|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
For one, General Feats are considerably weaker than they were. Proficiency is about the only thing you can buy combat oriented, or a save you’re bad at. Not much for combat here.
Or gain extra hit points, improve movement speed, gain a bonus to initiative, Step in difficult terrain...
Ancestry Feats, as I said prior, are for the most part, non combat oriented. You also only get 2 if we’re talking level 5, and also a heritage. These effectively replace “Race” so you can’t count these as part of the pool unless we add in every racial feature from PF1. So a false equivalence here
C'mon. You specifically listed human for your PF1 paladin and included the bonus feat from that in your list of resources. There's no false equivalence. It's the same exact thing.
Skill Feats, as of current, provide almost no combat abilities and generally are integrated with skills. These can add value to builds, but the playtest can’t be used as a good indicator as the state they were in during that time was lackluster.
There are a number of skill feats that do include combat use, though. Almost all of the Athletics, Acrobatics, and Intimidate skill feats are combat-focused, as well as several of the Stealth ones. And then there's Battle Medic, of course.
In regards to your edit, that’s not true when you account for Archetypes.
And, as a rather famous Scotsman once said, if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. Yes, PF1 rules expansion included more customization. Talk to me again after GenCon 2020.
I have yet to get an answer to this question:
Should Trapfinding compete against Double Slice?
The thing is, if your concept is "dual-wielding rogue who is the group's trapfinder," you can do that without Double Slice or Trap Finder. Dual-wielding doesn't get you extra attacks in PF2, so it's not like you're losing out that way; anyone can find traps in PF2, subject to proficiency levels, Trap Finder doesn't include increases to proficiency for finding traps, and rogues have the best Perception proficiency progression in the playtest. So you're still going to be the person the group is going to look to first for locating traps. So they just... aren't really competing.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of my current PF1 characters is a 15th level human sorcerer, draconic bloodline (bronze), which I’ve played for quite a few years. Thanks to retraining I’ve been able to adopt a lot of options that have come out since character creation - alternate human trait for more spells known, bloodline mutations to get rid of useless claws and get +1 damage/dice for evocation, all the latest spells, items, etc. I have to admit, tossing a bunch of chain lightning spells around for 15d6+30 in a combat can be pretty satisfying. So while all of these options have made him numerically powerful with select spells, many of them were unavailable at character creation, and adding them in later really just required waiting to retrain at the next level. And while they made him more numerically powerful in a lot of ways, he’s still pretty useless with virtually any skill outside of Use Magic Device and Bluff. And with a wisdom of 10 even his strongest save not too impressive.
So the other day I converted him to what I know of 2E and what will most likely remain of playtest rules. No, I don’t have nearly as many spells, but lower level spells remain way more useful. No more +1 damage/dice for evocation, or electricity damage bonuses for draconic bloodline, but with double damage for crit fails and various weaknesses, decent cantrips, I think i’ll still be doing appreciable damage with just the core rulebook options. But for everything I’m losing, I’m also gaining skills that I can actually use (after 15 levels he stands a good chance of climbing a rope), saving throws I can make without devoting every item slot and at least 3 feats and a trait for, and I can take feats for cool options instead of +2 against SR and 1.5 damage, etc. And combat will be against PF2 monsters with stats and game play balanced in a different manner, so comparisons become even more losing-this-but-gaining-that.
And his Varisian-caravan backstory not only requires no changing, but the background system makes an organic difference in the character’s stats and skills. I think the character will still feel the same, and actually even closer to original concept. I know many will disagree and am not trying to diminish their opinions, but for me, I honestly think with faster and smoother combat rounds (and fewer of them), plus monsters with memorable abilities the game will be even better, despite losing some options. Although I still want to get rid of the useless claws as soon as possible...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is for a lot of characters in pf1 you had a class feature every level, some of them being choices, what's now turned into class feats (still keeping class features at odd levels, so pretty much keeping a feature every level).
What's different is that in pf1 feats were a main method of customization, that could be used to select combat affecting things. In pf2 the feats at every odd level turned into general feats and ancestry feats. The might have some choices related to combat, but they feel a lot more limited and not combat related. In pf1 a general feat could be used to take something like a barbarian or rogue talent, making them just as valuable. In pf2 general feats don't feel as valuable or important, so you feel like you've lost a significant amount of significant choices
(Skill feats were also added, that was great, but they're not really related to combat, that's the point)
In PF2 final, the indication is that Martials get two features every odd level and casters get one every odd level plus spells. This is DEFINITELY more than casters got in PF1 and quite possibly more than some Martials got.
Now about half the martial features and probably more of the caster features are proficiency bumps, but a lot of features in PF1 were just math bumps too, and proficiency boosts are better utilized IMO, plus they also do cool stuff like give crit specialization effects, Evasion-type abilities, and possibly more.
So there's quite a bit more there now.
So we've seen the cleric and alchemist tables, casters don't get a class feature other than spells every odd level. Alchemist doesn't get anything level 3 and clerics don't get anything level 17, got a hint from Mark that should be the case for all casters.
I was surprised that the only one of my three Pathfinder PCs that I could even approximate with the Playtest rules was a Blood Mystic (a 3rd party oracle/sorcerer hybrid). I made this character a divine sorcerer who took wizard multiclassing feats. I would still have to wait for future supplements to account for the oracle's curse and aasimar race, but the result was still much closer to the original character concept than I could possibly get with a summoner or a medium.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to get an answer to this question:
Should Trapfinding compete against Double Slice? Should a non-combat centric Role defining feature compete against a combat centric feature?
That currently is the case, unless the release rules have changed that. If the point of Skill Feats was to give a place for the non-Combat features feats to live, then why make this change? It causes the exact same issues...
I looked through the list of archetypes and found that most (42 out of 58) rogue archetypes replace trapfinding. Now, I won't pretend that I looked at all, or even most of them, but one that I'm familiar with is the knife master. The knife master replaces trapfinding for hidden blade (adding 1/2 level to conceal light blades); even if some disagree that hidden blade is a combat oriented feat, I'm sure that reasonable people would agree that no one takes knife master just to get that concealment bonus. People take knife master for that sweet, sweet additional sneak attack damage, which does not come at a cost except for trapfinding at level 3; the thing is that knife master also gets rid of trap sense for blade sense (a dodge bonus against light blades); this, I would also take as trading a non-combat feature for a combat one.
The thing about PF2e, or at least the playtest, I have an opportunity at every level after second to pick up trapfinding if I really wanted it, and I'm not pigeon-holed into other features that I don't necessarily want in exchange for the one I really do. I honestly don't know how to get trapfinding if I miss out on it by choosing an archetype in PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to the claws, I get that, though if you have good Dex or Str they're far better weapons than they EVER were in PF1. Plus the energy resistance they give is nice. ;P
Go monk/sorcerer, go to strength, grab the iron mantle combat style and use the claws as weapons with flurry of blows - sounds like it could be fun :P
Maybe not optimized, but I get the vague feeling that optimization is way less an issue then it was in pf1
Are we realy doing this? I mean, is it rational to compare the options available in a 10 years game with those in one that's yet to release it's first book? PF1 has lots of options and ways for you to modify Core concepts, but it had years to develop into that. We are comparing a wyrm with a wyrmling.From the OP: "But I'm a little worried long term that this kind of makes a character's feat options a bit overloaded in terms of the functions they fill." A long term worry about certain kinds of builds doesn't sound like wanting it all now. As far as modifying concepts, some of those don't seem possible any more with the current framework.
True, but OP and Toker seem to be talking slightly different things, at least from my perspective. Posts have talked about wanting to play a Champion with a Bow and i can agree that it should start working sooner then level 4-6. TWF is seriously its own discussion. If we want to get brutally technical even for Fighter it doesn’t come online till level 14, but i digress. Comparing 2e characters to 1e and trying to prove one has more/less than the other is honestly obfuscating the point of the discussion. At least it seems that way to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so let's examine this idea that PF2 character have less resources and more competition for the same stuff. Let's compare human fighters.
The PF1 human fighter starts off with 2 general feats and a combat feat. The PF2 fighter can start off with 2 general feats and a class feat.
The PF1 fighter gains weapon training, armor training, and bravery. All of these are math fixes and are represented in the PF2 proficiency bumps. The PF2 also gains several other features, like Bravery lowering their frightened condition by 1 or Battlefield Surveyor giving them improved initiative.
As they level up, the PF1 fighter gains one feat every level, either a general feat or a combat feat. The PF2 fighter gains either a class feat, a general feat, or an ancestry feat (that can be swapped for a class feat or general feat) every level. The PF1 fighter technically has more freedom for spending their general feats, but odds are some of them are going to wind up in their PF2 equivalents like Iron Will or Improved Initiative anyway.
The fighters basically come across as even... until you factor in skill feats, which represent 10 feats the PF1 fighter has no answer for. Many of which can help round out your combat style, like if you were trying to build a Demoralize build, Battle Medic, or Quick Repair.
And then of course there are all the feat taxes the PF1 fighter paid that the PF2 fighter didn't.
I chose the human fighter because it is the easiest class to compare, but I reckon there are going to be similar breakdowns if you look hard enough at most classes. A level 1 human rogue gets 2 feats and 2 features (3 if unchained) in PF1, and the human rogue gets 3 feats and 3 features in PF2, plus a skill feat.
And when you consider that both systems are going to wind up with class archetypes that let you trade class features, the distinction between a feat and a feature is going to lose a lot of meaning. I reckon there will be a small number of classes that lose a net amount of stuff-- Unchained Monks, Paladins, and Druids spring to mind. But those were REALLY feature heavy classes and definitely not the norm for PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, but OP and Toker seem to be talking slightly different things, at least from my perspective. Posts have talked about wanting to play a Champion with a Bow and i can agree that it should start working sooner then level 4-6. TWF is seriously its own discussion. If we want to get brutally technical even for Fighter it doesn’t come online till level 14, but i digress. Comparing 2e characters to 1e and trying to prove one has more/less than the other is honestly obfuscating the point of the discussion. At least it seems that way to me.Are we realy doing this? I mean, is it rational to compare the options available in a 10 years game with those in one that's yet to release it's first book? PF1 has lots of options and ways for you to modify Core concepts, but it had years to develop into that. We are comparing a wyrm with a wyrmling.From the OP: "But I'm a little worried long term that this kind of makes a character's feat options a bit overloaded in terms of the functions they fill." A long term worry about certain kinds of builds doesn't sound like wanting it all now. As far as modifying concepts, some of those don't seem possible any more with the current framework.I agree with much of this, and to add a point that's largely been ignored:
To play a Champion with a bow doesn't require spending feats any more than being a Champion with a Greatsword.
This is a good thing. The feat investment needed to make certain styles work was one of the greatest flaws of PF1. Yes in PF2 you can use feats to expand a style of fighting, but it's in a way that's an opt-in instead of being necessary. And that opt-in Shou have a cost, class feats being an appropriate one IMO.
Also on the note of archery, theres confirmed to be an archetype for it in the final book, so there are archery options that dont require working with Multiclass restrictions in the same way (i.e. the 1/2 level feat choices from multiclass...
Where was this confirmed? We know we won't have anything but multiclass archetypes in the CRB itself.
Also, a paladin with a shortbow and ranged reprisal is hella dangerous. Like, unless you're trying to be a sneaky sniper, Ranged Reprisal is a better class feat for an archer than anything else I've seen at level 1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, but OP and Toker seem to be talking slightly different things, at least from my perspective. Posts have talked about wanting to play a Champion with a Bow and i can agree that it should start working sooner then level 4-6. TWF is seriously its own discussion. If we want to get brutally technical even for Fighter it doesn’t come online till level 14, but i digress. Comparing 2e characters to 1e and trying to prove one has more/less than the other is honestly obfuscating the point of the discussion. At least it seems that way to me.
I feel like you're really missing my point here.
Op's concern is that people are going to be "feat starved", which is a symptom to a problem.
This problem has been acknowledged by the developers, more than once, and the solution to that problem has been talked about a few times (which I mentioned in my first post in this thread in regards to Skill Feats and scaling Class Feats).
Here is the breakdown of the key parts of the issues:
- Combat Feats were your major combat customization in PF1, these occupied the "General Feats" pool. You could acquire these in various ways, but they were a totally separate pool of abilities.
- Class Features were major Class components, these varied from combat oriented to utility and were often flavored specifically for the class. In PF1, with the addition of Archetypes (which I now consider to be a staple of the game) you could swap these out to produce truly vast and unique characters. This "Feature" pool was separate from your "General Feats" pool, though there was sometimes overlap.
- PF2, instead of traditional "Class Archetypes" has essentially broken a majority of Class Features into "style based choices" called Class Feats. You get the same number of Class Feats as you got General Feats in PF1.
- Class Features, the default ones present in PF2, are not as plentiful or robust as in PF1. That is to say, the abilities are not as default strong as Class Features in PF1 and you get significantly less than in PF1.
- You cannot use Skill Feats or General Feats to select Class Feats that are not combat oriented right now, this puts Class Feats that do not have combat oriented features at a deficit for selection over PF1 where you were not forced to choose.
- Forcing abilities that are Role defining (LoH, Trapfinding, etc.) to compete with combat defining ones (Double Slice, Blade of Glory, etc.) is the antithesis of what they were hoping to accomplish with Skill Feats.
- PF2 reduced Feat taxes for several weapon path builds. This creates a net reduction for PF2. However, because Class Features + Combat Feats increases pool sizes at a rate faster than Class Feats -2 + Class Features of PF2, it still does not overtake the customization possible in PF1.
The above are true for PF1 Core and PF2 Core, as far as we know right now if we speak strictly "pool size", PF1's pool size is greater across all levels. It grows especially large in comparison after you get past level 10.
I am not in any way saying that PF1 is perfect or did it right or whatever.
The removal of taxes is a good thing, it was the number one house ruled thing in the previous edition.
The creation of Skill Feats was a good thing, it moved Skill based Feats to a separate pool so that people didn't have to choose between being good at combat or having a cool skill.
Making Class Feats compete with old Class Features and also take over the role of Combat Feats is putting a lot of eggs in a single pool.
This gets particularly egregious when you have a feat intensive concept for a certain Combat Style, whatever it may be.
TWF line, Archery line, Poison usage line, Cleave line, Shatter Defenses line all fall here, and Shatter Defenses is another prime example of one that will have issues here. A Barbarian should be allowed to pursue a Shatter Defenses path for Combat, while still able to embrace his Animal Totem's flavorful Class Feats that do not overlap with Combat, otherwise he's not an "Animal Totem Barbarian" he becomes a "Shatter Defenses Barbarian that couldn't invest in his Animal Totem".
We're not splitting hairs, or talking about different things, he's talking about a symptom and I'm pointing out the root of the problem (a root, mind you, that has been acknowledged by developers).
Could it be fixed in release? Sure.
If certain Class Feats got a Skill tag and allowed people to use Skill Feats to purchase non-combat oriented Class Feats, then we're pretty much good (they alluded to this with the Pirate).
If whole feat trees are contained in a single feat, Cleave, Great Cleave, etc. that would also alleviate the burden.
Now I and a few others have talked about this until we've been blue in the face, so I'll probably bow out from here, but the above is the core of the issue.
It's got solutions and they might already be in place, but OP's concerns are valid because they are literally founded on the design decisions made above (and as far as we know now, that's the case).
...True, but OP and Toker seem to be talking slightly different things, at least from my perspective. Posts have talked about wanting to play a Champion with a Bow and i can agree that it should start working sooner then level 4-6. TWF is seriously its own discussion. If we want to get brutally technical even for Fighter it doesn’t come online till level 14, but i digress. Comparing 2e characters to 1e and trying to prove one has more/less than the other is honestly obfuscating the point of the discussion. At least it seems that way to me.Are we realy doing this? I mean, is it rational to compare the options available in a 10 years game with those in one that's yet to release it's first book? PF1 has lots of options and ways for you to modify Core concepts, but it had years to develop into that. We are comparing a wyrm with a wyrmling.From the OP: "But I'm a little worried long term that this kind of makes a character's feat options a bit overloaded in terms of the functions they fill." A long term worry about certain kinds of builds doesn't sound like wanting it all now. As far as modifying concepts, some of those don't seem possible any more with the current framework.I agree with much of this, and to add a point that's largely been ignored:
To play a Champion with a bow doesn't require spending feats any more than being a Champion with a Greatsword.
This is a good thing. The feat investment needed to make certain styles work was one of the greatest flaws of PF1. Yes in PF2 you can use feats to expand a style of fighting, but it's in a way that's an opt-in instead of being necessary. And that opt-in Shou have a cost, class feats being an appropriate one IMO.
Also on the note of archery, theres confirmed to be an archetype for it in the final book, so there are archery options that dont require working with Multiclass restrictions in the same way (i.e. the 1/2 level feat
What does Ranged Reprisal do? Was this one of the things from the cards that were posted up ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so let's examine this idea that PF2 character have less resources and more competition for the same stuff. Let's compare human fighters.
The Fighter is going to be one of the least affected Classes in the game by this, because quite literally in PF1 their Class Features were heavily integrated with Feats anyways.
Who it's going to affect the most are the other Martial classes (monk, rogue, paladin, ranger, etc.)
Skill Feats
And if skill Feats allowed you to pick Trapfinding, Abundant Step, etc. then I would have no concerns.
As of now, Class Features are being forced to compete with Shatter Defenses, TWF, Cleave, etc. which to me is a problem.
I would never pick Woodland Stride over Natural Spell, for obvious reasons.
But I might pick Woodland Stride over a Skill Feat (depending on what my build is).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so let's examine this idea that PF2 character have less resources and more competition for the same stuff. Let's compare human fighters.The Fighter is going to be one of the least affected Classes in the game by this, because quite literally in PF1 their Class Features were heavily integrated with Feats anyways.
Who it's going to affect the most are the other Martial classes (monk, rogue, paladin, ranger, etc.)
Skill FeatsAnd if skill Feats allowed you to pick Trapfinding, Abundant Step, etc. then I would have no concerns.
As of now, Class Features are being forced to compete with Shatter Defenses, TWF, Cleave, etc. which to me is a problem.
I would never pick Woodland Stride over Natural Spell, for obvious reasons.
But I might pick Woodland Stride over a Skill Feat (depending on what my build is).
It may not be a satisfying answer since you would argue that it should be published this way but given the modular nature of the game now it sounds like an easy fix houserule . Just like the extra feats mentioned above
The problem of course comes in organised play if you are one for that. But organised play from what I understand was already a “race to the bottom” where everyone made the most effective thing possible. I have read so many posts about people being glared at evilly or criticised for not having a super optimised character in PFS.
Or “play a cleric as that will always be welcome at any table” - implying certain characters would not be
This is despite PFS combats being really easy as they are written so that any group has a reasonable shot of success
*
Potentially what you are saying has been changed in the actual rules but my guess would be that it has not (just a theory)
It may not be a satisfying answer since you would argue that it should be published this way but given the modular nature of the game now it sounds like an easy fix houserule . Just like the extra feats mentioned above
Oh certainly, however, I think the baseline game could benefit from utility based powers not having to compete with combat related ones.
Potentially what you are saying has been changed in the actual rules but my guess would be that it has not (just a theory)
Based on what I read about the Pirate, I'm very hopeful for the Skill Feat solution mentioned, but it may not pan out that way.
I love the little bits that classes got, Woodland Stride, Abundant Step, A Thousand Faces, Trapfinding, etc. I think they deserve their day in the sun, and weighing their value according to what they provide (utility/skill based things) against other things of that nature just makes for more interesting characters in my opinion.
I don't think many of your basic assumptions are true, Toker. I would actually like it if we got more class feats, but your assumption that the total pool of features+feats seems to have shrunk doesn't seem to hold up for most classes.
- Combat Feats were your major combat customization in PF1, these occupied the "General Feats" pool. You could acquire these in various ways, but they were a totally separate pool of abilities.
This was only really true for the fighter whose class feats and general feats were usually interchangeable. (To an extent the Ranger fits in here, and a liitttle bit of the Rogue.) For other classes like the barbarian, rage powers were usually the things that defined your combat style and your feats were often spent on math enhancers like power attack, two weapon fighting, or weapon focus. And don't get me started on catching up for archery.
Alternatively, your general feats might get spent on enhancing your class feat/features/powers, because a rage power was almost always better than a combat feat in PF1. Paladins spent their feats on things like Fey Foundling or Greater Mercy if they weren't stuck spending 9 levels catching up with the fighter using anything other than two handed weapons.
Class Features, the default ones present in PF2, are not as plentiful or robust as in PF1. That is to say, the abilities are not as default strong as Class Features in PF1 and you get significantly less than in PF1.
This isn't universally true. Barbarians, rogues, and fighters all break about even from where I'm sitting, and clerics and wizards feel like they come out ahead when you consider their sparse PF1 feature pool and PF2 giving them the equivalent of Spell Focus for free.
I think druids and paladins are the only class this feels true of comparing core, and those two classes just had too many features compared to their PF1 counterparts. (Well, and Unchained Monk, but they were stacked too.)
You cannot use Skill Feats or General Feats to select Class Feats that are not combat oriented right now, this puts Class Feats that do not have combat oriented features at a deficit for selection over PF1 where you were not forced to choose.
But there are a lot of ways to make skill feats and general feats relevant in combat. Titan Wrestler, almost any intimidate feats, Combat Climber, Automatic Knowledge, anything oriented around feinting, sneaking, or distractions, Battle Medic... All of these can open new ways for you participate in combat.
And they can combine with your class feats as well. Monks with Wall run are going to want wall jump and things which enhance their jumping. Fighters need an enemy to be frightened to use Shatter Defenses and will thus want Intimidating Glare, Battle Cry, etc.
The above are true for PF1 Core and PF2 Core, as far as we know right now if we speak strictly "pool size", PF1's pool size is greater across all levels. It grows especially large in comparison after you get past level 10.
Is it, though? Can you break down how that is the case?
A Barbarian should be allowed to pursue a Shatter Defenses path for Combat, while still able to embrace his Animal Totem's flavorful Class Feats that do not overlap with Combat, otherwise he's not an "Animal Totem Barbarian" he becomes a "Shatter Defenses Barbarian that couldn't invest in his Animal Totem".
This example doesn't ring true. Barbarians don't use Shatter Defenses anymore, which is a highly technical application of weapon training more suited to the fighter. Instead, a Barbarian picks up Raging Intimidation at level 1, Intimidating Prowess at 4th, Animal Skin at level 6, Battle Cry at 7th, Animal Rage at 8th, Terrifying Howl at 10th. None of those feats come online at the same level, and thus none compete with each other, but you've made your barbarian both as scary and as bestial as possible with various feats leftover to spare.
What did you read about the pirate ? Because it hasn’t made the main game . But I seem to recall that is has still been discussed
Was it implied that swinging on ropes like a pirate would be from swapping skill feats rather than class features ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What did you read about the pirate ? Because it hasn’t made the main game . But I seem to recall that is has still been discussed
Was it implied that swinging on ropes like a pirate would be from swapping skill feats rather than class features ?
It had been implied on a podcast I believe, though I can't remember when. It was in regards to the response to the Pirate Archetype, which was pretty underwhelming.
Pirate didn't make it into Core, but they did say something about allowing Skill Feats to buy into Archetypes (speaking about the pirate), considering most of their Dedication Feats were Skill based.
CM, we've done the dance before, and I've outlined my thoughts extensively in the thread (including break downs on my math for pools).
As far as your example of the Barbarian, sure they don't compete yet but as Class Feats grow, so too will the competition. By placing Shatter Defenses in the same pool as the other options, you draw this competition.
Your example really just showcases how they modified the Shatter Defenses Play style to a "Barbarian" feel. But let's look at the Class Feat of Raging Intimidation:
"AS soon as you meet the appropriate prerequisites of the Skill Feats Intimidating Glare and Scare to Death, you gain these feats."
That's two feats for basically free while also gaining Intimidate during a Rage. And let's not forget, Scare to Death and Intimidating Glare were probably literally the two strongest Skill Feats during the Playtest in terms of Combat ability.
That is effectively the exact solution I was talking about (Class Feats that scale to include whole trees) in terms of a whole line for the price of one.
Now is the Ranger going to get this luxury? Not until they print the Class Feats to do it, but a Ranger could do this in PF1 Core if they so chose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so let's examine this idea that PF2 character have less resources and more competition for the same stuff. Let's compare human fighters.The Fighter is going to be one of the least affected Classes in the game by this, because quite literally in PF1 their Class Features were heavily integrated with Feats anyways.
Again though... how true is that in practice? Barbarians and rogues don't seem to have this as the case. The casters come out ahead with the exception of the druid I reckon. (And I haven't even crunched the numbers on druid to confirm that.)
And if skill Feats allowed you to pick Trapfinding, Abundant Step, etc. then I would have no concerns.
As of now, Class Features are being forced to compete with Shatter Defenses, TWF, Cleave, etc. which to me is a problem.
Weren't they always competing with something though, once you introduced archetypes? See Narixo's post on rogues trading out trap finding for stuff like Knife Master.
Also, Skill and general feats let you gain many abilities that are relevant to those class features of yore. There are skill feats that enhance your perception and ability to disable traps, there are skill feats for tracking, there are skill feats for sneaking in a favored terrain.
I would never pick Woodland Stride over Natural Spell, for obvious reasons.
Wild Stride is a basic ranger feature, actually. Unless you meant Woodland Stride for druids, but there's no natural spell feat for it to compete with there? And again, druids were overpacked with features in PF1, so they don't make a great point of comparison.
But I might pick Woodland Stride over a Skill Feat (depending on what my build is).
Again though... how true is that in practice? Barbarians and rogues don't seem to have this as the case. The casters come out ahead with the exception of the druid I reckon. (And I haven't even crunched the numbers on druid to confirm that.)
Rogues currently can't find traps and also select Bludgeoner, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
If you want to say Rogue doesn't have as many "features" as they did before. I will go with level 5, because it's a good marker for where it starts to become a problem (remember feat taxes help the early levels in PF2):
PF1 UC Rogue 5 -
Features: Finesse Training, Sneak Attack, Trapfinding, Evasion, Rogue Talent X2, Danger Sense, Uncanny Dodge, Debilitating Injury, Rogue's Edge
Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Combat Expertise, Two Weapon Feint
So let's take a look here. We have 10 Class Features and 3 Combat Feats. I chose the above, because I've actually played a similar character before. I have Feint prowess, good damage with two swings (+1 swing vs. others), and I have all my Rogue goodies as per usual, which I can swap out for whatever I want.
Now let's look at PF2 Rogue 5 -
Features: Finesse Striker, Sneak Attack, Deny Advantage (I am deliberately excluding "Surprise Attack" since PF1 Rogue's got this by default)
Class Feats: 2 Rogue Feats
So let's just draw comparisons where it makes sense:
Finesse Striker and Finesse Training are identical. Sneak Attack same story. Deny Advantage and Uncanny Dodge are about on par, but UD is actually a little stronger, however, given mechanics for combat have changed enough, let's just call it a wash.
Now, Rogue's get additional Rogue Skill Feats, and they get 2 extra. However, PF1 Rogue gets 2 Rogue Talents. These Talents are at least as good as the Skill Feats presented (and in some cases, vastly better, because they can provide actual Combat Feats, like Weapon Focus and Combat Trick). However, let's call this a wash too.
That means what we have left to compare is this:
5 additional Class Features and 3 Combat Feats vs. 2 Rogue Feats, 1 Ancestry Feat, 1 General Feat, and 3 Skill Feats
8 Features vs. 7 Features
I am not counting the Ancestry Feat at 1, because that really just buys your original Race in PF1 back.
And those "7" have 3 Skill Feats (weaker than Class Features and Combat Feats respectively) 1 Ancestry Feat, and 1 General Feat (which have been severely dropped in power).
The number will only favor PF1 as the game continues, and in a way, that will tone down the Powercreep seen at later levels, which is good.
However, there's still the issue of pool competition.
But clearly, as can be seen above, they are not "even" in terms of resources (even with the -2 for taxes).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I *think* the main point being raised regarding trapfinding is that circa 75% of rogue archetypes traded out trapfinding anyway so it may not be the best example to illustrate the point you are trying to make
I understand the point being made about combat options and non combat options potentially taking the same space however
I don’t have any immediate memory of what some of the PF1 trades are. I am not sure if any replace it with combat boosting options off hand
I am also not certain what the 2E trap ability does but didn’t someone say everyone can look for them but the ability makes it better?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Toker - Absolutely, 100%. I completely didn’t understand your point. Your examples didn’t seem to be going in that direction and that’s in part because i don’t agree with some of your guidelines such as ‘General feat is weaker than Class feat, thus it doesn’t count’. I won’t delve into that though unless i find i need to.
Honestly most of those complaints i considered features of the new system; it seems to the devs and some of the players this was not viewed the same way. The biggest issue i see seems to be more from too much siloing and not enough cross combatability which 1e certainly has over 2e atm; even if you narrowed it down to just CRB(1e) to CRB(2e).
Evolving feats, like TWF for example, could possibly help with this some if it was left to 2-3 stages; for example Fighter’s Double Shot and Triple Shot could just be a single feat with Triple Shot unlocking at 6th level rather than taking an additional feat slot. Though there’s a danger that this makes some feats too valuable.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from the fact that nobody needs Trap Finder to Seek for traps, how are Rogues blocked from having Trap Finder and Double Slice? It looks like you pick Trap Finder at level one and then Fighter dedications at two and four. Or Trap Finder at some other level.
What is keeping them from having both?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, let's dig into your example.
PF1 UC Rogue 5 -
Features: Finesse Training, Sneak Attack, Trapfinding, Evasion, Rogue Talent X2, Danger Sense, Uncanny Dodge, Debilitating Injury, Rogue's Edge
Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Combat Expertise, Two Weapon Feint.
All well and good.
Playtest Rogue: Features: Finesse Striker, Sneak Attack, Deny Advantage (I am deliberately excluding "Surprise Attack" since PF1 Rogue's got this by default)
Class Feats: 2 Rogue Feats
Hold on now. You've shorted the rogue 1 class feat and 5 skill feats. In addition, you've dismissed Surprise Attack because all rogues (technically, all characters) got it in PF1. But you haven't extended that courtesy both ways.
Trapfinding provides a bonus to perception checks and traps, and the ability to disable magical traps. Well, the rogue already gets a bonus to find traps from expert perception. And anyone can disable magical traps, they just need the prerequisite skill proficiency. Both the skill proficiency and the bonus to disable device are easily accommodated by the rogue getting twice as many skill increases.
Every single one of your general feats is something the PF2 rogue can do out the box. Give them a rapier and a main gauche and they can attack twice in one turn AND feint, or use an action to raise their AC.
Many of the existing features can easily be replicated by skill feats and general feats in PF2. Danger Sense-- Wary Disarmament, Improved Initiative. Rogue's edges are really just skill feats. And too many rogue talents to count are just skill feats. (If you'd like to commit the rogue talents to combat feats, name some specific ones. I'm willing to wager I )
So the PF2 rogue can do everything your rogue can except Debilitating Injury, and it hasn't spent any class feats or ancestry feats. And there are numerous class feats that help you simulate Debilitating Injury, such as Two Weapon Feint, Dread Striker, or You're Next, until you get it at 9th. You could spend a feat on Trap Finder if you want to be even better at traps, but the rogue already got the tools to be comparable to his PF1 counterpart without it.
That's kind of the thing. When you actually look at the characters, they seem to be able to do as much or more in practice. Oh sure, there's the occasional thing that got pushed back a few levels, like Evasion or Fast Stealth. But the Rogue even gets stuff to make up for that: better will saves and no having the equivalent of full BAB built in.
Aside from the fact that nobody needs Trap Finder to Seek for traps, how are Rogues blocked from having Trap Finder and Double Slice? It looks like you pick Trap Finder at level one and then Fighter dedications at two and four. Or Trap Finder at some other level.
What is keeping them from having both?
A more apt comparison would be Bludgeoner vs. Trapfinder (since we don't know when or where the DS Rogue Feat is going to be placed). I was speaking logistically about the likelihood of Double Slice's Rogue version being added at level 1 (though I could see it being higher).
However, in the scenario mentioned, at level 4 you now have Double Slice competing against the likes of Sabotage and Battle Assessment, which are utility based.
And remember, just because there isn't competition at a certain level now does not mean there won't be competition of Combat vs. Non-Combat moving forward. In fact, with the current set up, it's pretty inevitable.
The gating of Class Feats behind other Classes is another topic entirely, but does touch on the issues tangentially as well.
Personally, I liked the Ranger changes in APG that introduced picking a combat style feat line appropriate to whatever you wanted (whether it was Crossbows or a single 2 hander). What we have current means classes get their own "tailored" versions or they have to spend Class Feats on MC/Dedications to get the combat style of their choosing.
While I dont like the above either, it's more of a separate topic that I know Paizo is not going to backtrack on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These examples sound like they are only issues if you want to multiclass, which might not even be an option for some characters due to ability requirements.
If you want to be a Rogue/Fighter, you are going in with the understanding that you aren't going to be 100% rogue-y. That us a choice that a player should be aware of at character creation.
And these feat picks aren't competing for access, they are competing for how soon they can be aquired. If you pick up a Fighter dedication at level 4 you can still get a Rogue 4 feat later.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to say Rogue doesn't have as many "features" as they did before. I will go with level 5, because it's a good marker for where it starts to become a problem (remember feat taxes help the early levels in PF2):PF1 UC Rogue 5 -
Features: Finesse Training, Sneak Attack, Trapfinding, Evasion, Rogue Talent X2, Danger Sense, Uncanny Dodge, Debilitating Injury, Rogue's Edge
Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Combat Expertise, Two Weapon Feint
So let's take a look here. We have 10 Class Features and 3 Combat Feats. I chose the above, because I've actually played a similar character before. I have Feint prowess, good damage with two swings (+1 swing vs. others), and I have all my Rogue goodies as per usual, which I can swap out for whatever I want.
Now let's look at PF2 Rogue 5 -
Features: Finesse Striker, Sneak Attack, Deny Advantage (I am deliberately excluding "Surprise Attack" since PF1 Rogue's got this by default)
Class Feats: 2 Rogue Feats
So let's just draw comparisons where it makes sense:
Finesse Striker and Finesse Training are identical. Sneak Attack same story. Deny Advantage and Uncanny Dodge are about on par, but UD is actually a little stronger, however, given mechanics for combat have changed enough, let's just call it a wash.
Now, Rogue's get additional Rogue Skill Feats, and they get 2 extra. However, PF1 Rogue gets 2 Rogue Talents. These Talents are at least as good as the Skill Feats presented (and in some cases, vastly better, because they can provide actual Combat Feats, like Weapon Focus and Combat Trick). However, let's call this a wash too.
That means what we have left to...
The problem with your example is two fold 1) many of the lost features were just math fixes.
Weapon Focus - so you can catch up to full BABsCombat Trick - so you can take a feat like Improved Feint so your lower to hit isn't so bad
Etc.
Rogues are the worst because you have to plan out every single feat and rogue talent for at least the first 5-7 levels just so that you can survive as a front line fighter which you HAVE TO BE because all of your features are focused on that. Your rogue isn't hitting as often as the Fighter has a worse AC AND less HP your main class feature, sneak attack, is situational.
Literally, a Fighter picks up any random weapon in which he has no feats to support and it hitting more often than your Rouge who sunk every class feature and choice he has into using properly. GOD FORBID you want to do TWF cause now you have to have every feat planned out for the first 10 levels just to be effective.
Another thing, COMPARING THE UNCHAINED ROGUE TO ANYTHING CORE IN P2 IS EXPLICITLY COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES.
Unchained Rogue is STACKED with class features so that they can compete with the Fighter. They try to limit your build taxes (Int 13 for combat expertise) or straight up pay it for your (finesse training) and EVEN THEN you are going to select Combat Trick and Weapon Training rogue talents just so you can keep up.
In P1 you spent half your feats just so that you didn't fall behind regardless of your class or build, and you ended up pigeon holing yourself because if you're good at tactic A, you can't invest at all in tactic B. In P2, you can give away every class feat you have and still be a competent Cleric/Barbarian/Rogue whatever. It's a different game. Are you going to want more feats? ABSOLUTELY! That's because they're all so awesome. But that's not a problem. If I didn't want ALL THE FEATS, then why am I playing this game it sounds really boring.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A more apt comparison would be Bludgeoner vs. Trapfinder (since we don't know when or where the DS Rogue Feat is going to be placed). I was speaking logistically about the likelihood of Double Slice's Rogue version being added at level 1 (though I could see it being higher).
We do, actually. It is called Two Weapon Feint, and it lets the rogue strike with each weapon as two actions and treat the opponent as flat-footed to the second attack. It isn't as strong as Double Slice because rogues sacrifice much less opportunity cost in using smaller weapons than fighters do.
While I dont like the above either, it's more of a separate topic that I know Paizo is not going to backtrack on.However, in the scenario mentioned, at level 4 you now have Double Slice competing against the likes of Sabotage and Battle Assessment, which are utility based.
And remember, just because there isn't competition at a certain level now does not mean there won't be competition of Combat vs. Non-Combat moving forward. In fact, with the current set up, it's pretty inevitable.
The gating of Class Feats behind other Classes is another topic entirely, but does touch on the issues tangentially as well.
Personally, I liked the Ranger changes in APG that introduced picking a combat style feat line appropriate to whatever you wanted (whether it was Crossbows or a single 2 hander). What we have current means classes get their own "tailored" versions or they have to spend Class Feats on MC/Dedications to get the combat style of their choosing.
Again, this has always been true once you factor in PF1 archetypes. I reckon you could probably find something that replaces any utility feature with a combat feature or vice versa. Even the most basic monk archetype lets you trade Ki powers for features, trading between utility and combat enhancers like Barkskin. Rogues didn't even need archetypes because their talents could straddle the line.
Hell, even general feats straddle the line, because they could be used for non-combat options like Skill Focus.
This isn't a new problem. And in order to demonstrate this edition has made it worse, I think you need examples of comparable characters who have lost out on options. So far you haven't really provided any, from what I have seen. I could have missed some though, I skimmed much of the thread. Apologies if that's the case. Point them out to me and I'll see how they stack up. Give me a PF1 build and we can compare it to a PF2 build.
Edit: And by options, I mean "things they can do" not "number of feats."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree some class features like Woodland stride should be either automatic or use up a skill-feat slot. Actually spreading the class stuff to skill feat region opens up a lot of customization for some of the low-power abilities. Trapfinding is another good example that has been mentioned, but even stuff like Tongue of the Sun and Moon for high level monks would be a good skill feat since no way in hell it's gonna compete vs combat class feats.
Feat siloing now allows characters to be more well-rounded than before, but I think it can be expanded further to get some off the heavy load off the almighty class feat resource since Skill Feats right in the playtest were kinda garbage. You could even do this with ancestry feats like Catfolk Rogues had in 1e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree some class features like Woodland stride should be either automatic or use up a skill-feat slot. Actually spreading the class stuff to skill feat region opens up a lot of customization for some of the low-power abilities. Trapfinding is another good example that has been mentioned, but even stuff like Tongue of the Sun and Moon for high level monks would be a good skill feat since no way in hell it's gonna compete vs combat class feats.
Feat siloing now allows characters to be more well-rounded than before, but I think it can be expanded further to get some off the heavy load off the almighty class feat resource since Skill Feats right in the playtest were kinda garbage. You could even do this with ancestry feats like Catfolk Rogues had in 1e.
And this I agree with, and have in fact done so in my own games. I strengthened skill feats and made stuff like Wild Empathy a class feat.
The result though is that playtest characters wound up with even more interesting things they could do than their PF1 counterparts, not merely catching up to their PF1 counterparts.
Hold on now. You've shorted the rogue 1 class feat and 5 skill feats.
I did not short them 5 Skill Feats, I counted them after the fact and gave a wash with Rogue Talents. The Class Feat was a mistaken omission, but the differences are still there.
I was giving a lot of leeway on Rogue Talents vs. Skill Feats on the assumption the Skill Feats will be in a good state on release.
If you want to go by playtest, it's not even close and Talents (such as Ki Pool) are much MUCH better. In fact, some of the Talents were moved to Class Feats.
In addition, you've dismissed Surprise Attack because all rogues (technically, all characters) got it in PF1. But you haven't extended that courtesy both ways.
Trapfinding was available to all, just traps above a certain DC that were magical required Trapfinding.
I think we can surmount that both do not make significant changes to the power of the Class or it's customization.
Both the skill proficiency and the bonus to disable device are easily accommodated by the rogue getting twice as many skill increases.
Skill Increases supplement the loss of Ranks. Treating them as anything other than a lateral change would require us to know a lot more about the power of Skill Feats.
Every single one of your general feats is something the PF2 rogue can do out the box.
Oh really? Show me the Rogue that get's one additional attack at a slight minus with full MAP. Show me the Rogue that can sacrifice his additional attack to gain sneak attack on his second attack at full MAP.
You're using a "well they have the same number of attacks now" argument, when in the previous edition everyone got less attacks.
Those feats give the Rogue a +1 to number of attacks, so frame it as you would the Class Feats that grant additional attacks (currently there is no supplement at all for Rogue).
Give them a rapier and a main gauche and they can attack twice in one turn AND feint, or use an action to raise their AC.
And those attacks would have MAP. And he would not be attacking an additional time more than others just more than PF1 characters (we're talking about action economy changes here, you can't just make them equivalent).
Rogue's edges are really just skill feats. And too many rogue talents to count are just skill feats.
Rogue's edges scaled with level better than Skill Feats do currently, so no they aren't.
If you'd like to commit the rogue talents to combat feats, name some specific ones. I'm willing to wager I
Idk what you're wagering, but I could easily substitute some of the Feats I had to spend out to then progress my TWF build or Feint options further.
Hell Weapon Focus get's a lot of value since the Rogue would likely be dual wielding Short Swords.
Ki Pool deflates that whole argument, it's vastly better than even most PF1 Combat Feats. Now that could be an issue with Ki Pool, but given that PF1 Talents and Feats tread the same water often, I disagree.
They seem to be able to do much more in the process
I mean I have failed to see any actual build from you at all and all I did was strict comparisons.
You either have to operate on the assumption that Skill Feats are going to be MUCH MUCH stronger (based on nothing but hope) or that Class Feats are going to scale much better (like some Class Feats in the Playtest did, but others did not).
Neither of which is certain.
If you want to say Ancestry Feats are as good as Combat Feats, I would argue "which ones specifically? The free weapon proficiency? The Gnome Familiar?"
If you add back the Class Feat I took we get back to this again:
8 Combat Feats + Features vs. 8 Features total (3 Rogue Class Feats, 1 Ancestry, 1 General, 3 Skill Feats)
If you want to call "Rogue Sense" Skill feats, fine:
7 vs. 7
Rogue Class Feats:
Nimble Dodge - Like Dodge the combat feat, but once per turn as a reaction and double the value. I'd call it a wash.
You're Next - I mean, this is literally a Skill Feat masquerading as a Class Feat, so I don't think it really holds up against Class Features like "Debilitating Injury", "Uncanny Dodge", or even many of the better Talents.
Bludgeoner - Pretty solid. If I wanted to use a Mace, I guess I'm not going to be doing much intimidating (seems a bit counter intuitive if you ask me, maces are intimidating)
Trap Finder - As you've mentioned, this is devalued compared to what it used to be, since more people can participate, but nonetheless the free roll is nice. This is really just Trap Sense Talent that Rogue's got in PF1, so again, on par with a Talent (which you have equated to "Skill Feats")
Remember, these 4 have to stand up against Combat Feats + Class Features.
When we analyze what's available in the General section, it becomes very obvious that those are not better than PF1 Combat Feats or some of the better Features.
You want to say General Feats and Ancestry Feats are on par with Combat Feats and Class Feats? I would love to hear what you think measures up, because I do not see it.
Another thing, COMPARING THE UNCHAINED ROGUE TO ANYTHING CORE IN P2 IS EXPLICITLY COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES.
Using an errata'd class that was released as the worst base line class (arguably Monk and Rogue competed) is "comparing apples to oranges"
It was stacked with Class Features because it was garbage before.
Make the same comparison with any martial that is not a Fighter (and only say not the Fighter because the Fighter in PF1 was a Feat Factory) and the result is the same.
You have to add extreme value to Ancestry Feats, General Feats, and Skill Feats in order to say they make up the difference.
Based on what we have, not so far.
I do agree some class features like Woodland stride should be either automatic or use up a skill-feat slot. Actually spreading the class stuff to skill feat region opens up a lot of customization for some of the low-power abilities. Trapfinding is another good example that has been mentioned, but even stuff like Tongue of the Sun and Moon for high level monks would be a good skill feat since no way in hell it's gonna compete vs combat class feats.
Feat siloing now allows characters to be more well-rounded than before, but I think it can be expanded further to get some off the heavy load off the almighty class feat resource since Skill Feats right in the playtest were kinda garbage. You could even do this with ancestry feats like Catfolk Rogues had in 1e.
Precisely.
This is all going to be a moot point anyways, because I am about 90% sure that Class Feats that are non-combat oriented might get the "Skill" tag. At least, I would really hope so.
this edition made it worse
Well I should clarify, I definitely don't think it's worse, the feat tax removal does make it a smidge better early, but not so much as you progress.
I guess it's not as good as it could be, and the baffling choice to introduce the competition of non-combat and combat features after creating the Skill Feats pool to resolve the exact issue PF1 had is a bit janky to me.
If we're going to move to a new edition, my opinion is it needs to be better than prior, not just "different". That's just how I am though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again though... how true is that in practice? Barbarians and rogues don't seem to have this as the case. The casters come out ahead with the exception of the druid I reckon. (And I haven't even crunched the numbers on druid to confirm that.)Rogues currently can't find traps and also select Bludgeoner, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
I'm near 95% on the odds that Bludgeoner is going to be a Racket, especially given it became that in 1.6. So that's a non-issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to say Rogue doesn't have as many "features" as they did before. I will go with level 5, because it's a good marker for where it starts to become a problem (remember feat taxes help the early levels in PF2):
PF1 UC Rogue 5 -
Features: Finesse Training, Sneak Attack, Trapfinding, Evasion, Rogue Talent X2, Danger Sense, Uncanny Dodge, Debilitating Injury, Rogue's Edge
Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Combat Expertise, Two Weapon Feint
So let's take a look here. We have 10 Class Features and 3 Combat Feats. I chose the above, because I've actually played a similar character before. I have Feint prowess, good damage with two swings (+1 swing vs. others), and I have all my Rogue goodies as per usual, which I can swap out for whatever I want.
Now let's look at PF2 Rogue 5 -
Features: Finesse Striker, Sneak Attack, Deny Advantage (I am deliberately excluding "Surprise Attack" since PF1 Rogue's got this by default)
Class Feats: 2 Rogue Feats
So let's just draw comparisons where it makes sense:
Finesse Striker and Finesse Training are identical. Sneak Attack same story. Deny Advantage and Uncanny Dodge are about on par, but UD is actually a little stronger, however, given mechanics for combat have changed enough, let's just call it a wash.
I do think looking at it early is also kind of heavily skewed towards PF1, because it's insanely frontloaded with math fixes in order to make the rogue somewhat functional. If we compare levels 7 or 9, for example, PF2 gains 2 class features while PF1 gains nothing.
If we're removing Surprise Attack because it's there in PF1 by default, I'd argue we should remove TWF because it's also there in PF2 by default.
Either way, let's look at it again:
PF1:
Finesse Training, Sneak Attack, Trapfinding, Evasion, Rogue Talent X2, Danger Sense, Uncanny Dodge, Debilitating Injury, Rogue's Edge
Feats: Two Weapon Fighting, Combat Expertise, Two Weapon Feint
PF2:
Finesse Striker, Sneak Attack, Deny Advantage, Surprise Attack
Feats: 3 Rogue Feats, 2 Ancestry Feats, 5 Skill Feats, 1 General Feat
Let's assume that we try and strike out things that are base on both sides. So as per your previous assessment, we'll remove Sneak Attack, Finesse Training/Finesse Striker, Uncanny Dodge/Deny Advantage. We'll also strike out the Rogue Talents with 2 Skill Feats, and remove 1 Ancestry Feat to keep things equivalent. Lastly, we'll remove Surprise Attack (PF1 base) and TWF (PF2 base).
So what are we left with?
PF1:
Trapfinding, Evasion, Danger Sense, Debilitating Injury, Rogue's Edge
Feats: Combat Expertise, Two Weapon Feint
PF2:
Feats: 3 Rogue Feats, 1 Ancestry Feat, 3 Skill Feats, 1 General Feat
So how can we match these up? Let's say we want to try and make the most equivalent rogue we can, so we'll take Twin Feint and Trapfinding as two of our Rogue feats. That negates Two Weapon Feint, Combat Expertise, Trapfinding, and Danger Sense. (Technically it would mean one of the PF1 talents needs to be spent on Trap Sense, but let's not quibble about that.)
Leaving us with:
PF1:
Evasion, Debilitating Injury, Rogue's Edge
PF2:
Feats: 1 Rogue Feat, 1 Ancestry Feat, 3 Skill Feats, 1 General Feat
It's a lot more even than it appears at first glance, and actually probably favours PF2 in the long run. If we look at level 9, for example, that leaves:
PF1: Rogue's Edge, 2 feats, and 2 talents
PF2: 3 Rogue Feats, 2 Ancestry Feats, 7 Skill Feats, 2 General Feats
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point honestly the discussion is all over the place. The reason everyone is comparing CRB(1e) to CRB(2e/PT) is because otherwise we have no idea what it is you’re trying to explain at times. Using UC Rogue instead of CRB Rogue because, ‘it was garbage before,’ does nothing for us. Even if we agreed with the sentiment we have zero reason to understand why you’re using that as your standard and just adds further complication and confusion to the mix. Adding 1e Archetypes just muddies the examples even more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was giving a lot of leeway on Rogue Talents vs. Skill Feats on the assumption the Skill Feats will be in a good state on release.
A lot of unchained rogue talents are literally just skill feats now. Kip Up, Rogue Crawl, Fast Stealth... that's just a cursory glance.
Skill Increases supplement the loss of Ranks. Treating them as anything other than a lateral change would require us to know a lot more about the power of Skill Feats.
No, initial skill proficiencies and their scaling with level replaces skill ranks. The skill increases allow them to get ahead of that curve, which is a better representation of bonuses that got you ahead of the curve like Trapfinding, coupled with being able to disable more out there traps. An expert level trap is basically the new magical trap this edition.
Oh really? Show me the Rogue that get's one additional attack at a slight minus with full MAP.
-2/-2 doesn't actually seem better than 0/-4, unless I'm wildly off base in my DPR understanding.
Show me the Rogue that can sacrifice his additional attack to gain sneak attack on his second attack at full MAP.
Literally any rogue? It is called just using a feint action before a strike. Except the PF2 character didn't take a -2 penalty and spend a feat to do it.
You're using a "well they have the same number of attacks now" argument, when in the previous edition everyone got less attacks.
And? Does the rogue being good at something require anyone else to be bad at it?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
(we're talking about action economy changes here, you can't just make them equivalent).
Oh really? Show me the Rogue that get's one additional attack at a slight minus with full MAP.
...
Show me the PF2 fighter who gets that. Or the PF2 barbarian.
Yes, you're right. It is a different action economy here. You cannot, in fact, just make them equivalent.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show me the Rogue that can sacrifice his additional attack to gain sneak attack on his second attack at full MAP.Literally any rogue? It is called just using a feint action before a strike. Except the PF2 character didn't take a -2 penalty and spend a feat to do it.
This is a very good example of how system-level changes have really improved things for everyone (but especially rogues). Combat options like Two-weapon Feint and Spring Attack that improve a rogue's combat ability are just built in to the three action system. You don't have to choose between the two, get locked in to a combat routine, and spend three feats to get there.
Sure, you can't build a Spring-Attack rogue anymore. But building a character is something you do once. You can decide whether to spring attack or whether to two-weapon feint every round in PF2. I'd say that's worth it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you can't build a Spring-Attack rogue anymore.
Sure you can, and it's less investment. The Mobility rogue feat lets you Stride (half-speed) up to your target with no risk of an AoO, you then hit them, and then Mobility again to half-speed Stride away. One feat, no fuss.
I had overlooked that, thank you!
Going Mobility on a PF2 rogue doesn't mean you can't choose to two-weapon feint on your turn, or taking a class feat that improves that combat style in a few levels.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread seems to be moving towards a point where some people will not be convinced and there is not a lot more that can seemingly be said without the final rules
What seems to have been missed or overlooked but is now being pointed out is that lots of the old feats allowed uses of abilities that can now be done as standard or gave bonuses that the new maths mean are no longer required
Sure there will always be exceptions but we are talking about a comparison to 10 years of content
As to the two weapons at -2 for rogues I imagine that is now restricted due to another system change - that of critical hits when you exceed by 10. Relatively minor bonuses now mean a lot more (hence bards not granting +1 to damage because +1 to hit is now much better than it previously was)
Also consider that rogues now double their sneak attack on criticals. So that throws power in their favour much more than before even if you -4 on the second attack. And that is not counting the part about apparently being able to feint as your first action
So there comes a point where comparing systems is going to get tricky and not give reliable outputs