| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, if you want a specific example of a PF1 character character gaining ground switching over, I can provide several as we converted our AP to the playtest a while ago.
I don't think there is a single thing our gendarme cavalier lost in the transition. Stuff like Ride by Attack and Wheeling Charge all got subsumed into the action economy. And he gained a bunch of new abilities. Class feats these mostly came down to shield stuff protect allies, but he is also now the party healer with Battle Medic, can kip up, and has magical crafting.
The unclaimed monk lost his temple sword proficiency, but gained significantly better unarmed damage. He also lost a style strike, but he gained a bunch of mobility options he loves like Wall Run and Wall Jump. I think he broke about even on ki powers. And he gained the ability to help his entire party stealth. (The final version of Quiet Allies is super good.)
I think the ranger basically broke even. They have optimised archery, a basic ranger animal companion, basic Spellcasting, trackless step, wild empathy... They also gained cantrips. Skill feats basically covered the enhanced tracking and the stealth bonuses of favored terrain. The ranger is one of the most thinly spread classes, I'll admit.
A few things I would like to point out I, in my admittedly sleep-deprived state, have not seen mentioned yet in this thread:
1) Some 'combat' feats have gone away due to being eliminated as redundant. Case in point: Precise Shot. Jason Bulhman stated in an interview and one of the gaming podcasts (I am so sorry, I cannot recall which one; maybe some kind soul can add in that detail) talked about how the design team had decided that some 'feat taxes' could be eliminated because players are competent adventurers and are just that good. So you don't need precise shot because everyone can fire into melee.
2) Mark Seifter and the blurb for the Game Mastery Guide have given us clues that things like gestalt-type character options are returning, but we currently don't precisely know how this will be implemented.
3) Feats do more in the same package and/or are generally more versatile. For instance, there is a feat (again, muzzy-head cannot recall the feat type, whether it is general or ancestry) that allows you to gain proficiency in a single weapon (or perhaps a group?)from another culture, while weapon proficiency, a general feat, increases the proficiencies available to your class by one grade. So there is more than one way to get what you want.
Just my two coppers. Hell, maybe one copper with the new economy.
| 1 person 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.
I would call Fighter's Double Slice the "equivalent" for PF2, since it reduces the penalties of the second attack to be "paired" with the first and combines the damage. This is at least a "reward" for investing in the combat style.
Monk's get Flurry, Ranger's got something similar.
As for the Barbarian, yeah they don't even have the option for a TWF style of combat. Not sure that furthers your point or mine, but it's another issue of not having the feats in an "everyone pool" like Combat Feats were, it means if your Class didn't get a feat made, you don't get to do it.
Is it a direct 1 to 1 comparison? Of course not, but it's a benefit that is granted in excess of the default.
So was true for TWF before, it was an attack in excess of what was the default. It was specifically beneficial for the Rogue, and not just a "tax" because the more attacks a Rogue had, the better opportunity for Sneak Attacks.
Saying "TWF Exists, just hold two weapons and make your attacks!" is no different than telling people to imagine/flavor something a certain way, but it doesn't really differ in any way than a person swinging a greatsword. That's the "5E" method of doing things IMO. I can be a Dragon Totem Barbarian in 5E too, it's just not going to have any mechanics to support it necessarily.
I agree we are digressing.
The most recent blog has me in high spirits, and while we didn't get a confirmation one way or the other on the non-combat Class Features situation, Class Feats certainly are looking strong.
EDIT: And just so it's clear, I hear what each of you dissenters are saying. All I'm really pointing out is that the architecture for the system, as we saw it in the playtest, does have potential to cause issues like what OP is talking about (starving Feat intensive builds). I hope that all of my concerns are a non-issue on release.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm more concerned about than relative power is customization. Making your character distinctly your own, with the requisite flavor abilities at the correct levels.
In PF1 a 4th level druid archer would have an animal companion, wild shape, spells, nature bond, nature senses, wild empathy, woodland stride, trackless step, and resist nature's lure. They would also have at least two feats invested in archery that makes them feel distinct, and can do more with a bow than other druids who didn't make those same choices. All together, that feels like an archer druid!
In PF2 (as of the playtest) a 4th level druid would have an animal companion, spells, wild empathy, and two class feats spent on fighter dedication to feel mechanically distinct as a bow focused character. It's not until 6th level that they can go back to get the 1st level wild shape, and now they're behind on the wild shape progression feats by 4 levels. All together, it feels like a multiclass character rather than a druid that has expertise with a bow beyond the normal druid kit.
Like I said before, I'm not okay with saying everyone is good at everything, and just picking up a weapon makes you a certain combat archetype. RPGs are about character customization, and investment. I'm fine with requiring less investment to be useful, but there still needs to be a means to make a character feel distinct.
This could be fixed by better scaling feats, like the Wild Shape feats scaling up to your level rather than leaving you 4 levels behind. It could also be fixed by letting general feats go back to selecting some more combat customization options. It could also be fixed by ensuring everyone has enough feats to select options to make combat style customization choices and core class feature selections.
Druid is the main example of this. Other casters which primarily rely on casting as their main thing, and class feats kind of just boost casting, it's not such a big deal.
TL;DR
The customization bottle neck is about your ability to personalize your character being in conflict with core things you expect your class to have.
The examples from the customization bottle neck thread that Jason acknowledged were in this vein.
Playtest characters have a huge bottleneck. Virtually all customization you can do with a Playtest character is made from the same pool: class feats. Archetype? Class feats. Multiclass? Class feats. Class features other than the small number of default features? Class feats. Combat style determining/boosting options? Class feats. Scaling class features? Class feat trees.
It's a problem when you can't make a character concept within a reasonable number of levels because you can only customize your character every other level with one meaningful feat.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would call Fighter's Double Slice the "equivalent" for PF2, since it reduces the penalties of the second attack to be "paired" with the first and combines the damage. This is at least a "reward" for investing in the combat style.(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.
Several people in this thread have already mentioned Twin Feint. It, too, is a reward for investing in the combat style, and a human rogue could have it and Trap Finder both at 1st level. A non-human rogue can take Twin Feint at 1st and Trap Finder at 2nd (because, as noted previously, finding traps is just a thing you can do), and have their concept validated all the way through.
In PF1 a 4th level druid archer would have an animal companion, wild shape, spells, nature bond, nature senses, wild empathy, woodland stride, trackless step, and resist nature's lure. They would also have at least two feats invested in archery that makes them feel distinct, and can do more with a bow than other druids who didn't make those same choices. All together, that feels like an archer druid!
In PF2 (as of the playtest) a 4th level druid would have an animal companion, spells, wild empathy, and two class feats spent on fighter dedication to feel mechanically distinct as a bow focused character. It's not until 6th level that they can go back to get the 1st level wild shape, and now they're behind on the wild shape progression feats by 4 levels. All together, it feels like a multiclass character rather than a druid that has expertise with a bow beyond the normal druid kit.
But... the two archery feats the PF1 druid would have (assuming one of them isn't bow proficiency, that is) would just be feat taxes: PBS is a minor bonus at best, and regardless of whether you pick Precise Shot or Rapid Shot, you're spending a feat to do something that you can do for free in PF2. I truly don't understand the logic that says "I'm more invested because I have spent resources to just not suck" rather than just grabbing a bow, making sure you have a good Dex, and going to town.
I'm not unaware of the customization bottleneck. I've posted about it myself in the playtest forums. But it seems like it's just being significantly overblown in this thread and I don't get why.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the Druid was that they get so much stuff... also the shapechanging in pf1 was rather unattractive (imo)
It seems to me in pf1 druids tried to be everything at once and failed at beeing really good with some of the stuff (some things worked but well...)
now you can actually specialize in the stuff that is most important for you and get the options you want instead of beeing forced to take it all
and like this the druids all feel less the same then before
if you meet a druid in pf1 you could be sure he could do magic, he could wildshape, there was an animal companion
now you have to let yourself get surprised, which is kind of neat imo
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing worth keeping in mind is that we are given a limited number of feats and abilities for a reason. Most likely, the biggest reason is that Paizo found adding any more options than this tended to overwhelm players.
However, players with high system mastery (which most forum goers fall under) may be fine with handling more than that. And since feats are less likely to break the game the power curve, adding more feats or options is much more attractive.
But... the two archery feats the PF1 druid would have (assuming one of them isn't bow proficiency, that is) would just be feat taxes: PBS is a minor bonus at best, and regardless of whether you pick Precise Shot or Rapid Shot, you're spending a feat to do something that you can do for free in PF2. I truly don't understand the logic that says "I'm more invested because I have spent resources to just not suck" rather than just grabbing a bow, making sure you have a good Dex, and going to town.
I also don't really get the need to be superior in order to be distinct.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing worth keeping in mind is that we are given a limited number of feats and abilities for a reason. Most likely, the biggest reason is that Paizo found adding any more options than this tended to overwhelm players.
However, players with high system mastery (which most forum goers fall under) may be fine with handling more than that. And since feats are less likely to break the game the power curve, adding more feats or options is much more attractive.
This is exactly why I'm going to start with doubling feats in my game.
And I get it. Even with the way it is now, there are many concepts that are perfectly adequately handled, especially once we get the full suite of feat options for each class. But so many specific flavor options I'd like to pursue for my character concepts are getting pushed out so many levels without a big balance reason as to why.
And for those mentioning it: Getting rid of feat taxes for bare minimum competency is great! I still need my characters to have some firm investment to show that they *are* focused on something. If it ends up just being a feat that lets them do trick shots with a bow, or a feat that gives them more options with a sword, then those represent investment. As it was in the playtest, though, getting those also meant pushing out serious, important class features that wouldn't have had to have been pushed out in PF1.
Several people in this thread have already mentioned Twin Feint. It, too, is a reward for investing in the combat style, and a human rogue could have it and Trap Finder both at 1st level. A non-human rogue can take Twin Feint at 1st and Trap Finder at 2nd (because, as noted previously, finding traps is just a thing you can do), and have their concept validated all the way through.
Twin Feint was added later for starters.
Secondly, if you have to use a Human as an example just to be able to dual wield and be a trapfinder, then I rest my case that's my exact point.
It's being made out that "you can't do everything! That would be too much!!" but that's not really the case. In PF1, I could do both and even more importantly I felt like I was actually investing in my concept
Being able to find traps and being able to use two weapons are not and should not be diametrically opposed choices, or require me to go back and sacrifice my level 2 Feat for a level 1 Feat (inherently weaker) just to be able to do it.
These proposals dont work for me because what I see here is this off brand attempt at the style where you significantly hamstring your progression to achieve the thing you could do in PF1 without having to do that.
It doesn't feel like I'm being rewarded for choosing to invest, it feels like I'm being punished with a choice I didn't want to make in the first place.
And to those saying that "the druid had too much", you can remove about half the class features they get and Waterslethe's point still makes sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Several people in this thread have already mentioned Twin Feint. It, too, is a reward for investing in the combat style, and a human rogue could have it and Trap Finder both at 1st level. A non-human rogue can take Twin Feint at 1st and Trap Finder at 2nd (because, as noted previously, finding traps is just a thing you can do), and have their concept validated all the way through.1) Twin Feint was added later for starters.
2) Secondly, if you have to use a Human as an example just to be able to dual wield and be a trapfinder, then I rest my case that's my exact point.
3) It's being made out that "you can't do everything! That would be too much!!" but that's not really the case. In PF1, I could do both and even more importantly I felt like I was actually investing in my concept
4) Being able to find traps and being able to use two weapons are not and should not be diametrically opposed choices, or require me to go back and sacrifice my level 2 Feat for a level 1 Feat (inherently weaker) just to be able to do it.
5) These proposals dont work for me because what I see here is this off brand attempt at the style where you significantly hamstring your progression to achieve the thing you could do in PF1 without having to do that.
6) It doesn't feel like I'm being rewarded for choosing to invest, it feels like I'm being punished with a choice I didn't want to make in the first place.
7) And to those saying that "the druid had too much", you can remove about half the class features they get and Waterslethe's point still makes sense.
1) But Twin Feint was added specifically for the reasons you mention with double slice, so double slice no longer becomes a valid argument unless you want to build a more Fighter-Rogue; in which then it becomes a topic about MC more than bottle-necking.
2) This doesn’t help your point. I could say the same thing about 1e rogue talents; ‘if i have to choose then there’s a problem’. To be clear, i fully agree with the ideas you mention about making some class feats into class-skill feats, but i just find issues with your examples.
3) The problem with this one is the examples given tend to be the ones unevenly loaded with class features. Druid is a terrible example to use IMO, so is Monk. Using Barbarian, Ranger or Bard as examples might help illustrate your point better.
4) This is actually pretty subjective. If we use Trapfinder as an example, sure, it seems a bit much. A feat that augments an existing feature or adds a new one? A feat seems appropriate.
5) This is actually incorrect in a number of instances. TWF for example, in 1e only lowers the penalties at least until you get to Improved TWF. 2e gives you something similar with a weapon trait, Agile. Feats at this point almost always seem to give you something mechanically special for what you are trying to achieve.
6) This is anecdotal, and again, subjective. Doesn’t invalidate it IMO, but just pointing that out.
7) Actually not really. Druid simply had too much. The example given was trying to recreate a 1e character, which will always come across as clunky.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, I could do both and even more importantly I felt like I was actually investing in my concept
The feeling that you need to pay for something in order for it to have value is one that you might want to examine in yourself.
In PF1, you had to invest in a concept; in PF2, you can simply realize a concept.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, I could do both and even more importantly I felt like I was actually investing in my conceptThe feeling that you need to pay for something in order for it to have value is one that you might want to examine in yourself.
In PF1, you had to invest in a concept; in PF2, you can simply realize a concept.
This is going to be a point of contention.
In my opinion, RPGs are all about investing in concepts. It's one of the reasons I hated Diablo 3, since everything was equipment based rather than character build based.
If I build a character who has no mechanical reason to favor a particular weapon type or fighting style, I am under a constant conscious and subconscious pressure to select the most mathematically optimal weapon at any given time. It becomes very easy to talk myself into shifting gears for no other reason than because of numbers, even when I set out at character gen to play a certain kind of weapon user.
That's fine for people who want to play a character that's good with lots of weapons and doesn't particularly care, but it's irritating on many levels when my knife rogue has zero mechanical reason to argue against using the strictly better magical bow that just dropped. Until you get to town to trade it in, you're a bow rogue!
Mechanical weight is a big part of the game for me, and I like having rules behind decisions my character has ostensibly made.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Twin Feint was added later for starters.
We have still known about it for months and it's been brought up multiple times in this thread. As far as raising issues with the actual game goes, you're building a fine Maginot Line.
Secondly, if you have to use a Human as an example just to be able to dual wield and be a trapfinder, then I rest my case that's my exact point.
Except I didn't say that. I literally said the exact opposite of that.
Being able to find traps and being able to use two weapons are not and should not be diametrically opposed choices, or require me to go back and sacrifice my level 2 Feat for a level 1 Feat (inherently weaker) just to be able to do it.
Honestly, this kind of hyperbolic inaccuracy makes it really hard to take your position seriously. We both know you don't have to have a feat called Trap Finder in PF2 in order to find traps. At 1st level you will be expert in Perception and trained in Thievery and that's plenty for what a 1st level character would need.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Toker, could you confirm that you understand that Trap Finder the feat is not necessary for searching for traps?
That is a repeating argument that I keep seeing and I don't understand how it keeps being brought up.
Toker, could you confirm that you understand that Trap Finder the feat is not necessary for searching for traps?
That is a repeating argument that I keep seeing and I don't understand how it keeps being brought up.
Yes. I understand this.
But writing "Getting a free roll when encountering a trap regardless of whether you are searching for it and a +1" takes a bit more time to write.
"Why do I have to choose between a non-combat Rogue-flavored specific surveillance utility party safety tool vs. a combat oriented general fighting tool?"
There, does that suffice?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Toker, could you confirm that you understand that Trap Finder the feat is not necessary for searching for traps?
That is a repeating argument that I keep seeing and I don't understand how it keeps being brought up.
Yes. I understand this.
But writing "Getting a free roll when encountering a trap regardless of whether you are searching for it and a +1" takes a bit more time to write.
"Why do I have to choose between a non-combat surveillance utility party safety tool vs. a combat oriented fighting tool?"
There, does that suffice?
Except that this same choice was made in P1. Trap-spotter versus a combat rogue talent.
Except that this same choice was made in P1. Trap-spotter versus a combat rogue talent.Toker, could you confirm that you understand that Trap Finder the feat is not necessary for searching for traps?
That is a repeating argument that I keep seeing and I don't understand how it keeps being brought up.
Yes. I understand this.
But writing "Getting a free roll when encountering a trap regardless of whether you are searching for it and a +1" takes a bit more time to write.
"Why do I have to choose between a non-combat surveillance utility party safety tool vs. a combat oriented fighting tool?"
There, does that suffice?
Except it wasn't, because Trap Spotter didn't compete with your level 1 General Feat.
And it's also a separate pool entirely from your General Feats pool. The exact issue I am pointing out?
And, ya know, that Talent can be used to grab a lot more than just TWF, like for instance, a Feat that would be level 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Toker, could you confirm that you understand that Trap Finder the feat is not necessary for searching for traps?
That is a repeating argument that I keep seeing and I don't understand how it keeps being brought up.
It isn't strictly needed but it helps greatly: You can find traps WITHOUT searching and either allows you disable the trap [as a master] or legendary if you're a master.
For anyone that plans to find and disable traps, it's a pretty needed feat: this is especially true if you expect to sneak since you can do that without tripping over every trap there is.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for confirming because you keep saying things like "why do I have to choose between searching for traps and Double Slice" when you are really choosing either Double Slice or to be a trap specialist.
You have to choose because the character game is about choices. You choose to be good at one thing and it means you aren't going to be as good at something else, or you have to delay gratification in order to be good at both things.
3.X has always been this way. So has GURPS and Savage Worlds and anything where you choose your options in character creation.
The only difference here is organization. Now Rogues do Rogue things unless they sacrifice Rogue things to do Fighter things. So far I prefer this to having to choose fighter things over rogue things in order for Rogues to keep up and pull their weight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Toker, could you confirm that you understand that Trap Finder the feat is not necessary for searching for traps?
That is a repeating argument that I keep seeing and I don't understand how it keeps being brought up.
It isn't strictly needed but it helps greatly: You can find traps WITHOUT searching and either allows you disable the trap [as a master] or legendary if you're a master.
For anyone that plans to find and disable traps, it's a pretty needed feat: this is especially true if you expect to sneak since you can do that without tripping over every trap there is.
Yes, if you want to be a trap specialist, you need to make choices that involve being a trap specialist. This is a feature to some of us, not a bug.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trapfinder's combat benefit is that you can use stealth for initiative more often since you don't need to use the search exploration tactic to find traps. It's less combat focused than twin feint to be sure but it's not just an out of combat thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to choose because the character game is about choices. You choose to be good at one thing and it means you aren't going to be as good at something else, or you have to delay gratification in order to be good at both things.
3.X has always been this way. So has GURPS and Savage Worlds and anything where you choose your options in character creation.
3.5 allowed me to spend General Feats on combat styles I wanted to play, while also choosing my Rogue abilities. I got to be fun in and out of combat.
PF1 did the same.
PF2 makes me choose.
I moved to Pathfinder because of 3.0 and 3.5, I did not move "because of how well organized" the books were. I loved how different characters could be.
I loved that I could play a shadow rogue with a knife, a bow, a crossbow, two shortswords, a duck, or whatever the heck I wanted to choose. I loved being able to invest in a combat style, seeing that investment rewarded, and not having that investment conflict with my Rogue progression.
If you want to call that a feature, call it a feature, but I'm calling it a bug.
If the bug persists and it prevents me from making combat heavy characters that also have out of combat purpose, then I will pick a different edition.
PF1 had success because of customization.
I don't get how we can ignore Skill Feats (that resolve the exact issue I'm talking about for General Feats in PF1 that were for skills) does the exact same thing, but for a different area of feats.
It's like, you like that that was done, paizo likes that that was done, we all acknowledge it was because Skill based feats can't compete well against other feats, but this other stuff I'm saying is somehow heresy and unfounded.
It's literally the exact design pattern that had issues before unless we see something contrary on release, which I am hopeful and thinking will at least be alleviated in some way.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trapfinder's combat benefit is that you can use stealth for initiative more often since you don't need to use the search exploration tactic to find traps. It's less combat focused than twin feint to be sure but it's not just an out of combat thing.
That's not nothing and at least is a decent counter point. Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, if you want to be a trap specialist, you need to make choices that involve being a trap specialist. This is a feature to some of us, not a bug.Toker, could you confirm that you understand that Trap Finder the feat is not necessary for searching for traps?
That is a repeating argument that I keep seeing and I don't understand how it keeps being brought up.
It isn't strictly needed but it helps greatly: You can find traps WITHOUT searching and either allows you disable the trap [as a master] or legendary if you're a master.
For anyone that plans to find and disable traps, it's a pretty needed feat: this is especially true if you expect to sneak since you can do that without tripping over every trap there is.
Not just trap experts but just those that want to be able to sneak and not give up seeing traps. It's pretty much useful to any rogue. Heck, as Bardarok points out, it's even useful as an alternate way to roll initiative. Only Nimble Dodge gives it a run for it's money of that level feats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to choose because the character game is about choices. You choose to be good at one thing and it means you aren't going to be as good at something else, or you have to delay gratification in order to be good at both things.
3.X has always been this way. So has GURPS and Savage Worlds and anything where you choose your options in character creation.
1) 3.5 allowed me to spend General Feats on combat styles I wanted to play, while also choosing my Rogue abilities. I got to be fun in and out of combat.
PF1 did the same.
PF2 makes me choose.
2) I don't get how we can ignore Skill Feats (that resolve the exact issue I'm talking about for General Feats in PF1 that were for skills) does the exact same thing, but for a different area of feats.
3) It's like, you like that that was done, paizo likes that that was done, we all acknowledge it was because Skill based feats can't compete well against other feats, but this other stuff I'm saying is somehow heresy and unfounded.
4) It's literally the exact design pattern that had issues before unless we see something contrary on release, which I am hopeful and thinking will at least be alleviated in some way.
1) 3.5/PF1 still made you choose between combat and non-combat feats full stop. This is not something that has become new to 2e. Even if you trivialize the choice between TWF vs Skill Focus, the choice was always there.
2) No one’s ignoring Skill Feats, or the part they can play with enhancing class feat selection. To add, i at least remember earlier where it was mentioned Ranger’s Woodland Stride could be a Class-Skill Feat. That works, and is a fine example IMO. Just not this Rogue, Double Slice, Trapfinder. . . Thing. . .
3) This is entirely Hyperbolic and inaccurate. Any critique towards your posts has been about the example and nothing else that i know of. (Feel free to correct me if i’m Wrong)
4) No one that i know of has ever said Class Feats should equal Combat Feats explicitly or heavily. If a Rogue wants to shove all class feats into ‘non-combat’ feats they should be able to. If it comes to having to choose, then they have to choose; same as choosing between TWF and Skill Focus.
In PF1, I could do both and even more importantly I felt like I was actually investing in my conceptThe feeling that you need to pay for something in order for it to have value is one that you might want to examine in yourself.
In PF1, you had to invest in a concept; in PF2, you can simply realize a concept.
If I build a character who has no mechanical reason to favor a particular weapon type or fighting style, I am under a constant conscious and subconscious pressure to select the most mathematically optimal weapon at any given time. It becomes very easy to talk myself into shifting gears for no other reason than because of numbers, even when I set out at character gen to play a certain kind of weapon user.
That's fine for people who want to play a character that's good with lots of weapons and doesn't particularly care, but it's irritating on many levels when my knife rogue has zero mechanical reason to argue against using the strictly better magical bow that just dropped. Until you get to town to trade it in, you're a bow rogue!
Mechanical weight is a big part of the game for me, and I like having rules behind decisions my character has ostensibly made.
I understand what you mean about mechanical weight. The nudge to take up the bow on your knife rogue. I guess I enjoy pushing against that weight a little more so character can win out over mechanics.
On a system-level, what feels like meaningful investment to you can feel like lock-in to others. Feeling punished for experimenting with styles when given the chance.
I didn't say you need to invest in order for it to have value, I said my investment felt rewarded. That's literally the basis for how Feats work.
If you're going to try to twist the concept of a return on investment into some kind personal attack on my character, then that says more about you than it does me.
I didn't say anything about your character. That you are reading it as a personal attack says more about your investment in this issue than anything else. So maybe take a step back before responding to this.
I said you should examine your feelings and where they stem from. You confused the concept of Return on Investment with the need to invest in order to have value. None of your previous posts have brought up a Return on investing in a concept. Instead they've focused on opportunity costs and needing to spend feats instead of using what's baked in to realize a concept.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has blown up a lot. Really amazing stuff and excited to see all the discussion, lots of good points. I was gonna reply to a ton of people but I found one line I think I could just summarize with.
Yes, if you want to be a trap specialist, you need to make choices that involve being a trap specialist. This is a feature to some of us, not a bug.
I don't think many people here are going to disagree with you. Customization and choices are awesome. Modularity is great. Not being stuck with something you don't want or have to struggle too hard to get stuff you do want because of the way feat trees are designed is all awesome.
My fundamental concern is not that these options exist, because that's great, but that all of your options are tied to one singular track. Your major class choices are tied to feats, which you gain every other level.
Look, I'm not going to pretend PF1 was great in this regard. There were a lot of really bad feat trees and taxes, absolutely. I'm just worried that between removing the feat taxes and condensing essentially four progression tracks (archetypes, multiclassing, feats, talents) into one the end result might be closer to a net neutral than positive and we're still going to end up with characters waiting until the middle of a campaign to fully realize the concept they're envisioning, especially when it comes to multiclassing.
Totally off topic but looking at this combat/non-combat debate and the way its stuff works I kinda wonder if the Vigilante's dual talent system wasn't in some way a prototype for PF2.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if part of the disconnect is that the two editions are assuming a different level of base competence.
This post got away from me and is way longer than I started out, whoops.
In PF1 if you weren't picking up combat feats and you didn't have a full 1:1 BAB, you just didn't have the stats to keep up, even with weapons you were trained in. Even if you did have a full BAB, if you weren't picking up combat feats you were likely to be not pulling your full weight in a combat encounter.
In PF2 it seems that you have a better baseline of competence and won't have to make such mandatory feats masquerading as choices.
In PF1 if you are a Wizard then using a weapon is basically an act of desperation. In PF2 it might not be the best choice, but it doesn't appear to be a terrible one either.
In PF1 if you wanted to wield two weapons, that was a character defining build. You had to sacrifice lots of other options in order to do it well. In PF2 it doesn't seem to be that vital. Granted, I haven't gone over those options completely, but you don't seem to be losing much by not selecting them. Flurry of Blows seems to be the best of them, letting you Strike twice with one action, but Double Slice seems to only be worth it if you are going up against damage resistance.
My impression of 3.X from my years of play is that if you weren't excellent at something, eventually you'd be terrible and if you tried to be good at a little bit of everything you wound up good at nothing. If you had the system mastery to juggle the options from all the books then you might be able get around that, but it was a mini-game I'm not willing to entertain anymore.
PF2 seems to have a much better starting point where you can make non-combat choices and not be a burden in a brawl or make combat choices and not be failure outside of a fight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if part of the disconnect is that the two editions are assuming a different level of base competence.
This post got away from me and is way longer than I started out, whoops.
In PF1 if you weren't picking up combat feats and you didn't have a full 1:1 BAB, you just didn't have the stats to keep up, even with weapons you were trained in. Even if you did have a full BAB, if you weren't picking up combat feats you were likely to be not pulling your full weight in a combat encounter.
In PF2 it seems that you have a better baseline of competence and won't have to make such mandatory feats masquerading as choices.
In PF1 if you are a Wizard then using a weapon is basically an act of desperation. In PF2 it might not be the best choice, but it doesn't appear to be a terrible one either.
I dunno... Playtest was already rightly accused of expected a very high "floor" of competence from PCs before they can contribute to fights. This applies specially to Spellcasters, who need to squeeze every possible advantage so their spells actually work on level-appropriate enemies.
Sure, the wizard may only be at like -3 to hit compared to the Ranger when it was a lot more in PF1, but then you realize the ranger is only hitting on an 11+ so you still suck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what's example of a concept that doesn't get fulfilled quickly enough? Because "my character has the Cleave feat" doesn't REALLY feel like a concept. It seems like level 1 tends to hand out most of the things that cover basic concepts right away. For example, if my concept is a someone wielding an impractically large sword, barbarian gets that covered by the instinct out the gate. The fighter level 1 feats let you in on any given weapon style-- a fighter who takes Double Slice and then no other fighter feats ever will still be a duel wielding fighter.
There are concepts that might take a little longer, like being a half orc wizard with dark vision and a falchion, but that's doable by level 2. It seems like there are more concepts that get gated by the idea of having levels at all-- my wizard can't cast Fireball until level 5, and that may be the spell that most defines my character. My Barbarian can't spell sunder until level 12, and I think that is the most iconic part of the superstition instinct.
It seems like the way class feats were structured in the playtest, concept defining abilities were handed to you out the gate at level 1, and levels 2-4 were more peripheral to it, and then the feats started to shift your paradigm more around 6 for martials and 8 for casters. 6 is where the fighter gets the ability to shield allies. 8 is where wizards can start creating make shift wands. 6 is where bombs begain debilitating. 6 is where barbarians start being able to get new totem abilities.
Compared to levels 1 and 6, feats in the 2-4 range feel almost like filler. Which gives most characters a good opportunity to take an archetype. That's certainly what I converted my blood archanist-- I made a wizard whose level 2 and 4 feats went to the Sorcerer archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what's example of a concept that doesn't get fulfilled quickly enough? The fighter level 1 feats let you in on any given weapon style-- a fighter who takes Double Slice and then no other fighter feats ever will still be a duel wielding fighter.
I’d actually say Double Slice seems like it’s on a pretty high pedestal lately. Unless we consider Twin Parry and Twin Reposte as part of TWF, the next feat is Two Weapon Flurry at level 14. I’d say that’s a rather large gap between the two IMO. For a TWF Fighter, unless you decide to go scorpion style Double Slice seems to lose steam unless you can consistently dump the double action cost into it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started typing out one example of where the bottle neck starts pushing things out further, but I realize it's way too dependent on things as they stood in the Playtest. Even a handful of key in-class feats could drastically change things. Also, "Weapon Style" archetypes that were discussed as a potential option would also vastly change things.
In PF1, that could have been online to a satisfactory degree with 4 levels of Druid or 1 level of zen archer monk and 4 levels of Shifter.
In PF2 playtest, I can grab a bow as a druid and get Wild Shape (Pest Form) at level 1, then Savage Slice level 2, then Wild Shape (Animal) at 4.
The only problem is I have not yet gotten any bow focused options, and given I have good dex and str and Savage slice I'm actively incentivized to abandon the bow and use a slashing melee weapon. (If there's a good archery option in Druid level 2 feat section, then this is a non issue.)
Let's look at other options:
Lvl 1: Wild Shape (Pest Shape)
Lvl 2: Fighter Dedication
Lvl 4: Point-blank shot
Lvl 6: Wild Shape (Animal Shape)
Not too bad, but two levels behind where I'd like to be for not much gain.
Where it gets really bad is if you want anything more than that.
Any of the monk stuff I had with that dip in PF1? Unless monk has bow feats, you're going to have to finish out the Fighter dedication before moving to Monk. More levels of lost Wild Shape advancement.
An animal companion? Permanently behind, and forgoing several instances of further wild shape advancement, but I guess that's balanced.
The big thing is that if you want to use feats for out of class stuff, you're always going to be pushing back something, even if you really only want modest boosts or enhanced options or combat style stuff that should never have been class locked to begin with. The more types of things you want to branch out into, the worse it gets.
Generally, a handful of extra feats does a fantastic job of opening up more options, from getting back things you used to get baseline in PF1 to opening up the ability to be a non-fighter weapon specialist of some sort AND a cavalier before level 10.
What would also put the nail in the coffin of this problem of not being able to mechanically express a preference for a fighting style is letting everyone freely take prerequisiteless feats from any class, which is another house rule I'm toying with.
So what's example of a concept that doesn't get fulfilled quickly enough?
One concept that comes to mind is one of my characters. A swashbuckler gish. Specifically in PF1, an unarmored and highly mobile rapier-focused Magus. (I'm thinking, though I may be missing an easier alternative, it would take Wizard, monk for unarmoured, and fighter combined in PF2 Playtest.)
To be fair, I don't hold that against PF2 because it was a heck of a concept to make effective low-level in PF1 as well. Gish characters might be easier now, but yeah, that one will be difficult. :-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what's example of a concept that doesn't get fulfilled quickly enough?One concept that comes to mind is one of my characters. A swashbuckler gish. Specifically in PF1, an unarmored and highly mobile rapier-focused Magus. (I'm thinking, though I may be missing an easier alternative, it would take Wizard, monk for unarmoured, and fighter combined in PF2 Playtest.)
To be fair, I don't hold that against PF2 because it was a heck of a concept to make effective low-level in PF1 as well. Gish characters might be easier now, but yeah, that one will be difficult. :-)
You can do a reasonable job with an elf monk/wizard: Take the elf ancestry feat for rapiers, monk gets your unarmored proficiency at expert and locks in your mobility as you level up and a 2nd level multiclass starts your spells.
You can do a reasonable job with an elf monk/wizard: Take the elf ancestry feat for rapiers, monk gets your unarmored proficiency at expert and locks in your mobility as you level up and a 2nd level multiclass starts your spells.
Oh, very cool. :-) Thanks!