple requires a similar level of dedication as learning how to cast a single spell. With martials still losing out because you can do its thing anyway (the feat improves economy efficiency but everyone can Strike and Grab in PF2)
I am sorry in advance, but that comment made me a bit mad when I went through all that effort to be relatively impartial. I honestly dont even care what they do in the end, I know they'll make a good choice; but that's no reason to just flat out ignore the discussion of a real issue someone has.
** spoiler omitted **...
Are you really going to say that all of those are remotely equal?
That fighter 5/wizard 5 is anywhere near any of the other options in both power and actual choice of things they can do?
There is nothing that the fighter 5/wizard 5 can do that can't be better done by someone else. It's ridiculous even compared to the Fighter 9/Wizard 1, where the Wizard level is basically wasted. Or compare it to the Oracle/Paladin, who's going to be better than it in literally everything it can try - especially since the heavens oracle will be better than it in combat, buffs, and will have Awesome Display for a save-or-die. The druid with animal companion will make it look utterly useless. Oh, and it pretty much can't wear armour unless you take Arcane Armour Training.
The fighter 9/wizard 1 has pretty much wasted a level in that exchange compared to the fighter 9/swashbuckler 1.
In both power and versatility, some of those shine far above others. And they're all supposed to be the same level. Realistically, both the druid and the oracle/paladin could probably lose two levels and still be more effective than the fighter 5/wizard 5.
And one final comparison to think on: think of how the Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Theurge 4 compares to the Cleric 3/Sorcerer 4/Theurge 3.
Well you see that's more a problem of Fighter and low level Wizard being badly designed in terms of class abilities in PF1e (the wizard makes it up at later levels through arcane school and spells). Oracle and Paladin on the other hand are extremely well designed able to tank, dps, heal, and buff (nearly simultaneously).
Let's take a look instead at a Fighter 9/Arcanist 1. Just changing Wizard for Arcanist gives a lot more Versatility: Armored Mask gives great defenses for a Light armor and/or shield user; Arcane Weapon gives a +1 to a weapon, not much but enough that Warrior Spirit can give a +2 ability instead; Grab Dimensional slide to teleport out of danger while continuing to attack; etc.
Replace Fighter instead with just Ranger and you already have a better character since again, the problem is Fighters and low level Wizards arent good enough compared to other classes in PF1e.
*************
Honestly, I agree they are too scarce with granting casting feats in general and that should probably change with making a few martial things available as well. To not do so would be hypocritical.
However the discussion has mostly been on martial stuff due to legacy.
Again you are right, a few caster abilities should be more public just as some martial abilities should be aswell.
The thing is - being able to cherry pick back and forth to pick up everything means that either things are extremely backloaded (which people complain about heavily) or the disparity between those who know what to pick up and what not to increases massively. Like you noted, Wizard and Arcanist result in completely different characters, where one gets a small benefit and one doesn't.
In a world with split multiclassing, your abilities completely aren't viable compared to either a Wizard 10 or Sorcerer 10. Imagine, if you would, a party with a Wizard 5/Sorcerer 5, a Ranger 5/Arcanist 5, a Wizard 10, and a Magus 10. Two of those are going to be completely outclassed by the other two, and all of those are concepts that should be viable.
Compare to 2E. Wizard 10 with all their class feats invested into Sorcerer multiclass will still be quite a decent character, as will a Ranger with all their class feats invested into Wizard multiclass.
Split level multiclassing is basically a barrier of "you must be this knowledgeable to play the game". (I also have a player where every time they make a multiclass character, it just fails utterly because they haven't done enough research to avoid the traps of that specific setup.)
The thing is - being able to cherry pick back and forth to pick up everything means that either things are extremely backloaded (which people complain about heavily) or the disparity between those who know what to pick up and what not to increases massively. Like you noted, Wizard and Arcanist result in completely different characters, where one gets a small benefit and one doesn't.
In a world with split multiclassing, your abilities completely aren't viable compared to either a Wizard 10 or Sorcerer 10. Imagine, if you would, a party with a Wizard 5/Sorcerer 5, a Ranger 5/Arcanist 5, a Wizard 10, and a Magus 10. Two of those are going to be completely outclassed by the other two, and all of those are concepts that should be viable.
Compare to 2E. Wizard 10 with all their class feats invested into Sorcerer multiclass will still be quite a decent character, as will a Ranger with all their class feats invested into Wizard multiclass.
Split level multiclassing is basically a barrier of "you must be this knowledgeable to play the game". (I also have a player where every time they make a multiclass character, it just fails utterly because they haven't done enough research to avoid the traps of that specific setup.)
I agree with pretty much all of this. Multiclassing only really works for certain classes when you take a very defined number of levels . Otherwise they fall over pretty quickly
I have said this before (perhaps on this thread) that some obvious ones jump out and most go no higher than 3 levels :
Fighter 1 or 2 : bonus feats and proficiencies
Unchained Rogue 1 or 3 : free finesse, sneak attack and skills or all of this plus evasion, a talent (potentially a bonus feat), Dex to damage and an extra sneak attack dice - at the cost of one BAB
Monk 1 : wisdom to AC, several bonus feats some more useful than others , saving throw boosts
Swashbuckler 1, 3 or 5: finesse and deeds and then eventually precision damage and then free improved crit
Gunslinger 1 or 5 : use of a gun, free gun and grit or Dex to damage with guns (in this case it is a slightly different problem of not needing anymore levels in this class. Same as swashbuckler which is counter to PF design philosophy)
Paladin 2: Arguably the biggest offender - heavy armour and weapon proficiencies, charisma to saves, lay on hands. Early on an Oradin is held up as part of the Meta and it is only due to the charisma to saves part which is a pure maths fix. And what is more there were some cool archetypes that traded divine grace away so almost instantly become a no go
Inspired Blade Investigator - quick route to Dex to damage
(And I wager loss of this “easy” charisma to saves is a bone of contention for many who claim to not like the new paladin. Nothing to do with the class, but the removal of the absolutely abusable dip)
All of the above are arguably amongst the only “viable” multiclass dips but require system knowledge far more than what should be reasonable to identify and understand .
And there is a limited choice. You should be able to multiclass anyway you like without feeling useless . It shows different classes are built with different rules in how they scale which is of course a legacy issue
Okay now what are some solutions to that problem that also doesn't create a Class feat Bottleneck? We have hard in this thread:
A) Extra feats, so a class can either multiclass easier or get more Class abilities.
B) Feats auto scale in some way, so there are less options to take and there by less bottleneck.
C) Seperate multiclass pool, so it doesn't compete with class abilities. But it makes pure classes weaker.
D) Use any feat type to advance multiclass/archetypes, so Class feats have less strain.
What is your suggestion for removing a bottleneck if it does become an actual problem?
I have floated that half elf heritage should do something for multiclassing
So perhaps some other heritage based multiclass options for traditional combos (dwarf fighter , elf wizard). But there might seem limiting but no one died to complain about favoured classes...
How would a multiclass pool work if you didn’t want to multiclass?
I think there will be skill fear based archetypes like Pirate. Just not the core multiclasses
On your point A): how is this not just going to be simple escalation?
Double the feats and the druid who doesn’t want to use the bow gets 2 druid feats and the one who does takes the combat one and a druid one. The complaint is the same you just get more options
And if someone is unsatisfied this escalates . The assumption more feats are needed to feel more druidy (using recurring example) is based on the point that is consistently being ignored - classes get class features that define the class as well as class feats. Class feats are not all they get
What i didn’t mention was this idea of “Class Feat bottleneck”.
At what point is it considered a bottleneck? I think classes get 11 and some people want to be able to spend them all on class related things whilst still being able to do things that are not class based - is that it?
What number do the class feats have to be reduced to before it is considered a bottleneck?
Or have I misunderstood and it is not to do with volume of available class feats ?
That is part of the questions Lanathar. Other questions are: when does it become a bottleneck, why did it became that, how can it be fixed, when and/or where should it be fixed, etc.
The class features classes get helps to not need class feats. But guess what most caster classes get for class features (exception is Sorcerer who trades two Class feats). Yep that's right nothing but spells beyond first level. The only way to make a druid that actually druids (not just cast spells) is by paying Class feats. That's why they keep mentioning it, and that's why there may be a bottleneck.
The bottleneck comes from: 1) not enough feats to both be good at your class and try to be different; 2) classes got at least half their base abilities removed/changed, so just getting back basic abilities takes feats; 3) any character that ever tried to be martial, multiclass, use archetypes, etc. Lost abilities.
**************
The excuses of: "but math got fixed" and "things are now default". Doesn't help the inherent problem, it's very nice and helpful for many many builds; But again, it doesn't solve the problem.
**************
Simple escalation is the best solution so far given that it's a straight forward process of every body gets X more (for more power) or X less (for less power). More options is what the people who are worried want, they are not sure 11 feats are enough given how class feats work.
I didn't came up with the multiclass pool. But from the sound of it, you either: Get free feats that could only be used to multiclass; Or, you use General feats to pay for dedication.
So the one thing I would do is open up General Feats slightly by adding in one more feat.
Class Focus Feat 3
General
Through extra focus on your training you increase the depth of your training. You gain a Class Feat. When picking this feat treat your level as half (rounded up).
Special: You can take this feat multiple times, each time getting a new Class Feat.
This allows players to pick up more class options, or spend general feats to get things from multiclassing but stops it being a go to option as you are restricted in level.
To go back to our Druid example, our druid could get Ranger multiclass at level 2, then at level three pick up whatever druid feat they felt they missed out on.
**************
On the dedications and why they are level 2. It stops humans being the defacto lvl 1 multiclass for casters and stops the odd situation where classes that get a first level feat can multiclass but others can't.
E.G if dedication was level 1 you could have a fighter/wizard but not a wizard/fighter. So its actually an example of how a choice that seems like it expands options actually shrinks them in practice.
Opening up other ways of class feats seems like a better idea than adding more feats as there already seem quite a lot - but they are silo’d into skill, general etc
I like that restriction on the general one suggested as there will need to be a way of not making the “pick a class feat” general feats become no brainers like some were in 1E (to the point where after extra hex, revalation, exploit etc they realised they couldn’t do it for vigilante). Would you also suggest a limit on said general feat?
I already suggested bringing back “favoured classes” in such a way to potentially allow ancestry feats to be class feats . This would need to be balanced - probably in the same way - level counts as half. And this is where half elf could come in - they could use this to buy a class feat from either their base or their multiclass
Add to this some equipment/weapon trick skill feats that I assume are inevitable (too many people want an Indian jones whip swing type situation ) and this kind of works out
As with everything this doesn’t solve issues with official play but they are easy home game fixes given the modularity of the system . And a little more nuanced than just straight up increasing the feats
PF1 core didn’t even have archetypes much less functional multiclassing.
This sort of dishonesty isn't going to really help any discussion. For many, many people the multiclassing in PF1e was not only functional, but far superior to it's contemporary D&D 4e. The fact that PF2e has gone the D&D 4e route does not mean PF1e is no longer a functional game.
I do like the fact that feats represent versatility boosts rather then power boosts. I'll be examining the character options under that prism very closely. From memory the animal companion chain says that this idea is completely false. But I'll build a few characters in PF1e and PF2e and see how many feats are actual choices vs power boosts.
PF1 core didn’t even have archetypes much less functional multiclassing.
This sort of dishonesty isn't going to really help any discussion. For many, many people the multiclassing in PF1e was not only functional, but far superior to it's contemporary D&D 4e. The fact that PF2e has gone the D&D 4e route does not mean PF1e is no longer a functional game.
I do like the fact that feats represent versatility boosts rather then power boosts. I'll be examining the character options under that prism very closely. From memory the animal companion chain says that this idea is completely false. But I'll build a few characters in PF1e and PF2e and see how many feats are actual choices vs power boosts.
I guess it depends on the interpretation of "functional"
I listed in a post above the obvious functional multliclassing examples and there is no denying that. But they are among the only ones that really work (and none are full spell-casters)
If Arakasius means "functional" to mean that you can multiclass any two classes together without severely compromising the functionality of the build then that absolutely is not the case in Pathfinder 1E. Wizard 3/Cleric 3 is always worse than a 6th level version of either but you need a certain amount of game knowledge to understand this.
I will always remember a 3.5 game where someone made a hilarious ineffective Wizard/Rogue character as they tried to keep the split even and didn't appreciate how much the lost. And Pathfinder kept this aspect
And I will keep returning to the clowns that are the skinsaw men (Cleric/Rogue broadly even class split) in any AP they appear in. Almost not worth the paper they are written on and certainly not equal to the CR they are published at (as abstract as the CR are system may be they certainly don't fit what it intents)
So I don't think Arakasius is being dishonest with the statement. They just could have a different interpretation
I wouldn't say claiming a system that produced unplayable characters the vast majority of the time (I'd wager upwards of 90% of combinations didn't work), occasionally yielded grossly overpowered builds and even those builds that do work generally sucked for several levels unless you started play at a level in which they did work, as functional is being honest. Its like claiming Dwarf Fortress' UI design is good because if you get used to it, can work around it or have a guide then it is perfectly functional. When he compare just core options we see it as even worse, without the various patch archetypes/classes/feats/traits there was barely any worthwhile multiclassing to be had.
It also had the nasty effect of crippling class and archetype design. We were going to do a lvl 1 PF1 game to hold us over after Vampire. I wanted to make a Sensei. Guess what? It sucks at level 1 because to discourage dips the feature that defines your entire attribute choice happens at level 2. This isn't an issue with PF2 multiclassing as the dedications can give what the devs feel is balanced without having to hurt the original class.
If your average player tried to use PF1 multiclassing they would likely be crippling themselves. Systems designed only to work through either luck/guides or system mastery is dsyfunctional ivory tower design.
PF1 core didn’t even have archetypes much less functional multiclassing.
This sort of dishonesty isn't going to really help any discussion. For many, many people the multiclassing in PF1e was not only functional, but far superior to it's contemporary D&D 4e. The fact that PF2e has gone the D&D 4e route does not mean PF1e is no longer a functional game.
I do like the fact that feats represent versatility boosts rather then power boosts. I'll be examining the character options under that prism very closely. From memory the animal companion chain says that this idea is completely false. But I'll build a few characters in PF1e and PF2e and see how many feats are actual choices vs power boosts.
I guess it depends on the interpretation of "functional"
I listed in a post above the obvious functional multliclassing examples and there is no denying that. But they are among the only ones that really work (and none are full spell-casters)
If Arakasius means "functional" to mean that you can multiclass any two classes together without severely compromising the functionality of the build then that absolutely is not the case in Pathfinder 1E. Wizard 3/Cleric 3 is always worse than a 6th level version of either but you need a certain amount of game knowledge to understand this.
I will always remember a 3.5 game where someone made a hilarious ineffective Wizard/Rogue character as they tried to keep the split even and didn't appreciate how much the lost. And Pathfinder kept this aspect
And I will keep returning to the clowns that are the skinsaw men (Cleric/Rogue broadly even class split) in any AP they appear in. Almost not worth the paper they are written on and certainly not equal to the CR they are published at (as abstract as the CR are system may be they certainly don't fit what it intents)
So I don't think Arakasius is being dishonest with the statement. They just could have a different interpretation
There are...
I don't understand why you need to be rude to be honest. And you were rude on your other thread about levelling up as well (but not to me in that one)
I don't really need to be told I don't understand the game I have played since it's inception.
I have given my examples as to why multi-classing was not "fully functional" per my interpretation (the last word being the key point). Your response seems to be - "actually it was" without actually really explaining. And then adding in rudeness.
I can tell you for nothing that a cleric 3 / wizard 3 is not "fully functional" from my interpretation. But perhaps if you explain what your understanding of "functional" is that would help as we clearly have a different understanding
And I am not dismissing the previous edition. I am just acknowledging some of the weaknesses and limitations from my perspective
You realize all of this is pointless without some objective measure of whether a given character is 'playable' or not.
Having myself participated in many session with characters that the denizens of this board would decry as non-viable, I really do think some people have very odd standards on this...
You realize all of this is pointless without some objective measure of whether a given character is 'playable' or not.
Having myself participated in many session with characters that the denizens of this board would decry as non-viable, I really do think some people have very odd standards on this...
This is fair and it depends on what you want from the game and probably how long you plan to play a character for.
I had loads of fun in a one off playing a deliberately rubbish character who was bullied into joining the main party by the NPC. But that probably isn't a long term thing
But I have also heard stories (anecdotal only I know) about people getting nasty reactions to turning up to a PFS game with something below the power curve. Maybe this is only a minority but I am not making this up out of nowhere
And I have a party at the moment where the two damage dealers are terrified of being made obsolete/insignificant by the other and so have silent arms race going on whilst making comments to me behind the scenes. Not mature I know but it is happening. So being worried about "viability" is real even if it is really tough to define and quantify
If you can't acknowledge the faults of a work, you can't make the sequel better or understand why certain changes were made.
The flaws of pathfinder 1 are relevant when discussing changes made in pathfinder 2, and explaining why the needed to happen.
Loving something is understanding something is flawed, and enjoying it any way. Refusing to acknowledge the flaws of something is fanaticism.
This 100%.
I listened to a lot of podcasts about series I like (mainly HP and ASOIAF/GOT) and the one thing that runs constant when they make criticisms is "if we didn't love it as much as we did we wouldn't even bother speaking about it let alone make critiques"
I think there is a lot of acknowledgement here and it is definitely not going as far as declaring it broken and awful and leading people to wonder why we play
