A little worried about feat starvation in PF2


Advice

251 to 300 of 614 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

A Druid with a starting 18 str can be just fine with a melee weapon once he figures out a way to be proficient in it. He just doesn’t have any of the tricks that more martial classes have. He’ll still hit as accurately and for as much damage:


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Some characters just aren't meant to be tied to a fighting style that involves weapons, and have little to no in-class support for those options. At least not yet; I'm sure the Lost Omens Ultimate Combat (or whatever they decide to call it) will have class archetypes and dedication archetypes meant to allow those kinds of characters.
I mean, I know where you're coming from and it's not your fault, but I categorically reject the notion that some classes are inherently not meant to be built a certain way. I would sooner burn down the whole game than tell a player they can't seek to gain capabilities in whatever weapon style they want. The general feat is a good way to get proficiency and goes a long way towards avoiding the "your class can't" problem. The ability to pick up one or two more weapon style feats of absolutely any kind without multiclassing is extremely important, and would be just about the only thing that would get me to abandon my extra feats house rule.

And that's fine, but it's not currently supported by the base game. I'm sure it will be, as I said, but it isn't right now beyond multiclassing, or tweaking the number of feats you get as you said.

It seems to be part of the intent behind putting combat feats into your class feat pool; those feats are meant to represent your class's powers, including the powers that class brings into combat. In fact, even if you double the class feats your character picks up, you're still looking at going outside your class's training to pick up the fighting style you want from another class. Those extra feats you'll use to enable the character you're looking to build, have you considered what that same character would look like if you got the same number of extra feats and sank them all into druid feats instead of using some of them for a fighter dedication?

Again, I'm not trying to tell you you're playing wrong. Those extra feats sound like a good way to make you more comfortable with the game. But if you're making modifications, maybe there's other modifications that would suit you better? Like say, instead of extra feats to spend on whatever, your game treats the fighting style fighter, rogue, or ranger feats as if they were general feats?

Also I assume you can still get trained proficiency with general feats, but probably not past that without being a member of the right class. Although they could always do what Starfinder does, and let the feat that gives you training also give you the later ranks as if they were class weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Why can't my Wizard use Occult spells?

because occult is for the cool kids and don't the nerds in the library


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:

Forgive me but I am confused by the “only have options” line. Is that negative ? Or was a word missing?

To me your negatives and criticisms apply more closely to PF1 based on the understanding we have so far . Especially the leading to as much optimisation as possible part

It has been mentioned many times on here that it is often seen that if you don’t take the feats to “optimise” (read : keep up with) the maths then you fall far behind

I know this far too well by accidentally creating a monster out of one of my players. They pitched a character for a savings throw heavy level 4 module with +1 fort and +0 will. So I shared with them...

The point I was trying to make is that with PF2E you almost completely consist of optional class abilities, of which many are gated at certain levels. At the start of the edition this means that even sometimes some classes will choose between not so powerful stuff and therefore you cannot optimize as well. However, with the edition advancing in age, new class options will be introduced in the splat books to follow and, inevitably some of them will be more powerful than their older counterparts. This will very probably lead to the dreaded system mastery syndrome, where experienced players will be able to vastly outperform newer players, since they know which options to shoot for. At the same time, this will promote "one-true-way" playerism, where the more powerful stuff will be deemed mandatory by a faction of the player base. Hence my comparison to Star Wars SAGA, where I saw much of the same paradigm due to its modularity.

Conversely, unless you actively build for un-success, PF1E so far has always seemed like a system where player characters just pull ahead of most appropiately CR'ed opponents, especially after level 10. You had much more leeway for taking some bad options and still could do well.


Malk_Content wrote:
Why can't my Wizard use Occult spells?

You can have occult spells on any class if you want. I'm not sure who the comment was directed to.


Malk_Content wrote:
Why can't my Wizard use Occult spells?

Because Wizard magic can't access Spiritual essence which is needed to cast occult spells, as it does not mix well with the material essence they need to make fireballs and such.


I wouldn't say a pf2 character conists out of mostly option class abilities, there is quite a number but there are a lot which are bound to class

barbarian: rage, critical brutality, juggernaut, raging resistance, mighty rage, improved juggernaut, indomitable will, tireless rage, devastating strikes

bard: compositions, muse, occult spellcasting, spontaneous hightening

cleric: anathema, channel energy, divine spellcasting

fighter: weapon mastery, attack of opportunity, bravery, battlefield surveyor, combat flexibility....

and so on

admittedly, the spellcasting takes a lot of the more individual class feats for the spellcasters but if it were different that would be just wrong


magnuskn wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

Forgive me but I am confused by the “only have options” line. Is that negative ? Or was a word missing?

To me your negatives and criticisms apply more closely to PF1 based on the understanding we have so far . Especially the leading to as much optimisation as possible part

It has been mentioned many times on here that it is often seen that if you don’t take the feats to “optimise” (read : keep up with) the maths then you fall far behind

I know this far too well by accidentally creating a monster out of one of my players. They pitched a character for a savings throw heavy level 4 module with +1 fort and +0 will. So I shared with them...

The point I was trying to make is that with PF2E you almost completely consist of optional class abilities, of which many are gated at certain levels. At the start of the edition this means that even sometimes some classes will choose between not so powerful stuff and therefore you cannot optimize as well. However, with the edition advancing in age, new class options will be introduced in the splat books to follow and, inevitably some of them will be more powerful than their older counterparts. This will very probably lead to the dreaded system mastery syndrome, where experienced players will be able to vastly outperform newer players, since they know which options to shoot for. At the same time, this will promote "one-true-way" playerism, where the more powerful stuff will be deemed mandatory by a faction of the player base. Hence my comparison to Star Wars SAGA, where I saw much of the same paradigm due to its modularity.

Conversely, unless you actively build for un-success, PF1E so far has always seemed like a system where player characters just pull ahead of most appropiately CR'ed opponents, especially after level 10. You had much more leeway for taking some bad options and still could do well.

Of course some feats will be more powerful than others. We already see this in PF2 core. But as long as they don’t introduce long feat chains, prereqs and any sort of combat math bonuses I think we’ll be in a much better place.

The reason system mastery in PF1 was such a difficult thing was because so many things relied on very specific combination of races/traits/feats/classes/archetypes. But if someone had that information (or more likely read it off Zennith or the forums) they had a huge advantage over everyone else at the table. I know this quite well having seen it both as a DM and a player. My sacred huntsmen inquisitor was able to outdamage the rest of my party combined. So in your hypothetical some future splat book comes out and it has a great combat feat for some class that’s better than alternatives. Then big deal some more people archetype into the class to take it or that class gets taken more often.

There is also nothing to support your idea that PF1 supported taking bad options and not being punished for it. If you didn’t take good options your class is basically non functional. If you multiclass you killed your character nine times out of ten. If you didn’t take the math feats your player suffered. If you didn’t take feats that synergized with each other and built towards something tangible you were mostly useless.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Why can't my Wizard use Occult spells?
You can have occult spells on any class if you want. I'm not sure who the comment was directed to.

The druid who wanted martial styles at no cost to their druidness. My follow point is exactly that, a Wizard can but they give up some of their wizardliness to pursue something out of their remit. A druid can use a bow, but apparently it is unacceptable that they lose some of their druidliness to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To expand on the key point, the fact that PF2 feats are about gaining new abilities and versatility where PF1 was mostly about math means that even where there is some difference in power, it isn't enough to really matter. With the Playtest, a newbie with their base stats in line and someone who knows the book straight through can work just fine together. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT true in PF1. And yes, there may be feats that are a bit more powerful for certain things later on, but the thing is unless they start pumping out feats that betray the basic design philosophy of the game this far that paradigm of newbie and system Master being able to coexist will remain.


Malk_Content wrote:
graystone wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Why can't my Wizard use Occult spells?
You can have occult spells on any class if you want. I'm not sure who the comment was directed to.
The druid who wanted martial styles at no cost to their druidness. My follow point is exactly that, a Wizard can but they give up some of their wizardliness to pursue something out of their remit. A druid can use a bow, but apparently it is unacceptable that they lose some of their druidliness to do so.

The wizard doesn't have to: I know of at least one ancestry that can give you an occult cantrip to cast. Even without it, it's not really equivalent. One is replicating a set class feature of another class [spells] and the other isn't [I don't know of any weapon style that's baked into a class].

Since you're seemingly posting against WatersLethe's, I'll say I agree with her: I don't see why basic proficiency in a style would need class feat. Now past the basics, if it replicates or equates to a class feat it should cost one.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Since you're seemingly posting against WatersLethe's, I'll say I agree with her: I don't see why basic proficiency in a style would need class feat. Now past the basics, if it replicates or equates to a class feat it should cost one.

That's how it works currently though, and they are not satisfied with that. Nor should they be if they want something more out of the game (having fun is the point, and being frustrated isn't fun).


Basic proficiency in a style doesn't require a class feat. Basic proficiency with, for example, bows in PF2 consists of getting proficiency with bows. That is the PF2 equivalent of getting proficiency, Point Blank Shot, and Precise Shot in PF1.

So getting basic proficiency in a style DOES NOT require a class feat. Expanding beyond that does.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
graystone wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Why can't my Wizard use Occult spells?
You can have occult spells on any class if you want. I'm not sure who the comment was directed to.
The druid who wanted martial styles at no cost to their druidness. My follow point is exactly that, a Wizard can but they give up some of their wizardliness to pursue something out of their remit. A druid can use a bow, but apparently it is unacceptable that they lose some of their druidliness to do so.

The wizard doesn't have to: I know of at least one ancestry that can give you an occult cantrip to cast. Even without it, it's not really equivalent. One is replicating a set class feature of another class [spells] and the other isn't [I don't know of any weapon style that's baked into a class].

Since you're seemingly posting against WatersLethe's, I'll say I agree with her: I don't see why basic proficiency in a style would need class feat. Now past the basics, if it replicates or equates to a class feat it should cost one.

It doesn't. Basic proficiency in a style requires proficiency in the weapon, which is a General Feat at worst. The buying features vs feats arguement is one of balance, which is handled in the game by feats that replicate features giving you a watered down version of the feature (spells are limited in amount and level even requiring several feats to fully unlock) while taking the feat just gives you the full feat.

I think the hang up here is that all the Fighter stuff in PF1 was "you have extra feats so we can gate combat styles away from other classes while letting you use them." and PF2 is "you have distinct combat styles and other classes have to pay extra to get them, the same as every thing else."


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arakasius wrote:
There is also nothing to support your idea that PF1 supported taking bad options and not being punished for it. If you didn’t take good options your class is basically non functional. If you multiclass you killed your character nine times out of ten. If you didn’t take the math feats your player suffered. If you didn’t take feats that synergized with each other and built towards something tangible you were mostly useless.

Grantedly, most players I've played with built single-class characters. And, yes, if you take the "poke your finger at a random page and take whatever feat you land on" as your way of character building, you could end up with a badly built character. But I think you are over-dramatizing how badly not taking the optimal option is gimping your character. Not to mention that AP's (which are my main reference of gauging expected power scaling in Pathfinder 1E) are mostly pretty forgiving and a party of four will still be able to complete them. Of course there are almost always one or two encounters in an AP which are powered up too much and can even destroy an experienced party if the GM isn't careful. ^^


WatersLethe actually has a good point that’s more overlooked or misrepresented. I agree with their complaint that even something like a Druid should be able to show some sort of investment sooner than level 4-6. It doesn’t have to be free Fighter or Ranger feats. I’m curious if a simple dedication feat would be good enough though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
So getting basic proficiency in a style DOES NOT require a class feat. Expanding beyond that does.

Are we sure of this? I don't recall a info on a general feat or something similar for this. It'll be great if we are.

Malk_Content wrote:
I think the hang up here is that all the Fighter stuff in PF1 was "you have extra feats so we can gate combat styles away from other classes while letting you use them." and PF2 is "you have distinct combat styles and other classes have to pay extra to get them, the same as every thing else."

Hmmm... I'm not sure, maybe? It really depends on what WatersLethe meant by weapon style.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
So getting basic proficiency in a style DOES NOT require a class feat. Expanding beyond that does.
Are we sure of this? I don't recall a info on a general feat or something similar for this. It'll be great if we are.

That's how it worked in the playtest at least. Proficiency was either an ancestry feat (like the elven bow stuff) or a general feat that let you be trained in increasing levels of armor (light/medium/then heavy), increasing levels of weapons (all simple, all martial, then 1 exotic each time you got the feat), or shields.

They could have changed that since, but I hope not. That really would be locking you into whatever your class gave you, and that's too far. NOw that I've thought about it a little, I really do hope they went the other way, and let the proficiency feat also let your proficiency scale with your class's proficiency (or at least put in another couple feats that let you bump it to expert/master when your class gets those options).

graystone wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I think the hang up here is that all the Fighter stuff in PF1 was "you have extra feats so we can gate combat styles away from other classes while letting you use them." and PF2 is "you have distinct combat styles and other classes have to pay extra to get them, the same as every thing else."
Hmmm... I'm not sure, maybe? It really depends on what WatersLethe meant by weapon style.

Here's where they go into it the most:

WatersLethe wrote:
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.


graystone wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
So getting basic proficiency in a style DOES NOT require a class feat. Expanding beyond that does.

Are we sure of this? I don't recall a info on a general feat or something similar for this. It'll be great if we are.

It's the weapon proficiency general feat.

All this said, much of this is a moot point since it has been confirmed an archery-based archetype will be a thing, though I'm not sure if in the CRB. I thought I heard it was but people are saying it's Multiclass only for archetypes in the CRB.

Honestly I'm pretty mixed on that notion though. Anyone being able to take an archetype specifically designed for x style feels like it adds a lot more pressure to take it if you want to use a bow than the notion of "you can pick up one of a couple versions of expansion on this combat style by borrowing from another class" IMO.

Like if I want to play a Fighter that isn't an Archer, Ranger, or Rogue, I don't feel like I'm insufficiently archery by not having Double Shot or Hunted Shot or whatever else. But depending on what this archetype gives I may well feel insufficiently archery if I'm not taking from that archetype, and I'm not sure if I'm fond of that.


magnuskn wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
There is also nothing to support your idea that PF1 supported taking bad options and not being punished for it. If you didn’t take good options your class is basically non functional. If you multiclass you killed your character nine times out of ten. If you didn’t take the math feats your player suffered. If you didn’t take feats that synergized with each other and built towards something tangible you were mostly useless.
Grantedly, most players I've played with built single-class characters. And, yes, if you take the "poke your finger at a random page and take whatever feat you land on" as your way of character building, you could end up with a badly built character. But I think you are over-dramatizing how badly not taking the optimal option is gimping your character. Not to mention that AP's (which are my main reference of gauging expected power scaling in Pathfinder 1E) are mostly pretty forgiving and a party of four will still be able to complete them. Of course there are almost always one or two encounters in an AP which are powered up too much and can even destroy an experienced party if the GM isn't careful. ^^

It depends on what class. If you’re playing a single class wizard/cleric/druid it’s pretty much impossible to mess up because your class features are so powerful. But pretty much anything else it’s very easy to take feats that make you fairly useless at later levels. And even if the players aren’t completely useless I don’t find it a fun experience if 3 players at the table are operating at 5/10 effectiveness while the optimized player is running 10/10. That leads to awkward play experiences when one player dominates the game so much.

Which actually leads me to one point I’ve seen in my pf playtest experience which is funny with how druid keeps being brought up here. Our druid is mostly wild shape stuff with a couple AC feats and he’s just pretty ridiculous. He does more melee damage than our Paladin/fighter and can keep up fairly well in spell dmg with our sorcerer. Add in wild shape and ability to be a back up healer (from skills and spells) and he’s easily the most powerful character we have at the table. However in PF1 with what he had available to him (before we converted the campaign) he was basically a wild shape druid who couldn’t do very much else well. He was mostly useless at spell damage and healing because spells were either self buffs to make up for lower base stats or a few utility spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

AnimatedPaper: Thanks for the info.
On weapon proficiency, I'll agree with you that I hope it scales in some way. The playtest version was also pretty tough on someone wanting an exotic weapon: a wizard needs 3 feats and as a result is required to learn every simple and martial weapon before they can learn a single exotic. IMO, that's a bit harsh.

As to WatersLethe's quote, I can agree with her. It wouldn't be bad to have some non-class feats that deal with weapons. Something like Prehensile Whip "if it were a rope with a grappling hook at the end" or Scoot Unattended Object's move a 'Tiny or smaller unattended object within the first range increment": things that aren't combat upgrades per se but "show that they *are* focused on something".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
There is also nothing to support your idea that PF1 supported taking bad options and not being punished for it. If you didn’t take good options your class is basically non functional. If you multiclass you killed your character nine times out of ten. If you didn’t take the math feats your player suffered. If you didn’t take feats that synergized with each other and built towards something tangible you were mostly useless.
Grantedly, most players I've played with built single-class characters. And, yes, if you take the "poke your finger at a random page and take whatever feat you land on" as your way of character building, you could end up with a badly built character. But I think you are over-dramatizing how badly not taking the optimal option is gimping your character. Not to mention that AP's (which are my main reference of gauging expected power scaling in Pathfinder 1E) are mostly pretty forgiving and a party of four will still be able to complete them. Of course there are almost always one or two encounters in an AP which are powered up too much and can even destroy an experienced party if the GM isn't careful. ^^

The issue wasn't that unoptimized characters were too weak to beat APs. The issue was that you and I could both make what we respectively think are "good" characters and wind up with grossly different results. As an example, one of my players had a aasimar lunar oracle whose tiger animal companion became incredibly powerful, dealing out more than 100 damage a round on a pounce at like level 5 or 6, thanks to a combination of favored class bonus and aasimar only feats. The party's designated tank was a Slayer, and not a badly built one, whose only contribution (at least in a fight) was DPR, and she was being outshined by the class feature of another character who was also a full blown spellcaster to boot.

The party could clear the AP relying on the oracle and her tiger, but the Slayer wouldn't enjoy feeling superfluous and failing to be keep up at the one thing she was supposed to be good for.

This is not an uncommon occurrence. This also makes trying to hit a desired difficulty level for an AP quite difficult on a GM, as you may need to scale encounters up if you don't want every fight to be a cakewalk. And then it can be quite easy to overshoot. By comparison, the PF2 encounter building rules work much better than CR ever did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for the druid in particular, the reason you can't make a druid that does everything a PF1 druid does and some more is that the PF1 druid does way too much stuff. They have full spellcasting with a mix of controlling, damaging, and buffing spells, plus spontaneous summoning, plus wild shape, plus an animal companion, and OK skills. All major D&D versions post-3.5/Pathfinder have had at least some reduction of druid capabilities:

4e: First, druids didn't show up until Player's Handbook 2, and there they pretty much lacked healing, summoning, and animal companions, and since you needed to select what kind of powers you had you had to decide whether to focus on wild shape or elemental magic. Primal Power added summoning, but again each summoning power you learned would be one less elemental/shapeshifting power.

13th age: This probably has the most innovative approach. Like 4e, druids don't show up until 13 True Ways, the equivalent of PH2 for 4e. There, the designers come straight out and say it: the "classic" druid has too much stuff. Instead they get to pick three selections among: animal companion, elemental magic, healing, shape-shifting, nature magic (based on location), and fighting. Pick a thing once, and you'll be middling at it, or pick a thing twice and be really good at it.

5e: Nerfs summoning a bit compared to 3.5/PF, and unless you spec for it wild shape is mostly a scouting ability, not a combat ability. Also, no animal companion.

So, not being able to replicate all the abilities of a PF1 druid with additional stuff on top of that? Good. Working as intended.


Captain Morgan wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
There is also nothing to support your idea that PF1 supported taking bad options and not being punished for it. If you didn’t take good options your class is basically non functional. If you multiclass you killed your character nine times out of ten. If you didn’t take the math feats your player suffered. If you didn’t take feats that synergized with each other and built towards something tangible you were mostly useless.
Grantedly, most players I've played with built single-class characters. And, yes, if you take the "poke your finger at a random page and take whatever feat you land on" as your way of character building, you could end up with a badly built character. But I think you are over-dramatizing how badly not taking the optimal option is gimping your character. Not to mention that AP's (which are my main reference of gauging expected power scaling in Pathfinder 1E) are mostly pretty forgiving and a party of four will still be able to complete them. Of course there are almost always one or two encounters in an AP which are powered up too much and can even destroy an experienced party if the GM isn't careful. ^^

The issue wasn't that unoptimized characters were too weak to beat APs. The issue was that you and I could both make what we respectively think are "good" characters and wind up with grossly different results. As an example, one of my players had a aasimar lunar oracle whose tiger animal companion became incredibly powerful, dealing out more than 100 damage a round on a pounce at like level 5 or 6, thanks to a combination of favored class bonus and aasimar only feats. The party's designated tank was a Slayer, and not a badly built one, whose only contribution (at least in a fight) was DPR, and she was being outshined by the class feature of another character who was also a full blown spellcaster to boot.

The party could clear the AP relying on the oracle and her tiger, but the Slayer wouldn't enjoy feeling superfluous and failing...

This happened to me as well. My aerokineticist and the party's anger phantom both overpowered our party's martial - a daring champion cavalier who went for Whirlwind Attack - to a point where it was commented that my kineticist could solo the AP by themselves for all the cavalier was worth.


Cyouni wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
There is also nothing to support your idea that PF1 supported taking bad options and not being punished for it. If you didn’t take good options your class is basically non functional. If you multiclass you killed your character nine times out of ten. If you didn’t take the math feats your player suffered. If you didn’t take feats that synergized with each other and built towards something tangible you were mostly useless.
Grantedly, most players I've played with built single-class characters. And, yes, if you take the "poke your finger at a random page and take whatever feat you land on" as your way of character building, you could end up with a badly built character. But I think you are over-dramatizing how badly not taking the optimal option is gimping your character. Not to mention that AP's (which are my main reference of gauging expected power scaling in Pathfinder 1E) are mostly pretty forgiving and a party of four will still be able to complete them. Of course there are almost always one or two encounters in an AP which are powered up too much and can even destroy an experienced party if the GM isn't careful. ^^

The issue wasn't that unoptimized characters were too weak to beat APs. The issue was that you and I could both make what we respectively think are "good" characters and wind up with grossly different results. As an example, one of my players had a aasimar lunar oracle whose tiger animal companion became incredibly powerful, dealing out more than 100 damage a round on a pounce at like level 5 or 6, thanks to a combination of favored class bonus and aasimar only feats. The party's designated tank was a Slayer, and not a badly built one, whose only contribution (at least in a fight) was DPR, and she was being outshined by the class feature of another character who was also a full blown spellcaster to boot.

The party could clear the AP relying on the oracle and her tiger, but the Slayer wouldn't enjoy

...

Blasters are another interesting case. While blasting out the box was often disparaged as being inefficient (not entirely fairly, I might add, as I have seen basic fireballs do PLENTY out the box) if you built for it a well optimized blaster could put out such crazy numbers that all it needed a martial for was a meat shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
As to WatersLethe's quote, I can agree with her. It wouldn't be bad to have some non-class feats that deal with weapons. Something like Prehensile Whip "if it were a rope with a grappling hook at the end" or Scoot Unattended Object's move a 'Tiny or smaller unattended object within the first range increment": things that aren't combat upgrades per se but "show that they *are* focused on something".

Something on that power level, or whatever power level skill feats wind up on, would be cool. It would be especially cool if having certain weapon, spellcasting, or armor proficiency gave you bonus options during exploration mode. Like letting you roll a staff or polearm attack roll instead of perception to Seek for traps.

*imagines a Halfling rogue poking away at dungeon walls with her staff sling.*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
There is also nothing to support your idea that PF1 supported taking bad options and not being punished for it. If you didn’t take good options your class is basically non functional. If you multiclass you killed your character nine times out of ten. If you didn’t take the math feats your player suffered. If you didn’t take feats that synergized with each other and built towards something tangible you were mostly useless.
Grantedly, most players I've played with built single-class characters. And, yes, if you take the "poke your finger at a random page and take whatever feat you land on" as your way of character building, you could end up with a badly built character. But I think you are over-dramatizing how badly not taking the optimal option is gimping your character. Not to mention that AP's (which are my main reference of gauging expected power scaling in Pathfinder 1E) are mostly pretty forgiving and a party of four will still be able to complete them. Of course there are almost always one or two encounters in an AP which are powered up too much and can even destroy an experienced party if the GM isn't careful. ^^

The issue wasn't that unoptimized characters were too weak to beat APs. The issue was that you and I could both make what we respectively think are "good" characters and wind up with grossly different results. As an example, one of my players had a aasimar lunar oracle whose tiger animal companion became incredibly powerful, dealing out more than 100 damage a round on a pounce at like level 5 or 6, thanks to a combination of favored class bonus and aasimar only feats. The party's designated tank was a Slayer, and not a badly built one, whose only contribution (at least in a fight) was DPR, and she was being outshined by the class feature of another character who was also a full blown spellcaster to boot.

The party could clear the AP relying on the oracle and her tiger, but the Slayer wouldn't enjoy feeling superfluous and failing...

Wow that last paragraph I really resonated with me

Having to scale up APs to stop it being a boring cakewalk against powerful PCs but constantly having to be wary not to overdo it (and inadvertently failing on a few occasions)

Also the idea about players worrying about being obsolete when one goes on a hot streak for damage. Weirdly I have 2 PCs who deal the HP dps damage and both are really hyper concerned about being made absolute by the other (creating an unofficial arms race). This leads to more of the issues mentioned with scaling and potentially overdoing it and the whole thing risks becoming a headache at times

I’d welcome a tighter focus


Cyouni wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Arakasius wrote:
There is also nothing to support your idea that PF1 supported taking bad options and not being punished for it. If you didn’t take good options your class is basically non functional. If you multiclass you killed your character nine times out of ten. If you didn’t take the math feats your player suffered. If you didn’t take feats that synergized with each other and built towards something tangible you were mostly useless.
Grantedly, most players I've played with built single-class characters. And, yes, if you take the "poke your finger at a random page and take whatever feat you land on" as your way of character building, you could end up with a badly built character. But I think you are over-dramatizing how badly not taking the optimal option is gimping your character. Not to mention that AP's (which are my main reference of gauging expected power scaling in Pathfinder 1E) are mostly pretty forgiving and a party of four will still be able to complete them. Of course there are almost always one or two encounters in an AP which are powered up too much and can even destroy an experienced party if the GM isn't careful. ^^

The issue wasn't that unoptimized characters were too weak to beat APs. The issue was that you and I could both make what we respectively think are "good" characters and wind up with grossly different results. As an example, one of my players had a aasimar lunar oracle whose tiger animal companion became incredibly powerful, dealing out more than 100 damage a round on a pounce at like level 5 or 6, thanks to a combination of favored class bonus and aasimar only feats. The party's designated tank was a Slayer, and not a badly built one, whose only contribution (at least in a fight) was DPR, and she was being outshined by the class feature of another character who was also a full blown spellcaster to boot.

The party could clear the AP relying on the oracle and her tiger, but the Slayer wouldn't enjoy

...

Kineticists are kind of like 2E characters compared to 1E ones . Most of the key things including all the maths boosters are already built in and they are modular.

So they are very very easy to build strong versions of. You need two stats and arguably 3 feats. Everything else is done for you and any further feats are bonuses or further maths fixes/improvements (e.g iron will)

Sure other classes can eclipse them with high system mastery but if you make a sub optimal decision like your daring champion (and weirdly mine in a game where I have a DC and a Kineticist) then a massive disparity gets highlighted

Early game the Kineticist was making everyone, enemies and allies look like chumps

In my game things have bounced the other way where a holy enhanced weapon, the ability to avoid full attacks and a prestige class build that took a while to come online has swung things back to the daring champion it seems . Leading to the concerns being reversed as I mention in my post above


Staffan Johansson wrote:

As for the druid in particular, the reason you can't make a druid that does everything a PF1 druid does and some more is that the PF1 druid does way too much stuff. They have full spellcasting with a mix of controlling, damaging, and buffing spells, plus spontaneous summoning, plus wild shape, plus an animal companion, and OK skills. All major D&D versions post-3.5/Pathfinder have had at least some reduction of druid capabilities:

4e: First, druids didn't show up until Player's Handbook 2, and there they pretty much lacked healing, summoning, and animal companions, and since you needed to select what kind of powers you had you had to decide whether to focus on wild shape or elemental magic. Primal Power added summoning, but again each summoning power you learned would be one less elemental/shapeshifting power.

13th age: This probably has the most innovative approach. Like 4e, druids don't show up until 13 True Ways, the equivalent of PH2 for 4e. There, the designers come straight out and say it: the "classic" druid has too much stuff. Instead they get to pick three selections among: animal companion, elemental magic, healing, shape-shifting, nature magic (based on location), and fighting. Pick a thing once, and you'll be middling at it, or pick a thing twice and be really good at it.

5e: Nerfs summoning a bit compared to 3.5/PF, and unless you spec for it wild shape is mostly a scouting ability, not a combat ability. Also, no animal companion.

So, not being able to replicate all the abilities of a PF1 druid with additional stuff on top of that? Good. Working as intended.

What is 13th Age? Is it another 3.5 off shoot ? Or a 4E off shoot? It sounds like it is one of the two...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
What is 13th Age? Is it another 3.5 off shoot ? Or a 4E off shoot? It sounds like it is one of the two...

13th Age is a different 3.5 OGL offshoot that came out after 4e. It was explicitly an attempt to synthesize 3.5 and 4e and was a hard turn towards narrativism (there is no grid, and no rules for one) and "rules light" d20 fantasy. It's an easy game to play but will test out your improvisational skills as a GM. It has some unique rules that can be easily bolted onto any similar game, like Pathfinder, (e.g. "one unique thing", "icons and relationships", "the escalation die.") Pelgrane Press publishes it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
What is 13th Age? Is it another 3.5 off shoot ? Or a 4E off shoot? It sounds like it is one of the two...
13th Age is a different 3.5 OGL offshoot that came out after 4e. It was explicitly an attempt to synthesize 3.5 and 4e and was a hard turn towards narrativism (there is no grid, and no rules for one) and "rules light" d20 fantasy. It's an easy game to play but will test out your improvisational skills as a GM. It has some unique rules that can be easily bolted onto any similar game, like Pathfinder, (e.g. "one unique thing", "icons and relationships", "the escalation die.") Pelgrane Press publishes it.

Designed by Jonathan Tweet and Rob Henisoo, so one of the head 3E devs and one of the head 4E devs. They call it their “love letter” to D&D.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that with PF2E you almost completely consist of optional class abilities, of which many are gated at certain levels.

This is just flatly not true. There are loads of Class Features in PF2 that have a huge game impact. Indeed, for Classes with Talents (Rage Powers, Alchemist Discoveries, etc.) in PF1, the number of Class Features tends to be almost precisely the same, and they tend to matter at least as much. I mean, Rage, a Fighter's higher Proficiency in weapons, a Wizard's spellcasting. All of those are Class Features, not Feats. You can take multiclass Feats and try and duplicate them, but you're always way behind the people who took that as their primary Class.

Now, there are more non-Class based Feat options...to the tune of 10 Skill Feats. But I don't think those lead to what you seem to be worried about.

magnuskn wrote:
At the start of the edition this means that even sometimes some classes will choose between not so powerful stuff and therefore you cannot optimize as well. However, with the edition advancing in age, new class options will be introduced in the splat books to follow and, inevitably some of them will be more powerful than their older counterparts. This will very probably lead to the dreaded system mastery syndrome, where experienced players will be able to vastly outperform newer players, since they know which options to shoot for. At the same time, this will promote "one-true-way" playerism, where the more powerful stuff will be deemed mandatory by a faction of the player base. Hence my comparison to Star Wars SAGA, where I saw much of the same paradigm due to its modularity.

Almost none of the Feats in PF2 are straight math improvements. Full stop. This means that, in practice, they don't do this. Indeed, they significantly narrow the gap between the most optimized characters and those who just threw an 18 in their main stat and took what looked fun.

That gap will inevitably get wider over an entire edition, it's true. But it is very unlikely it will ever be as wide as that between an optimized Wizard with Int 20 and, say, an Archer Rogue with Dex 16 using the PF1 core rulebook. And that's a gap that only got bigger over PF1's lifespan.

magnuskn wrote:
Conversely, unless you actively build for un-success, PF1E so far has always seemed like a system where player characters just pull ahead of most appropiately CR'ed opponents, especially after level 10. You had much more leeway for taking some bad options and still could do well.

This is just not true unless playing with players with a very high level of system mastery. Low system mastery players often build characters who are weaker than the CR guidelines indicate. This makes playing with players of varying levels of systems mastery a nightmare in many cases, since the varying power levels become deeply problematic.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that with PF2E you almost completely consist of optional class abilities, of which many are gated at certain levels.

This is just flatly not true. There are loads of Class Features in PF2 that have a huge game impact. Indeed, for Classes with Talents (Rage Powers, Alchemist Discoveries, etc.) in PF1, the number of Class Features tends to be almost precisely the same, and they tend to matter at least as much. I mean, Rage, a Fighter's higher Proficiency in weapons, a Wizard's spellcasting. All of those are Class Features, not Feats. You can take multiclass Feats and try and duplicate them, but you're always way behind the people who took that as their primary Class.

Now, there are more non-Class based Feat options...to the tune of 10 Skill Feats. But I don't think those lead to what you seem to be worried about.

magnuskn wrote:
At the start of the edition this means that even sometimes some classes will choose between not so powerful stuff and therefore you cannot optimize as well. However, with the edition advancing in age, new class options will be introduced in the splat books to follow and, inevitably some of them will be more powerful than their older counterparts. This will very probably lead to the dreaded system mastery syndrome, where experienced players will be able to vastly outperform newer players, since they know which options to shoot for. At the same time, this will promote "one-true-way" playerism, where the more powerful stuff will be deemed mandatory by a faction of the player base. Hence my comparison to Star Wars SAGA, where I saw much of the same paradigm due to its modularity.

Almost none of the Feats in PF2 are straight math improvements. Full stop. This means that, in practice, they don't do this. Indeed, they significantly narrow the gap between the most optimized characters and those who just threw an 18 in their main stat and took what looked fun.

That gap will inevitably get wider over an entire...

I think you make some very good points (but am clearly on your side of the debate here)

Class features that are not feats seems to be getting ignored a lot here. I think that seems to be deliberate but is also disingenuous and creating some outlandish scenarios and hypotheticals

To play devils advocate on maths feats. Would the ones that change your save proficiency in one of your week saves not be a maths feat? Or is the argument that this isn’t really a “fix” feat as certain classes are designed to be slightly behind in certain areas unless you invest accordingly otherwise we might as well all have the same proficiencies ?

As to the point on “putting in an 18 in your key stat and then picking what looks fun” - apart from learning the complex burn rules this is pretty much how Kineticist work in 1E. Except with 2 stats . And it creates a very high floor (but low ceiling) and you can make a very strong character , a lot stronger than APs assume, with limited feat or ability investment and then get a bunch of fun modular choices that can either be thematic or make you even more powerful (leaving others to bend and twist their system mastery to keep up)

So the spirit of this game design already exists in 1E and is passionately defended by those who like that class to the point where they are the most aggressively debated threads on the forum apart from maybe paladin alignment ones

And as to balancing encounters to people with different levels of system mastery - this is real and I have been on both sides : walking into a relatively inexperienced group with a melee monster doing double the damage of the main DPS as well as running an AP that included someone with zero system mastery and others who spend hours on hero lab and online. It is a challenge for GMs

But perhaps there is an element of people being upset that they can’t flex their system mastery to put up crazy numbers and look all smug about it? No one in this thread seems to be like that - the theory has been mentioned though . And those people will never be satisfied


Narxiso wrote:

Honestly, I felt more feat starved in PF1. I’m that person who has a particular concept I like to try first in every single rpg I play, a dual-wielding elven rogue (read: sneaky, sneaky stab, stab assassin) despite each iteration being role played differently. The thing is that it didn’t really work in PF1 for me, ever. Before unchained (and even with it), I was outclassed completely by my party: a non-full BAB didn’t even allow me to get a hit in until level 3, and I had not gotten a kill until level 5 (this was my first game), I rarely able to survive a round in combat, and every single feat I used was geared toward being better at dual-wielding and landing attacks: weapon finesse, weapon focus, two-weapon fighting, and eventually two-weapon feint. My gripe was that two-weapon feint wasn’t really that helpful to my vision of stabbing enemies a lot to take them down, as the extra attack from dual-wielding is just used to make sure I can hit (maybe) and use sneak attack. My character wasn’t fully online until level 9 or so, and by that point, I was behind again on to-hit, making the whole point moot.

Now, as in my experience with the playtest, I don’t have to wholly focus on trying to keep up with BAB, especially if I want to dual-wield. In the playtest, I went rogue, took the fighter dedication and twin slice, and played out another concept of being a disguise master in addition thanks to skill feats. I was able to stay in combat as a front liner without being smashed into the floor on a single hit, and I could still feint without wasting an “extra” attack (which everyone got in 1e by picking up a second weapon). If I wanted, I also could have taken all the utility rogue feats as well and still be a valuable addition to the team instead of being an extra damage sponge for an attack, which I felt like most of the time in 1e and which could have been served with a hireling.

You say this... BUT my Ratfolk UnRogue/Vivisectionist without using any extracts through the entire campaign was the highest source of damage, over the UnMonk, over the Samurai/Ranger, & over the Battle Oracle >.> I mean I had Full Dual Wield Progression & pretty much doing everything I could to make my Sneak Attack relevant (including Goz Mask/Tentacle/Smoke Bombs[got me the Bomber talent due to using Ninja Trick->Rogue Talent shenanigans, so yes I had full progression bombs & sneak attack] & Mistmail, Scurrying Swarmer/Tumor Familiar[Compy w/ Mauler archetype, acted as my mount & I hers], & keeping my Stealth and Sleight of Hand fully up [I had a penchant for stealing people's weapons before they realized I was there or combat had started]). I also had a tail blade(hidden with a tail wrap & giving a secondary natural attack), a heavy wrist launcher/sleeve blade (from 3.5's Complete Scoundrel because there was never made an Equivalent in Pathfinder & I wanted one for the aesthetic), & heirloom cane/grafting blade (the cane acted as a hanbo) as my weapons (all agile), so I was armed with all my weapons At All Times <.< I didn't Need to be an Alchemist, I wanted to be one, and was both the skill monkey of our group and the highest DPS (had Int & Dex in the 20s before level 10)... DESPITE there being a full caster and 2 full BAB meat shields (one with a pair of pets a Tiger[Mount, GM let her use the Cav's Beast Rider Archetype] & a Hyena[Packmaster Archetype])...

TLDR; The Moral is the Rogue is Always Armed, Always Dangerous, and ALWAYS standing right behind you.

This was also from my second game ever actually played in Pathfinder (Mummy's Mask AP). The problem comes with the fact that I had been studying it & 3.5 before it for YEARS beforehand sooo I may have started with a high system mastery <.<

PS. Also for the discussion, during the playtest I literally did a write up on how classic Multiclassing gives you more options than "Featclassing." Sure you can't pick as High level of options, but you get More choices overall. And personally, I prefer to have More lower-level choices over having access to higher-level choices (I typically do an even-ish split of my classes as well).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The base discussion is mostly focused on what is available out of the box in core

Your example lists abilities from multiple different books including 3.5
Also there is good chance that the full bomb and full sneak attack progression is an incorrect interpretation/ not RAI . I am not even convinced ninja tricks were ever meant for anyone other than ninjas (but that is also not a debate for here)

The amount of times you mentioned “optimised” in your post shows it runs counter to the point trying to be made. It should have been mentioned 0 times. You shouldn’t need to be optimised , study for years and use a dozen books including out of date ones

You can and well done for achieving it. But paizo is trying to appeal to lots of people including those who just want two swords because it looks cool and not have to quickly realise how hard it is to pull off. I already mentioned one of my friends who is realising how ineffective this is. And his witch build in our other game shows he does read and does have system mastery. But two weapons is harder than it should be for something so iconic


My Post is in reference to the post mentioned, the PS is for the discussion.

Also, I don't think you should need to either, BUT Multiclassing is Multiclassing and I Much prefer it over "Featclassing" always have even when it was put in in Pathfinder Unchained as an alternative.

PS. Fixed the optimized uses, and gave a better descript of Why I chose to get a Sleeve Blade, I wanted it for the Aesthetics cuz Assassin's Creed & I'm a dork. Heck my Character was named Redtooth Slytunkhamen and the Heirloom Cane was literally a reference to the Cooper Family Cane x)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Re: Multi/Feat-classing:

The GMG appearently will have options for gestalt-characters. Might be something interesting to Dracala.

Also, I plan to look at multiclassing once more, when I have the core rulebook in hand. I have a feeling that it can be a rather simple house-rule, I intend to share, if it works (the way I think it might work).


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I feel that the thing I wanted to say has been hijacked into a whole other conversation. Suffice to say, my experience with Pathfinder has been very different from others in this thread. Then again, my group has been playing all core versions of the 3.X engine since it came out (and AD&D before it), so there is more system mastery there than other groups probably have, so I've seen less characters which were "badly" built than others here will have.

My expectation still is that with further splatbooks the highly modular nature of 2E will lend itself to more hyper-optimization than PF1E did. If it will play out that way in reality remains, of course, to be seen.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:

I feel that the thing I wanted to say has been hijacked into a whole other conversation. Suffice to say, my experience with Pathfinder has been very different from others in this thread. Then again, my group has been playing all core versions of the 3.X engine since it came out (and AD&D before it), so there is more system mastery there than other groups probably have, so I've seen less characters which were "badly" built than others here will have.

My expectation still is that with further splatbooks the highly modular nature of 2E will lend itself to more hyper-optimization than PF1E did. If it will play out that way in reality remains, of course, to be seen.

Paizo has said they will have a stronger reign on the content being released, lead designers will be more involved and a quality not quantity release schedule is being adopted so hopefully it wont be as rampant as 1e.


Honestly on the further splatbooks and increasing the modularity of PF2e... I know this probably isn't the discussion for it, but I have to bring up ancestries... As we all know the Core Races always get more goodies than everyone else, but with how Ancestries have been done in 2e I'm honestly afraid that that is going to come at a high cost, because new races are going to come in feeling at a deficit with the core races getting more options than them. in 1e they don't because of every race getting their full stat block, and then getting other options like optional racial traits, or racial feats, or racial archetypes. But those all feel like add ons to the race rather than Being the Race itself. With 2e on the other hand, the options Are the Race because of how things have been set up, so new races if they don't get as many options as the core are going to Feel like they're at a deficit... I really hope Paizo has an answer for that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Davido1000 wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

I feel that the thing I wanted to say has been hijacked into a whole other conversation. Suffice to say, my experience with Pathfinder has been very different from others in this thread. Then again, my group has been playing all core versions of the 3.X engine since it came out (and AD&D before it), so there is more system mastery there than other groups probably have, so I've seen less characters which were "badly" built than others here will have.

My expectation still is that with further splatbooks the highly modular nature of 2E will lend itself to more hyper-optimization than PF1E did. If it will play out that way in reality remains, of course, to be seen.

Paizo has said they will have a stronger reign on the content being released, lead designers will be more involved and a quality not quantity release schedule is being adopted so hopefully it wont be as rampant as 1e.

Well, a thumbs up if they really stick to this.


Davido1000 wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

I feel that the thing I wanted to say has been hijacked into a whole other conversation. Suffice to say, my experience with Pathfinder has been very different from others in this thread. Then again, my group has been playing all core versions of the 3.X engine since it came out (and AD&D before it), so there is more system mastery there than other groups probably have, so I've seen less characters which were "badly" built than others here will have.

My expectation still is that with further splatbooks the highly modular nature of 2E will lend itself to more hyper-optimization than PF1E did. If it will play out that way in reality remains, of course, to be seen.

Paizo has said they will have a stronger reign on the content being released, lead designers will be more involved and a quality not quantity release schedule is being adopted so hopefully it wont be as rampant as 1e.

This is important because this is what happened with 3.5. Crazy amount of content. I am looking at Orb spells that were damage spells from the conjuration school that meant specialist wizards could happily drop Evocation and not significantly lose out

Not to mention the prestige classes...

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
I feel that the thing I wanted to say has been hijacked into a whole other conversation. Suffice to say, my experience with Pathfinder has been very different from others in this thread. Then again, my group has been playing all core versions of the 3.X engine since it came out (and AD&D before it), so there is more system mastery there than other groups probably have, so I've seen less characters which were "badly" built than others here will have.

Fair enough. PF1's issues tend towards not working well when people with different levels of system mastery are in the same group (well, and the math breaking down at high levels).

magnuskn wrote:
My expectation still is that with further splatbooks the highly modular nature of 2E will lend itself to more hyper-optimization than PF1E did. If it will play out that way in reality remains, of course, to be seen.

I'd say this is actually entirely true of a truly modular game. It was certainly true of Feats in PF1, which were a completely modular system.

The issue with this is that PF2 is not actually more modular than PF1 in the sense you're using here.

Indeed, in terms of absolute number of options to fill Slot X it's usually less modular. In terms of, say, the combat options a Barbarian has from Class, it's almost identically modular. In terms of General Feats, it's less since you get 5 instead of 10. In terms of Ancestry Feats, they replace Alternate Racial Features, and are thus less modular at 1st level, eventually becoming slightly more so at very high levels.

The only real increase in modularity in terms of character options on an individual character is in Skill Feats, and few enough of those are combat relevant that I don't think it makes up for the lower number of General Feats.

Now, the system itself is much more modular inasmuch as the math is much less opaque and thus easier to modify by adding and removing things, but that's the system itself, not characters within it.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Differences in system mastery among the writers and developers of PF1 led to the widest gaps in power level available. Paizo is trying to course correct by insuring that a designer review is a step in each PF2 product released.

They are trying to recognize and improve their process for this edition, a step I'm greatly appreciative of.


Excuse my ignorance on this, I was looking through the play test for “Combat Feats” and could not find them. I found the sections on General and Skill Feats and each class has their Class Feats, but don’t know where the Combat Feats mentioned are.


likrin wrote:

Excuse my ignorance on this, I was looking through the play test for “Combat Feats” and could not find them. I found the sections on General and Skill Feats and each class has their Class Feats, but don’t know where the Combat Feats mentioned are.

2e, from what we know, will not have combat-feats like it does in 1e. Class feats seem to be focused of thematic utility and combat based choices so far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
likrin wrote:

Excuse my ignorance on this, I was looking through the play test for “Combat Feats” and could not find them. I found the sections on General and Skill Feats and each class has their Class Feats, but don’t know where the Combat Feats mentioned are.

Combat feats have been rolled into Class feats. There is no distinct category called Combat Feats anymore.

This was done because:

1. Many Combat Feats from PF1 were numerical increases which are no longer necessary in PF2.

2. Reducing your potential selection of feats down to smaller pools makes it easier to parse for new players.

3. General and Skill feats can be freed up to make more non-combat options without sacrificing your combat effectiveness.

4. Class Feats are generally more powerful and impactful for combat, and putting them in the same pool as Combat feats makes sense from a balance perspective.


likrin wrote:

Excuse my ignorance on this, I was looking through the play test for “Combat Feats” and could not find them. I found the sections on General and Skill Feats and each class has their Class Feats, but don’t know where the Combat Feats mentioned are.

There is indeed no category of "Combat Feats" in the playtest, or in PF2. Depending on context, people above are referring to feats that are useful in combat, or to the idea of having a class-independent Combat Feat list.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracala wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Snip

You say this... BUT my Ratfolk UnRogue/Vivisectionist without using any extracts through the entire campaign was the highest source of damage, over the UnMonk, over the Samurai/Ranger, & over the Battle Oracle >.> I mean I had Full Dual Wield Progression & pretty much doing everything I could to make my Sneak Attack relevant (including Goz Mask/Tentacle/Smoke Bombs[got me the Bomber talent due to using Ninja Trick->Rogue Talent shenanigans, so yes I had full progression bombs & sneak attack] & Mistmail, Scurrying Swarmer/Tumor Familiar[Compy w/ Mauler archetype, acted as my mount & I hers], & keeping my Stealth and Sleight of Hand fully up [I had a penchant for stealing people's weapons before they realized I was there or combat had started]). I also had a tail blade(hidden with a tail wrap & giving a secondary natural attack), a heavy wrist launcher/sleeve blade (from 3.5's Complete Scoundrel because there was never made an Equivalent in Pathfinder & I wanted one for the aesthetic), & heirloom cane/grafting blade (the cane acted as a hanbo) as my weapons (all agile), so I was armed with all my weapons At All Times <.< I didn't Need to be an Alchemist, I wanted to be one, and was both the skill monkey of our group and the highest DPS (had Int & Dex in the 20s before level 10)... DESPITE there being a full caster and 2 full BAB meat shields (one with a pair of pets a Tiger[Mount, GM let her use the Cav's Beast Rider Archetype] & a Hyena[Packmaster Archetype])...

TLDR; The Moral is the Rogue is Always Armed, Always Dangerous, and ALWAYS standing right behind you.

I'm honestly not sure what half of this means, but it sounds highly, highly optimized with the requirement that your DM gives you a lot of the items you required for this build as well as the ability to pull "Ninja Trick->Rogue Talent" and other such shenanigans. In my example, I only listed the feats and basic class features that I could use as a "rogue" to attempt to be relevant to the same baseline (though this term seems inappropriate to me) Paizo-made classes. However, I am curious if your character's badassery was due in part to your level of optimization (gear, traits, race, stats, etc.) compared to the rest of your party and facing opposition that was not effective character level (as opposed to your experience-given level). And if the whole party and the enemies you faced were appropriate to your ECL, I applaud you; I used all manner of guides to be effective in my groups, yet never was, but on the other hand, I don't think I should be required to research until I'm able to write a thesis before I can build a character well enough to keep up with the feats given in a single class.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

From Dracala's description, a lot of that was based on, well, we'll call them debatable rules calls.

I have extensive House Rules in PF1 to make the Rogue better (because they need it), and I'm still absolutely positive I wouldn't have allowed several rules calls that make the described character function in any game I ran (notably the Bomb/Sneak Attack thing), because I don't believe them to be remotely correct.

I don't want to get into an argument about how correct they are, since that's a little beside the point, but it's not a build most GMs I've met would allow, making it of dubious use in saying what Rogues were like in most people's games.

251 to 300 of 614 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / A little worried about feat starvation in PF2 All Messageboards