A little worried about feat starvation in PF2


Advice

551 to 600 of 614 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Let Pathfinder 2nd edition stand and succeed on its own merits, rather than look good by rubbishing what came before.

While I think there is some merit in comparing systems, especially when looking at how to move forward, John has a point. PF2 is its own system. PF2 has its own mechanics and the game ultimately needs to be judged on how those function in their own environment.

Frankly, when I'm thinking about the best way to build out a concept in PF2, whether or not that concept was harder or easier to build in PF1 literally doesn't matter at all. Telling me that Wizard/MC Fighter is better than PF1's EK doesn't in any way shape or form help me build a Wizard/MC Fighter better or address any concerns I might have trying to build a Wizard/MC Fighter.

If PF2 does something better, but still doesn't do it well ... it still isn't doing it well, there's no consolation prize for failing slightly less than another system. If PF1 did it better, but I can still make it work in PF2, it doesn't mean anything that I could do it in a different way in what's literally an entirely separate game.

There is no normal situation in which a PF1 Eldritch Knight and a PF2 Wizard/MC Fighter are going to compete against each other either. So it's not like I'm deciding between those two options when I sit down to write my character either.

Wasn't one of the flaws of PF1 that the system was being held down so much by 3.5 baggage? Wasn't part of the reason it was held down by that baggage because the developers were worried changing too much might scare people off? Constantly obsessing over how PF1 and PF2 rank up against each other is ultimately just feeding into that same set of circumstances. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of this too, but at some point it just isn't really relevant at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Let Pathfinder 2nd edition stand and succeed on its own merits, rather than look good by rubbishing what came before.

While I think there is some merit in comparing systems, especially when looking at how to move forward, John has a point. PF2 is its own system. PF2 has its own mechanics and the game ultimately needs to be judged on how those function in their own environment.

Frankly, when I'm thinking about the best way to build out a concept in PF2, whether or not that concept was harder or easier to build in PF1 literally doesn't matter at all. Telling me that Wizard/MC Fighter is better than PF1's EK doesn't in any way shape or form help me build a Wizard/MC Fighter better or address any concerns I might have trying to build a Wizard/MC Fighter.

If PF2 does something better, but still doesn't do it well ... it still isn't doing it well, there's no consolation prize for failing slightly less than another system. If PF1 did it better, but I can still make it work in PF2, it doesn't mean anything that I could do it in a different way in what's literally an entirely separate game.

There is no normal situation in which a PF1 Eldritch Knight and a PF2 Wizard/MC Fighter are going to compete against each other either. So it's not like I'm deciding between those two options when I sit down to write my character either.

Wasn't one of the flaws of PF1 that the system was being held down so much by 3.5 baggage? Wasn't part of the reason it was held down by that baggage because the developers were worried changing too much might scare people off? Constantly obsessing over how PF1 and PF2 rank up against each other is ultimately just feeding into that same set of circumstances. I'm not saying I'm not guilty of this too, but at some point it just isn't really relevant at all.

I think it serves some benefit in this case because PF1 is a case study on one of the other ways of doing things. Some comparing and contrasting helps us see what might be better for PF2. Now we could also compare to lots of other things too, like Savage Worlds or 5e and see how other developers have tackled the situation.

Ultimately I think PF2 style has some minor disadvantages, but I cannot think of many systematic changes that give more than it takes and in the great PF tradition content will inevitably fill in the gaps.


Alaryth wrote:

I too feel a bit worried that class feats try to do too much, and the lack of weapon choices on many classes is something I don't like. I'm really a "swordsman" if I'm exactly as good with longswords as I am with axes (just an example).

On the other side, I remember some theme on the Playtest when someone expressed similar worries with Class feats being a bottleneck, and some designers agreed saying they where looking for ways to improve that. Sadly, my pathetic search-fu has been unable to find that discussion. We know what has changed for the final version?

This is the discussion.


As to what has been done to resolve that, I think I can point to one major thing - subclasses. We know that for alchemist and cleric, at the very least, their subclass provides a major point of differentiation between the types of character. This eases the burden on class feats to do the same.
As for monks and fighters - the two we know don't have subclasses - they generally have their own forms. Most monks will have a primary stance, and most fighters a primary type of fighting that they will pick around. Because they don't have a subclass, however, they'll likely be more flexible in their options.

The last thing to note is Focus. Because it's a lot more readily available, the choice of what you get is a lot more impactful and defining to your character.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the original idea was concern about feat starvation. I think with this topic it became inevitable that PF1 and PF2 would be compared. PF1 has very open feat system. PF2 does not. Many feats got rolled into class options/feats. So it can seam that there is feat starvation. I think however, it would be interesting to see what core book has more feats. If you include class and general/skill feats I would guess that PF2 would be close to the number of overall feats that PF1 would have if not maybe a little more even. What makes the difference is that the class feats are locked. I for one like that, as I have said before.


Well PF2 is designed to have more feats, the concern is about Class feats starvation.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we can solve a large bit of the problem if "feats as loot" gets normalized via APs, PFS scenarios, etc. Just make sure that every GM is aware that this is a thing you can do, and a feat might be a much more exciting reward than money or items. Plus "do this for me and I will teach you my secret technique" is kind of more natural than "do this for me and I will give you an item."


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think we can solve a large bit of the problem if "feats as loot" gets normalized via APs, PFS scenarios, etc. Just make sure that every GM is aware that this is a thing you can do, and a feat might be a much more exciting reward than money or items. Plus "do this for me and I will teach you my secret technique" is kind of more natural than "do this for me and I will give you an item."

While that sounds awesome, it could cause issues moving characters to different tables and/or creating characters at higher level. Part of the 'normalization' is going to have to be how many bonus feats to expect as you level.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do not think class feat starvation was issue in the playtest. It was also stated that in PF2 that each class got tweaks as well as 25 percent more class feats. The issues I saw in the thread were wanting to get access to some locked class feats rather than a number of feats a given class has.


graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think we can solve a large bit of the problem if "feats as loot" gets normalized via APs, PFS scenarios, etc. Just make sure that every GM is aware that this is a thing you can do, and a feat might be a much more exciting reward than money or items. Plus "do this for me and I will teach you my secret technique" is kind of more natural than "do this for me and I will give you an item."
While that sounds awesome, it could cause issues moving characters to different tables and/or creating characters at higher level. Part of the 'normalization' is going to have to be how many bonus feats to expect as you level.

What issues would it cause?


Honestly the thing I'm worried about with PF2 multi-classing is it being a No duh choice that everyone will take because it would be foolish not too.
As far as not enough feats go If It is an issue since I run home games I would probably just give out general feats through out levels that could be used to take anything. If I feel people need it. you know?

Also If I don't like feat multi-classing I have some pretty good ideas how to implement my own version of multi-classing (It actually seems easier since their is not a difference in saves and BAB You would just get the class abilities and prof so it would be a lot like the old one.)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So there a multiple different axis going on here. There is power, there is diversity and there is contribution.

I think power is achieved fine with Class Feats, as relative to the world that stats for monsters and the new DC guidelines, characters seems to do pretty well.

Diversity. I think this is also achieved well. When I compare what two different characters of the same class actually do (as enabled by whats on their sheet) at almost all levels there a multiple immediately obvious ways of doing things. This is before thinking about multi classing. This is actually why I like some chassis have less base stuff going on as it makes the choices actually meaningful vis a vis character differences.

Contribution. Class Feats fall down here. This is also where I think focusing on Class Feats only for whether or not there is enough of this in PF2 doesn't work. This is the work of Skill Proficiency and Feats and I believe those do an excellent job. Characters are broadly competent, able to contribute in multiple areas while also getting to shine through their specializations.


GM OfAnything wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think we can solve a large bit of the problem if "feats as loot" gets normalized via APs, PFS scenarios, etc. Just make sure that every GM is aware that this is a thing you can do, and a feat might be a much more exciting reward than money or items. Plus "do this for me and I will teach you my secret technique" is kind of more natural than "do this for me and I will give you an item."
While that sounds awesome, it could cause issues moving characters to different tables and/or creating characters at higher level. Part of the 'normalization' is going to have to be how many bonus feats to expect as you level.
What issues would it cause?

Well you could have someone with no bonus feats [being unlucky and not gong on any bonus feat giving games or starting at higher level] next to someone with 4 bonus feats and someone that's lucky and has 8. If the feat have actual worthwhile, those characters aren't going to be the some power level, with the no bonus guy seeing the 8 bonus guy clearly having more options for things to do that he can't.

Basically if everyone doesn't have around the same bonus feats, it's going to cause imbalance.


graystone wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think we can solve a large bit of the problem if "feats as loot" gets normalized via APs, PFS scenarios, etc. Just make sure that every GM is aware that this is a thing you can do, and a feat might be a much more exciting reward than money or items. Plus "do this for me and I will teach you my secret technique" is kind of more natural than "do this for me and I will give you an item."
While that sounds awesome, it could cause issues moving characters to different tables and/or creating characters at higher level. Part of the 'normalization' is going to have to be how many bonus feats to expect as you level.
What issues would it cause?

Well you could have someone with no bonus feats [being unlucky and not gong on any bonus feat giving games or starting at higher level] next to someone with 4 bonus feats and someone that's lucky and has 8. If the feat have actual worthwhile, those characters aren't going to be the some power level, with the no bonus guy seeing the 8 bonus guy clearly having more options for things to do that he can't.

Basically if everyone doesn't have around the same bonus feats, it's going to cause imbalance.

Assuming equal GM generosity - or alternatively that Paizo balance their adventures/advice.

Hopefully the player with no bonus feats had some other reward for their questing instead, rather than no reward. Then presumably the ‘lucky’ player had none of that other reward- and as a result the first player has better items.


I imagine this is only truly relevant for PFS and the style of feats offered will be like chronicle sheet boons and controlled in the same way

For higher level home game characters hopefully something will be clarified in the game master guide

Or at the start of a module - this module is for level X PCs with up to Y “achievement” feats. But I don’t think that will happen

On APs the GM will know what has been granted throughout so new players entering will be granted the same number I guess (I assume I have to do the same for any replacement PCs in my Hells Rebels game in 1E where there are bonus rebellion feats )


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A note on the idea a while back for a general feat to give a class feat of half your level or lower, allowing to be taken multiple timed. While that sound nice and all I honestly think that would result in almost every general feat a character gets being spent on that feat. Fleet is the only current general feat I can think of that might beat it out.

That said, maybe the hopefully-higher-level general feats they've added in the final book will beat it out. IDK. But those extra class feats just seem too good to pass up and frankly I think this general feat would defeat the whole purpose of feat siloing in the first place.


Agreed on that one edge. What I would like is some low tier combat type feats out there. Fleet for example is one already that really only applies to combat. I could see some design room for some very basic weapon type stuff in there as long as it’s inferior to what martial classes can get through their own feats. Weapon proficiency is already a thing in that bucket too so i can see some design room at play there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think we can solve a large bit of the problem if "feats as loot" gets normalized via APs, PFS scenarios, etc. Just make sure that every GM is aware that this is a thing you can do, and a feat might be a much more exciting reward than money or items. Plus "do this for me and I will teach you my secret technique" is kind of more natural than "do this for me and I will give you an item."
While that sounds awesome, it could cause issues moving characters to different tables and/or creating characters at higher level. Part of the 'normalization' is going to have to be how many bonus feats to expect as you level.
What issues would it cause?

Well you could have someone with no bonus feats [being unlucky and not gong on any bonus feat giving games or starting at higher level] next to someone with 4 bonus feats and someone that's lucky and has 8. If the feat have actual worthwhile, those characters aren't going to be the some power level, with the no bonus guy seeing the 8 bonus guy clearly having more options for things to do that he can't.

Basically if everyone doesn't have around the same bonus feats, it's going to cause imbalance.

In PFS loot is pretty standardized for loot and supports mixed level groups anyway, so I don't see that as being an issue. In home games though, isn't this exactly the same problem as "one GM is stingy and players are well behind WBL" and "another GM is generous and way above WBL"?


In home groups it's also a lot more likely that some people get favored treatment over others. Or that a concept is outright refuted by the GM (see all threads on how to get around GMs shutting down your build).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think we can solve a large bit of the problem if "feats as loot" gets normalized via APs, PFS scenarios, etc. Just make sure that every GM is aware that this is a thing you can do, and a feat might be a much more exciting reward than money or items. Plus "do this for me and I will teach you my secret technique" is kind of more natural than "do this for me and I will give you an item."
While that sounds awesome, it could cause issues moving characters to different tables and/or creating characters at higher level. Part of the 'normalization' is going to have to be how many bonus feats to expect as you level.
What issues would it cause?

Well you could have someone with no bonus feats [being unlucky and not gong on any bonus feat giving games or starting at higher level] next to someone with 4 bonus feats and someone that's lucky and has 8. If the feat have actual worthwhile, those characters aren't going to be the some power level, with the no bonus guy seeing the 8 bonus guy clearly having more options for things to do that he can't.

Basically if everyone doesn't have around the same bonus feats, it's going to cause imbalance.

Why are you assuming such feats would be a bonus on top of their normal feats as opposed to the benefit simply being access to them? Has someone from Paizo said as much?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
How have longbows been improved?
The volley penalty kicks in at a shorter range so you aren't at a penalty in most fights.

Do we know exactly what the range is?


lordcirth wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
How have longbows been improved?
The volley penalty kicks in at a shorter range so you aren't at a penalty in most fights.
Do we know exactly what the range is?

For sure this has been posted somewhere. I think Volley changed to 30ft, reduced from 50'.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Having "one class archetype per character" is pretty reasonable, since with just books sometimes figuring out "do these stack" was nightmarish.

But I am going to miss my drunken sensei.

I think the biggest issue I have with PF2 multiclassing is that casters get vastly more from a martial multiclass in most cases than other martials do. A wizard who wants to use a sword gets a whole lot more from the fighter dedication than "a barbarian who wants to be better with weapons". Whereas caster/caster multiclasses with the main stat lining up seem like the most powerful combinations (e.g. Cleric/Druids and Bard/Sorcerers).

I think it largely works out, because while Wizard gets lots from the fighter dedication, being good in melee and magic is MAD. Whereas the Barbarian gets only a skill from the dedication, but then gets feats that combo perfectly with their existing feats and stats.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:


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.

I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that all classes will get a class feat at level 1.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fumarole wrote:
Why are you assuming such feats would be a bonus on top of their normal feats as opposed to the benefit simply being access to them? Has someone from Paizo said as much?

I think we've seen a character sheet where there is a specific spot for a bonus feat, in addition to class/ancestry/skill/general feats. That said, my personal suspicion is that each character will get one "bonus" feat slot, and if that character earns more than one bonus feat, they have to choose which one to keep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
lordcirth wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that all classes will get a class feat at level 1.

Yeah, but in many cases that feat comes from choice of class path, not as a separate choice. Bard muse, druid order, etc.


Edge93 wrote:

@Toker you have said having to choose between class-based utility things and combat things (specifically combat-based class things as the PF2 system is predicated on combat styles actually working out of the box while class-based stuff adds some perks in a flavor for that class in particular) is bad.

You say PF1 didn't make you do this.

For the record, I said PF1 didn't make you do this specifically in relation to Class Features and Combat Feats.

If it were up to me the pools would look like this:

General Feat Pool - Combat Feats, General Feats, Skill Feats
Skill Feats Pool - Skill Feats
Class Feats - Combat Feats, Class Features
Ancestry Feats Pool - Ancestry Feats

The reason I would hope it looks like that, is because Combat centric abilities competing with non-combat centric abilities creates starvation of flavorful concept. In fact, it rewards the choice of Combat centric abilities more to choose that.

However the pools look like this:

Skill Feats Pool - Skill Feats
General Feats Pool - General Feats, Skill Feats
Class Feats Pool - Class Features, Combat Feats
Ancestry Feats Pool - Ancestry Feats

So just to make it perfectly clear:

- Skill Focus competing against TWF is not a "Feature" of PF1, it is a bug that I was hoping was gone

- Moving Skill based Feats to their own pool was a great solution, and I expected this pool of separation of resources structure to be mirrored in other places

- Class Features that were combat centric in PF1 with Archetypes came with a "group package" deal, so it was not necessarily the same (often times trading Trapfinding for combat centric, but then another ability for a less combat centric)

- Just because Pathfinder had parts that were bad does not mean the parts that were good are somehow nullified. Combat Feats were a great way to handle "everyone combat" abilities that were non-class specific, they allowed you to build whatever type of Class concept you wanted conceptually in battle. That was a good thing for me.

Pointing at the sins of PF1 as if they sanctify any decisions that PF2 makes is not a valid argument to me. There are consequences with any design decision, the consequence of moving Combat Feats to Class Feats is the non-combat centric Class feats are going to suffer as part of the competition (if they are not tagged "Skill" or some such thing).

It will also make skill based Dedications/Multiclass vastly unappetizing if I have to sacrifice combat strength that much.

Combat is too much of a staple of the game for OoC and Combat to compete. They are two totally different paces of game, and everyone wants to have some kind of role in both. I personally believe, those roles should have an "even" state in the character itself, or at least, foster one where that's the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:
Why are you assuming such feats would be a bonus on top of their normal feats as opposed to the benefit simply being access to them? Has someone from Paizo said as much?

I think it's helpful to think of bonus feats as "a free dedication", or "an extra focus power." I don't think someone having 4 more ways to spend their 3 focus than I do is going to be a huge deal provided that I like my focus power.

But honestly, if I have a new player dropping into an 8th level game, I wouldn't say "use an 8th level character you have from another game." I'd say "make a level 8 character subject to WBL plus modifications." Via said modifications I can account for "oh, the party got the Eagle Knight dedication and 2 extra skill feats, so you can just have those pending backstory."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
lordcirth wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
How have longbows been improved?
The volley penalty kicks in at a shorter range so you aren't at a penalty in most fights.
Do we know exactly what the range is?
For sure this has been posted somewhere. I think Volley changed to 30ft, reduced from 50'.

That is still quite nasty considering how small some of the rooms are in lots of AP maps - basically anything urban

But I guess that is the point - you probably shouldn’t be toting a longbow in an urban environment (in theory). It could be seen as limiting though


PossibleCabbage wrote:
In PFS loot is pretty standardized for loot and supports mixed level groups anyway, so I don't see that as being an issue.

That only works if every single adventure offers the exact some amount of bonus feats: if they don't players can cherry pick adventures with the most. You also have characters made at higher level [like with GM credits] that will need access to bonus feats some way AND a way to know how many they can take and/or what access they they can get to them.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
In home games though, isn't this exactly the same problem as "one GM is stingy and players are well behind WBL" and "another GM is generous and way above WBL"?

In the games I play, the question is usually 'is the character legal' and 'can you link to your abilities'. Extra bonus feats with absolutely no guidance as to numbers... seems like it's asking for issues.

As to WBL, you're making my point: wealth HAD an expected level. You could check it and see someone is above or below it and can then adjust the character if needed. If the number of feats a up in the air, it's harder to adjust [or justify].

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Via said modifications I can account for "oh, the party got the Eagle Knight dedication and 2 extra skill feats, so you can just have those pending backstory."

That's cool for the traditional home game I guess. Some of us don't get to do that though and leaving that up to each individual GM to adjudicate is going to mean you can't just ask someone to make a legal 8th level character without further guidance and that guidance will vary with each DM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Temperans wrote:
No one is asking for things for optimizers, why is that hard to understand? The only thing being asked for is to not have to choose between playing the class and playing your concept.

The thing is that PF2 isn't any worse at this than PF1. It enables a slightly different range of concepts, but comparing corebooks (well, corebook and playtest rulebook plus what we know of the corebook), I think PF2 actually enables a greater number of them.

I mean, there are certainly a few that are disadvantaged as compared to PF1, but at least as many that are advantaged.

Is this the goal though? Is shooting to have a "wash" of "disadvantaged builds" what everyone was hoping for?

Now, I don't think perfection is a reasonable stance, but certainly when I see a separate pool for utility based Feats (Skill Feats) and then see Combat Feats mashed in with Class Features (Class Feats) it is a bit frustrating.

It's robbing peter to pay paul. You removed the Skill based feats competition that was unhealthy in PF1 and replaced it with Class Features vs. Combat Feats competition in PF2.

I think the latter is going to be just as unhealthy if Class Feats that offer utility based features are now competing against Combat Feats of old.

And casters are a whole other ball game. Personally, I'd have liked to see whatever solution was worked out for Martial Classes and Combat Feats to have been worked out via Metamagic Feats as well.

It doesn't feel super "bard-like" to sacrifice compositions just so I can get Still/Silent spell (these aren't even flavored for the class in the playtest).

To me:

Class = Role in combat and out of combat
Skills = Out of combat (usually)
Combat Feats = Combat
General = Both in and out of combat
Race = Both in and out of combat

If certain Class Feats (Dedications and Multiclass as well) get the appropriate Skill tag we'd have three pools of resources (Skill Feats, General Feats, and Class Feats) that could all reach into the "Class Feat" pool, but Skill Feats/General Feats can only select Utility based Class options that are tagged with "Skill" (like Trapfinding for instance).

The above would still keep Trapfinding separated under Rogue, so only a Rogue's Skill Feat could buy Trapfinding. A Monk with a Skill Feat could buy something like "Abundant Step".

I would put Trapfinding as a Class Feat about on par with something like Martial Weapon Proficiency or Cat Fall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

@Toker you have said having to choose between class-based utility things and combat things (specifically combat-based class things as the PF2 system is predicated on combat styles actually working out of the box while class-based stuff adds some perks in a flavor for that class in particular) is bad.

You say PF1 didn't make you do this.

For the record, I said PF1 didn't make you do this specifically in relation to Class Features and Combat Feats.

If it were up to me the pools would look like this:

General Feat Pool - Combat Feats, General Feats, Skill Feats
Skill Feats Pool - Skill Feats
Class Feats - Combat Feats, Class Features
Ancestry Feats Pool - Ancestry Feats

The reason I would hope it looks like that, is because Combat centric abilities competing with non-combat centric abilities creates starvation of flavorful concept. In fact, it rewards the choice of Combat centric abilities more to choose that.

However the pools look like this:

Skill Feats Pool - Skill Feats
General Feats Pool - General Feats, Skill Feats
Class Feats Pool - Class Features, Combat Feats
Ancestry Feats Pool - Ancestry Feats

So just to make it perfectly clear:

- Skill Focus competing against TWF is not a "Feature" of PF1, it is a bug that I was hoping was gone

- Moving Skill based Feats to their own pool was a great solution, and I expected this pool of separation of resources structure to be mirrored in other places

- Class Features that were combat centric in PF1 with Archetypes came with a "group package" deal, so it was not necessarily the same (often times trading Trapfinding for combat centric, but then another ability for a less combat centric)

- Just because Pathfinder had parts that were bad does not mean the parts that were good are somehow nullified. Combat Feats were a great way to handle "everyone combat" abilities that were non-class specific, they allowed you to build whatever type of Class concept you wanted conceptually in...

This is understandable, but there are multiple additional facets to this that seem to be being mostly ignored.

One, a lot of the "everyone combat feats" of PF1 are things that are kind of just absorbed into the basic system. Not necessarily 1-for-1, but the base of most combat styles by PF2 standards is the equivalent of several-feats-taken for most combat styles. What we have now as weapon style combat feats feels more like stuff that would be like a PF2 version of the PF1 Fighter-locked feats or abilities you'd get for certain weapon styles by taking style-specific PF1 archetypes. So I don't see weapon style class feats impinging on the kind of territory that PF1 general combat feats took up, I feel like most of that territory is filled out by base weapon competence. (Anything that isn't filled by this is stuff that wouldn't be coming online for a good while in PF1 it seems like) At least this is the impression I get.

Two, combat and non-combat class feats feel far more equal in terms of clout in PF2, both by the lack of necessity of combat feats and non combat feats feeling better to me. At least that's how it's been at my table.

Three, many of the "non-combat" feats very much have application in combat in one way or another. And these actually hold up against combat feat applications IMO, since both are about adding new things or tricks in combat rather than one being notable numbers boost or other necessities and the other being a cool thing that may very well just not work without having the other necessities first.

Those points are the main reasons why I don't feel the current setup of both combat and non-combat abilities being in the same pool is an issue and why I don't feel like a lack of non-class weapon style feats is an issue either.


Lanathar wrote:
It could be seen as limiting though

No could about it. This change takes Longbows from the definitive ranged weapon of D&D going back decades to a niche campaign specific option. That's a huge degree of culture shock and very punishing to anyone who wants to wield a longbow in a traditional campaign.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Another way things could be organized in the background are in how the feats interact with modes.

Class Feats= primarily encounter & exploration, maybe some downtime.

Skill feats= primarily exploration & downtime with maybe some encounter uses.

Just an idle thought to toss into the mix.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
swoosh wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
It could be seen as limiting though

No could about it. This change takes Longbows from the definitive ranged weapon of D&D going back decades to a niche campaign specific option. That's a huge degree of culture shock and very punishing to anyone who wants to wield a longbow in a traditional campaign.

Yes but the point was to eliminate the "this is the best weapon no matter what and everyone will take it unless they can't" weapon categories. The longbow is still good, just not the best martial ranged weapon in every circumstance. Again, nothing says you can't use a longbow, it just might not be the best ALL THE TIME.

Everyone used a longsword, and a heavy shield, and breastplate was the only used heavy armor, and when was the last time anyone wore half-plate, etc. Why is Paizo printing 500 weapons if everyone is just going to pick from a group of 4 or 5?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm not sure I get where your going Midnight. Your description of how PF2s feat silo's shake out does bear any resemblence to the reality of them. All the silos have combat and non combat applications. I've no idea where you got the idea that Skill Feats is for "utility" stuff, even only usually, when you could happily put all your Skill Feats into combat relevant choices and still leave a bunch on the table unpicked.


j b 200 wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
It could be seen as limiting though

No could about it. This change takes Longbows from the definitive ranged weapon of D&D going back decades to a niche campaign specific option. That's a huge degree of culture shock and very punishing to anyone who wants to wield a longbow in a traditional campaign.

Yes but the point was to eliminate the "this is the best weapon no matter what and everyone will take it unless they can't" weapon categories. The longbow is still good, just not the best martial ranged weapon in every circumstance. Again, nothing says you can't use a longbow, it just might not be the best ALL THE TIME.

Everyone used a longsword, and a heavy shield, and breastplate was the only used heavy armor, and when was the last time anyone wore half-plate, etc. Why is Paizo printing 500 weapons if everyone is just going to pick from a group of 4 or 5?

This was pretty much my exact thoughts. Longbow was most likely the definitive ranged weapon because it was flatly the best, not for any iconic or flavor reason.

Same deal with other equipment. It's funny though, mechanically Longsword is one of my less favored PF2 weapons just because I don't like Versatile as much as Shove or Sweep. XD

Still enjoy it though because I just love swords aesthetically.


Well a long bow is pretty ... long, with 5-6ft length it would certainly be hard to handle on close quarters

I think volley is in it's idea fine


j b 200 wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
It could be seen as limiting though

No could about it. This change takes Longbows from the definitive ranged weapon of D&D going back decades to a niche campaign specific option. That's a huge degree of culture shock and very punishing to anyone who wants to wield a longbow in a traditional campaign.

Yes but the point was to eliminate the "this is the best weapon no matter what and everyone will take it unless they can't" weapon categories. The longbow is still good, just not the best martial ranged weapon in every circumstance. Again, nothing says you can't use a longbow, it just might not be the best ALL THE TIME.

Everyone used a longsword, and a heavy shield, and breastplate was the only used heavy armor, and when was the last time anyone wore half-plate, etc. Why is Paizo printing 500 weapons if everyone is just going to pick from a group of 4 or 5?

They have gone a long way towards varying the weapons . But has armour been varied enough ? Are there still going to be a bunch of useless armour options like splint and half plate ?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:
j b 200 wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
It could be seen as limiting though

No could about it. This change takes Longbows from the definitive ranged weapon of D&D going back decades to a niche campaign specific option. That's a huge degree of culture shock and very punishing to anyone who wants to wield a longbow in a traditional campaign.

Yes but the point was to eliminate the "this is the best weapon no matter what and everyone will take it unless they can't" weapon categories. The longbow is still good, just not the best martial ranged weapon in every circumstance. Again, nothing says you can't use a longbow, it just might not be the best ALL THE TIME.

Everyone used a longsword, and a heavy shield, and breastplate was the only used heavy armor, and when was the last time anyone wore half-plate, etc. Why is Paizo printing 500 weapons if everyone is just going to pick from a group of 4 or 5?

They have gone a long way towards varying the weapons . But has armour been varied enough ? Are there still going to be a bunch of useless armour options like splint and half plate ?

In the playtest there were fewer obviously junk armor options. Most added up to a similar total AC with armor and dex cap. Surprisingly, Half Plate was just all around better than full plate if you had 14 dex.


Stone Dog wrote:

Another way things could be organized in the background are in how the feats interact with modes.

Class Feats= primarily encounter & exploration, maybe some downtime.

Skill feats= primarily exploration & downtime with maybe some encounter uses.

Just an idle thought to toss into the mix.

I think that's accurate as well, though I've broadly classified exploration/downtime together (as was in PF1), but given the new terminology, the distinction is accurate to my feelings.

Edge93 wrote:
Not necessarily 1-for-1, but the base of most combat styles by PF2 standards is the equivalent of several-feats-taken for most combat styles.

And while I agree, it is not 1-for-1, I think we're underplaying how much is going to be left wanting.

Feat taxes being gone is great. Weapons being able to do more is great.

Cleave, Shatter Defenses, Many Shot, Dastardly Finish, Whirlwind Attack, Lunge are all feats that do not fall under "taxes" or really even "weapon" based.

They are all unique, interesting styles of combat that just about anyone could pursue.

All of those styles were fostered as choices available to anyone, and in the current iteration of PF2, that is not only not the case but things like Cleave (an extremely non-class ability) competes with Dragon Totem's Flame breath on the Barbarian Class Feat list.

So while "non-class weapon style feats" not being apart of the Class is annoying for Classes that want to pursue certain options:

Player: "I want to use two weapons"

GM: "Just pick up a sword and an axe. Boom TWF."

Player: "Oh, so there's like nothing different about TWF?"

GM:"Nah. Just imagine it. Or multiclass."

Player: "Well I guess I'll just use X, since then I can still take my Class Feats..."

Replace TWF in the above scenario with any of the before mentioned Feats (Cleave, Shatter Defenses, Whirlwind Attack, etc.), some of which aren't possible at all.

But, back to mentioned, even discounting that, we're talking about making Features that have no intrinsic combat metric (at least not direct ones) compete against repeatable action oriented Class Feats with combat application (I.E. Twin Feint and Trapfinding)

Saying "it doesn't bother me" is nice, but the fact that it's an issue that you have to acknowledge means that you're simply saying because it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't exist at all.

Are you saying that the addition of Skill based tagging on Class Feats with little/no combat applications shouldn't exist or just that you don't care? The former I would hear why, the latter I would say "then why stake a claim in an argument just to say you don't care?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Cut for brevity

Outside of Cleave and Lunge all those feats had long prerequisites. Dastardly Finish was basically a class feat (you needed to have 5d6 Sneak to do it.)

And of course a Player is going to feel bad about a choice when the GM basically lies to them about it.

TWF is not basically then same only requiring imagination. You might not think "it allows you to maximise your MAP and leverage multiple damage types and traits at once" as being particularily powerful or interesting but it isn't the same.

As for stuff like Twin-Feint vs Trapfinding. I think you are obsessing way too much over Combat if I'm honest. Both are advantageous feats for an adventurer to have. Twin Feint gives you a nice combat option, but one that isn't all that useful in certain groups (i.e if your group provides numerous ways to flat foot already.) Trapfinding will aid you in hopefully repeatedly saving your group from dangerous effects.


Malk_Content wrote:
I'm not sure I get where your going Midnight. Your description of how PF2s feat silo's shake out does bear any resemblence to the reality of them. All the silos have combat and non combat applications. I've no idea where you got the idea that Skill Feats is for "utility" stuff, even only usually, when you could happily put all your Skill Feats into combat relevant choices and still leave a bunch on the table unpicked.

If you're trying to say that Skill Feats has as many applications to combat as Class Feats, then we don't have to continue the conversation further.

If you want to point at Battle Medic, Intimidating Glare, and Scared to Death, by all means, but those are the exceptions to the rule and not the rule (the latter two are likely going to be nerfed anyways, and the former really just enables other roles to be "healers" which was a necessity in this edition).

The following have literally nothing to do with combat at all:

Additional Lore*, Alchemical Crafting, Arcane Sense, Assurance (not directly anyways), Automatic Knowledge*, Bargain Hunter, Bonded Animal (not directly, just action reduction to standard pet), Cat Fall (this is too niche to declare it "combat" oriented), Charming Liar, Close Match, Confabulator, Connections, Courtly Graces, Cruel Deceiver, Cultural Familiarity............................

See how I just stopped? That's because literally 90% of Skill Feats can't be applied directly in combat without a niche scenario (forcing yourself to fall from great heights often for Cat Fall) or particular circumstances (the asterisks for knowledge above are for Monster Knowledge based checks).

Are there combat applicable Skill Feats? Of course. There were combat applicable Skill Feats in PF1 as well, but that doesn't mean they competed with Combat Feats or provided even close to the same presence as those types of feats (in terms of combat prowess).

I'd love to see these extremely combat oriented Skill Feats you keep talking about that don't literally revolve around Battle Medic (created to fill a non-cleric healing void), the Intimidate skill (Demoralize was too good in the playtest by a lot), or Athletics (the new space for Combat Manueuvers, but even here, tangentially).

I'd be even more keen to see these Skill Feats as they stack up against Class Feats. They won't have the same power if compared to a combat oriented action (such as Cleave, Twin Feint, Double Slice, etc.) which are reproduced nearly as often as the actions they take come online.

Whether or not you want to make the argument for what's in the silo's, it was certainly the intent of the Skill Feat silo to contain Utility based abilities, since as I listed above nearly all of them are. To say otherwise is to argue against the premise itself.


They always did for characters who didn’t have combat feat slots. Do I take a feat that helps me out of combat vs one that doesn’t. Every single bucket available in PF2 has combat vs non combat. Class feats, general feats, ancestry feats and skill feats all have options which support both play styles. As long as the options are balanced and have a decision point on which to choose that’s fine.

As for your comments on combat feats, those are the class identity of martial classes (and not math boosters which were before, Aka did you want weapon training, favored enemy, smite evil, sneak attack, etc) and this there needs to be a cost taken to take them for a non martial class. I’m not against making some simple generic feats that build off weapon proficiency and give classes some more options but I also don’t think it’s required given that basic competency is so high now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
I’m not against making some simple generic feats that build off weapon proficiency and give classes some more options but I also don’t think it’s required given that basic competency is so high now.

The thread has been through this. Indeed it is not "required" to be effective in combat, but it is required to materialize your character concept. If you're some Rogue sniper archer you want some archery feats but you don't have access to any. You are competent even without any of these feats, but does that make you "The archer rogue"? Only in your imagination if you aren't picking options to reinforce it. Will someone who looks at the character sheet immediately figure out how your character plays? To some players, this has a lot of value. Many modern RPGs don't allow this anymore and it's why they have chosen Pathfinder.

So by making a lot of feats unnecessary, it made it harder to realize builds/concepts mechanically. Keep in mind you can still realize many other concepts, but only that your class specifically allows. So you can be an Archer Fighter or Ranger, but not Rogue anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakasius wrote:
They always did for characters who didn’t have combat feat slots. Do I take a feat that helps me out of combat vs one that doesn’t.

You say this like anyone wanted it. I reintroduced Skill Tricks in my games, which was a 3.5 system, because it filled the same niche that Skill Feats is trying to do now.

Stop pointing at the mistakes of PF1 to justify allowing mistakes in PF2.

Quote:
Every single bucket available in PF2 has combat vs non combat.

Skill Feats has significantly less combat, to the point where if you do not include Intimidate the skill or Battle Medic, nearly all of them are utility.

Ancestry is mixed, as it should be, since that was the case in every edition I've ever played.

General is mixed, but certainly more utility just for the fact that Skill Feats occupies the majority of this.

Sure you can get a few slight proficiency boosts in General, which takes things from terrible to not so terrible, but to act like these have the same level of impact as Class Feats would be a huge overstep.

Class Feats are everything, and that's the problem. Right now, so much competition is going to take place here, options will suffer as a result.

Quote:
As for your comments on combat feats, those are the class identity of martial classes (and not math boosters which were before, Aka did you want weapon training, favored enemy, smite evil, sneak attack, etc)

Cleave and Double Slice are not Class Identities. Sudden Charge is available on more than one class and Double Slice has been recreated twice.

The fact that the above are competing with things that are Class identifying abilities is my whole point.

Quote:
There needs to be a cost taken to take them for a non martial class. I’m not against making some simple generic feats that build off weapon proficiency and give classes some more options but I also don’t think it’s required given that basic competency is so high now.

Non-martial classes have been hit with the bat significantly.

I get it, king wizard! AHH Never again!

But Wizard is not going to be able to take any of the things you all are talking about in a Class Feats system that scales feats to include whole trees or tags non-combat oriented Class Feats with a Skill tag.

This paper tiger needs to die, if everyone is going to spin this mantra that "this is a new edition" then stop pointing at issues that plagued an old edition as the reason for justifying bad design decisions.

Spellcasters, as far as we know now, are not overpowered and were borderline tame in the playtest. If Skill Feats get elevated, this will only level the playing field since the biggest reason Martial classes suffered in PF1 was lack of narrative power (which Skill Feats will provide).

551 to 600 of 614 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / A little worried about feat starvation in PF2 All Messageboards