A little worried about feat starvation in PF2


Advice

351 to 400 of 614 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Sure I look forward to seeing what people can do with mixes of classes. And sure it’s going to be in some cases more powerful but the gap won’t be nearly as big as it used to be which is the key difference.


Lanathar wrote:

What is the example where you lose 0 levels multiclassing? I am not sure I understand what you mean

You lose less spending a feat to multiclass than giving up or delaying class features. Sure there are some cases where this doesn’t matter so much but others where it really does. It is why there are so few multiclass clerics and when there are they are often awful (see : skinsaw cultists in all APs they appear in)

But that second paragraph is a distraction from the initial question where you 0 level statement has confused me

Not me personally, but people who were doing that shite with Multiple classes in PFS, where they'd get Rage from Barbarian, Extra Feats from Monk, Fighter, Ranger, etc...

For me, it was getting my familiar in my Fighter/Hunter Build (which originally wasn't supposed to be Fighter but went that way during campaign, it completely diverged from my original plans) by taking Eldritch Guardian, I did go on to get more Fighter levels though...

The point of saying 0 though, was that 1 level wasn't a tax, because you got what you wanted out of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

So it comes down to the fact the druid had to lose something in order to get a fighter thing. Which is the same in PF1. Whats different is that fighters actually get some special identity past "just have more feats."

Okay, so we're just going to have to fundamentally disagree that being able to be invested in a weapon or fighting style is a "fighter thing". I think it's something anyone should be able to do, you don't. We can move on.

Dave2 wrote:
Then I would think a DM would let you do that. Trade out one weapon group with the other.

That's a fair suggestion. Being, the GM, however, I went another route and said everyone gets double feats so that we can potentially avoid having to house rule individual feats on a case-by-case basis, and people who don't want special adjustments can spend their feats on more cool in-class stuff.

After all, I don't need investment to come in the form of strong out-of-class fighting style feats, but those sure do count as a form of investment! Being assured that additional feats aren't as big of a power boost as it was in PF1, I'm pretty comfortable with this approach for now.

Seisho wrote:

From what I've seen in the pleytest I would disagree with you

A fighter has several very good combat options

who else can go fight with a one handed weapon, make the enemy flatfooted with an open hand, and go in for a heavy strike with two hands?

I mean, other characters could learn it with dedication, of course, but that is the story behind many class feats now

So you would agree that minor, less cool options that would allow one to consider themselves invested in a weapon style wouldn't unduly step on the Fighter's toes?

So what do you think a fighter should be able to do then? Because it sounds like if you take a big step back you want all the things a fighter gets to be not feat locked and available to all. Fine, but then what do fighters get instead? Or have I missed something somewhere

You can use the weapons much more effectively in this edition but fighters can do it better. And if you want to soon you have to be more like them...


You can lose 0 levels multiclassing in PF2 then, lose 0 feats even, because a lot of dedications will have something a player wants.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
[Unsolicited advice on building an elf longbow shapeshifting character]

So, I want to tell you this with all the love in the world, but you have a habit of trying to answer subjective discussion with rather unhelpful nit-picking of examples. Examples which there could be an infinite number, but we don't have the time to fully explore.

Usually I try to stay focused on the big ideas, especially since we don't have all of the final rules at our disposal. I also haven't fully memorized every nook and cranny of the rough draft of the rules.

If I tell you that it takes too long for my character concept to be adequately represented by the mechanical choices of my build, your response shouldn't be "You're wrong, see, I did it fine". It should be to try to understand why I feel the way I do.

So, to counter nit-pick, as an example as to why nit-picking isn't helpful:

Malk_Content wrote:

Level 1 Elf feat (Weapon Fam) gets you the basic use of the bow. I think expecting more that basic use at level 1 + all your other druid features would be a bit much so this works so far.

Go Wild Order druid and you have your Wild Shape.

It also gets me access to Elven Curve blade, which works with Dex, so I'm perfectly suited to use that instead. So I'm just as invested in the Elven Curve blade as the bow.

In PF1 I would have all the druid stuff (not that it matters to this discussion) and an archery feat. PF2 actually gives me more of my concept with the pest form wild shape at this level.

Malk_Content wrote:
Level 2 Take either Fighter Dedication (and now retrain your ancestry feat because Fighter gives you what you want), Ranger Dedication. There are no Wild Shape things here, and if you are wild shaping for melee then Savage Slice doesn't work anyway.

I'm operating under the assumption the Savage Slice was meant to work for Wild Shape, and if not, there will be another relevant feat to take for either Wild Shape or Bow, and even if that's not the case Savage Slice indicates there should be some weapon-based in-class feat for me to take. If not, then say I do take Fighter Dedication. Still not invested specifically in a bow.

Malk_Content wrote:

Level 4 Take Animal Shape.

Level 5 [If Ranger dedication] get Weapon Elegance.

Still no bow or archery specific investment, and certainly not longbow itself.

Malk_Content wrote:
Level 6 If Ranger take Favoured Aim. If Fighter take Point Blank Shot or Assisting Shot. You don't get to take Insect Shape, but it isn't a prereq for the more powerful Shapes anyway.

Yay, by level 6 I have something I can finally say makes me an archer character besides the equipment I'm carrying. In PF1 I had that at level 1. Not to mention, 6th level druid feats might by that point be more valuable than my bow fixation. After 6th levels I may have abandoned the idea altogether and I'm a Elven Curve Blade character now.


WatersLethe wrote:
Seisho wrote:

From what I've seen in the pleytest I would disagree with you

A fighter has several very good combat options

who else can go fight with a one handed weapon, make the enemy flatfooted with an open hand, and go in for a heavy strike with two hands?

I mean, other characters could learn it with dedication, of course, but that is the story behind many class feats now

So you would agree that minor, less cool options that would allow one to consider themselves invested in a weapon style wouldn't unduly step on the Fighter's toes?

Why give one less cool options? Everyone wants the cool options, they are already limited to max lvl 10 feats, so even if you pick something that the fighter in the group also has, he could excel at it, while you still have valid combat options

I certainly wouldn't mind class-less options either
I would agree that different options, when given, help to feel invested in whatever you want - but I certainly wouldn't want these options to be less cool


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry, in what case would you have Rapid Shot at level 1? Point-Blank Shot is a math fixer, and is really just there to slow down Precise Shot. The first real actual thing that shows you're an archer is Rapid Shot, coming at level 5 in this example. Or you can multiclass for Druid 2/Fighter 1 and get it at level 3, and... be a lot less of a druid.

You can add the need for splints to fix your broken leg if that makes you feel better, but I'd rather start without the broken leg.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Lanathar wrote:

So what do you think a fighter should be able to do then? Because it sounds like if you take a big step back you want all the things a fighter gets to be not feat locked and available to all. Fine, but then what do fighters get instead? Or have I missed something somewhere

You can use the weapons much more effectively in this edition but fighters can do it better. And if you want to soon you have to be more like them...

I'm going to be as clear as I possibly can because it seems that I'm not getting my point across:

1. I want to be able to say I'm invested in a weapon. As a character in a roleplaying game, I feel that should always be an option, just as you can invest in different skills, or invest in different classes.

2. Investment in a weapon doesn't have to be as strong as combat feats from another class. It could even be on par with skill feats.

3. Fighter class feats should not be endangered by the above, because they are presumably cool and interesting enough to hold up the class on their own.

3a. If low power weapon investment feats *do* threaten the Fighter class, then the class is in serious trouble.

4. If the *only way* to invest in a weapon is to multiclass, which people in this thread seem to be alternating between arguing and denying, then I will make multiclassing easier for my table by giving out extra feats.

5. Extra feats typically open up options for actions, rather than straight boosting numerical power, so extra feats should be relatively low-impact.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
[Unsolicited advice on building an elf longbow shapeshifting character]

So, I want to tell you this with all the love in the world, but you have a habit of trying to answer subjective discussion with rather unhelpful nit-picking of examples. Examples which there could be an infinite number, but we don't have the time to fully explore.

Usually I try to stay focused on the big ideas, especially since we don't have all of the final rules at our disposal. I also haven't fully memorized every nook and cranny of the rough draft of the rules.

If I tell you that it takes too long for my character concept to be adequately represented by the mechanical choices of my build, your response shouldn't be "You're wrong, see, I did it fine". It should be to try to understand why I feel the way I do.

So, to counter nit-pick, as an example as to why nit-picking isn't helpful:

Malk_Content wrote:

Level 1 Elf feat (Weapon Fam) gets you the basic use of the bow. I think expecting more that basic use at level 1 + all your other druid features would be a bit much so this works so far.

Go Wild Order druid and you have your Wild Shape.

It also gets me access to Elven Curve blade, which works with Dex, so I'm perfectly suited to use that instead. So I'm just as invested in the Elven Curve blade as the bow.

In PF1 I would have all the druid stuff (not that it matters to this discussion) and an archery feat. PF2 actually gives me more of my concept with the pest form wild shape at this level.

Malk_Content wrote:
Level 2 Take either Fighter Dedication (and now retrain your ancestry feat because Fighter gives you what you want), Ranger Dedication. There are no Wild Shape things here, and if you are wild shaping for melee then Savage Slice doesn't work anyway.
I'm operating under the assumption the Savage Slice was meant to work for Wild Shape, and if not, there will be another relevant feat to take for either Wild Shape or Bow, and even if that's not the...

Okay, I have to be honest, you've been quite reasonable through most of this discussion but nearly this entire response comes off as whining that PF2 was gives you too much.

Elf weaponry/Fighter Dedication giving you bows isnt good enough for you because it ALSO gives you other weapons, PF1 Martial Weapon Proficiency was better because it only gave you one kind of weapon I guess?

Baseline archery competence that you only need bow proficiency for isn't good enough because it isn't better than others who are just proficient in bows. PF1 you say was better because you had to spend multiple feats to attain baseline archery competence and that counts as being invested while getting bow proficiency to reach baseline competence doesn't.

I'd like to iterate again that in PF2 getting proficiency in a bow is equivalent to getting at least PBS and Precise Shot in PF1. Going further beyond that, yes, takes some levels and investment. But it did in PF1 too.

Basically that being as good at archery in early levels without taking more than proficiency as you would be in PF1 by getting proficiency and at least two feats isn't okay because you're also better at some other things than you would be in PF1 with only proficiency.

(As an aside you keep saying that you don't have incentive to use the bow over melee weapons you're similarly competent with. This may be you just using a general example but it comes off very odd because melee and ranged weapons are very different, your preference in method of engagement alone seems like it would he incentive enough. I'd be happy to have competence in a melee weapon in addition to my bow, in case I need a backup melee weapon, an option that is usually Garba for Archer in PF1 but much more viable in PF2)

The archery focus you give example of in PF1 makes you an Archer over use of other weapons because spending resources on archery disincentivizes not using it and/or because you don't have the resources to make other styles work. It's not that you're better at archery than everything else, it's that you're worse at everything else than archery.

That's the way I see it anyway, your mileage clearly varies, but that is one of my most disliked things about PF1.

And PF1 often made it WAY too hyper specialized IMO. Like not only did you usually spec into archery or TWF or THF to the exclusion of other styles but you usually had to spec into ONE WEAPON to the exclusion of others. Longbow only, no shortbow. Kukris only, forget shortswords or hatchets. Greatsword only, forget Greataxe or Maul. That kind of thing. Another part of PF1's handling of specialization/investment. Actually one of my PF1 houserules was to make any choose-one-weapon feat into choose-one-weapon-group, which did help some.

I'd lime to reiterate, I appreciate how civil you have been in discussion, but this reply just came off very poorly.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Cyouni wrote:

I'm sorry, in what case would you have Rapid Shot at level 1? Point-Blank Shot is a math fixer, and is really just there to slow down Precise Shot. The first real actual thing that shows you're an archer is Rapid Shot, coming at level 5 in this example. Or you can multiclass for Druid 2/Fighter 1 and get it at level 3, and... be a lot less of a druid.

You can add the need for splints to fix your broken leg if that makes you feel better, but I'd rather start without the broken leg.

Weapon Focus (Longbow) or Point Blank Shot both gave me what I'm after in this discussion: investment in archery.

We're not talking about strength or weakness of options relative to PF1 or PF2.

This is all I've been saying all this time.

When a player asks me "What can I do to improve my archery?" and I say "You can spend a feat to multiclass fighter or ranger, then get access to an archery feat, or you can stay in your lane and just do more druid stuff" I feel that this is insufficient.

I should at least be able to say "You can spend a skill feat to do archery trick shots!"

Fortunately, as a GM I will be able to say "Go nuts multiclassing, you got all these extra feats to play around with, let me know if you need any more help breathing life into your concept before level 6"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
[Unsolicited advice on building an elf longbow shapeshifting character]

So, I want to tell you this with all the love in the world, but you have a habit of trying to answer subjective discussion with rather unhelpful nit-picking of examples. Examples which there could be an infinite number, but we don't have the time to fully explore.

Usually I try to stay focused on the big ideas, especially since we don't have all of the final rules at our disposal. I also haven't fully memorized every nook and cranny of the rough draft of the rules.

If I tell you that it takes too long for my character concept to be adequately represented by the mechanical choices of my build, your response shouldn't be "You're wrong, see, I did it fine". It should be to try to understand why I feel the way I do.

So, to counter nit-pick, as an example as to why nit-picking isn't helpful:

Malk_Content wrote:

Level 1 Elf feat (Weapon Fam) gets you the basic use of the bow. I think expecting more that basic use at level 1 + all your other druid features would be a bit much so this works so far.

Go Wild Order druid and you have your Wild Shape.

It also gets me access to Elven Curve blade, which works with Dex, so I'm perfectly suited to use that instead. So I'm just as invested in the Elven Curve blade as the bow.

In PF1 I would have all the druid stuff (not that it matters to this discussion) and an archery feat. PF2 actually gives me more of my concept with the pest form wild shape at this level.

Malk_Content wrote:
Level 2 Take either Fighter Dedication (and now retrain your ancestry feat because Fighter gives you what you want), Ranger Dedication. There are no Wild Shape things here, and if you are wild shaping for melee then Savage Slice doesn't work anyway.
I'm operating under the assumption the Savage Slice was meant to work for Wild Shape, and if not, there will be another relevant feat to take for either Wild Shape or Bow, and even if that's not the...

I think Malk is using a specific example because as much as you refer to being subjective and talking about big ideas you have repeatedly returned to this druid with a bow that apparently has to sacrifice too much. Hence the “unsolicited” response

Perhaps it is because your big ideas are not coming across clearly

In your response above you refer to getting all the druid stuff at level 1 and an archery feat. Which archery feat? Because point blank shot and weapon focus bow both do not exist and are not needed.

Rapid shot isn’t needed because everyone can fire two shots and still get one more action than in PF1.

Everyone has precise shot for free now

So what archery feat is it you feel short changed by when building a 2E character ?

And then you complain about the status of the level 6 build taking too long to come online. But a druid archer in PF1 would have point blank shot, precise shot and rapid shot by level 6 and that is it. All three are effectively built in for any 2E character as long as they can use the bow in the first place .

Malks example seems to show you a way of achieving your desired concept earlier than a similar character in 1E could do it but you have responded with “not interested” .

So have multiple people misunderstood what you are trying to achieve ? And if so what is it ?


WatersLethe wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

I'm sorry, in what case would you have Rapid Shot at level 1? Point-Blank Shot is a math fixer, and is really just there to slow down Precise Shot. The first real actual thing that shows you're an archer is Rapid Shot, coming at level 5 in this example. Or you can multiclass for Druid 2/Fighter 1 and get it at level 3, and... be a lot less of a druid.

You can add the need for splints to fix your broken leg if that makes you feel better, but I'd rather start without the broken leg.

Weapon Focus (Longbow) or Point Blank Shot both gave me what I'm after in this discussion: investment in archery.

We're not talking about strength or weakness of options relative to PF1 or PF2.

This is all I've been saying all this time.

When a player asks me "What can I do to improve my archery?" and I say "You can spend a feat to multiclass fighter or ranger, then get access to an archery feat, or you can stay in your lane and just do more druid stuff" I feel that this is insufficient.

I should at least be able to say "You can spend a skill feat to do archery trick shots!"

Fortunately, as a GM I will be able to say "Go nuts multiclassing, you got all these extra feats to play around with, let me know if you need any more help breathing life into your concept before level 6"

I think that's my point.

You'd rather start with broken legs so that you can prove you spent time improving them.

I'd rather start without broken legs so that I have a choice as to what to do.

I'd much rather just use a bow than put 4 feats into using a bow so that I can claim I "showed investment", because I need those feats to get up to the level of a normal person.


WatersLethe wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

I'm sorry, in what case would you have Rapid Shot at level 1? Point-Blank Shot is a math fixer, and is really just there to slow down Precise Shot. The first real actual thing that shows you're an archer is Rapid Shot, coming at level 5 in this example. Or you can multiclass for Druid 2/Fighter 1 and get it at level 3, and... be a lot less of a druid.

You can add the need for splints to fix your broken leg if that makes you feel better, but I'd rather start without the broken leg.

Weapon Focus (Longbow) or Point Blank Shot both gave me what I'm after in this discussion: investment in archery.

We're not talking about strength or weakness of options relative to PF1 or PF2.

This is all I've been saying all this time.

When a player asks me "What can I do to improve my archery?" and I say "You can spend a feat to multiclass fighter or ranger, then get access to an archery feat, or you can stay in your lane and just do more druid stuff" I feel that this is insufficient.

I should at least be able to say "You can spend a skill feat to do archery trick shots!"

Fortunately, as a GM I will be able to say "Go nuts multiclassing, you got all these extra feats to play around with, let me know if you need any more help breathing life into your concept before level 6"

I got distracted with my earlier reply so didn’t see either this post or your earlier one before posting it

This clears up your position somewhat - notably the hypothetical player and GM discussion .
As well as leaving aside the comparison between what can be done in the two systems to an extent

I think the baseline has just been increased so to invest in getting better maybe takes more than it should

But the whole point on wanting to invest something tangible in something to recognise it is just not a point I seem to share.

It sound like you want some basic combat feats that can be taken in the general slots rather than in the “class feat” slots ? So that they don’t have to compete with class feats ? And have them be general to everyone rather than the ones the Fighter gets? I can’t say I know what sort of things they could be with the current system chassis


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can see that. If you had Druid character that wanted to improve their bow skill. In PF1 allot of the feats were open to everyone that had to do with weapons. In PF2 they are now locked. I could see the issue with this. I personally like them locked. That is me though. If it is mearly just switching out weapon types for the Druid I can see that. If it would be saying that they should have access to the Fighter class feats then that is what the multi classing is for.

I also liked the advanced weapon and armor master handbooks for PF1


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dracala wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
You can lose 0 levels multiclassing in PF2 then, lose 0 feats even, because a lot of dedications will have something a player wants.

You say that, but did you actually read the post of mine mentioned in the post I was responding to?

so let's say I want to get the Alchemist Dedication for my Rogue and get whatever class feat, I now have 4 levels without a single Rogue Feat and just 1 Alchemist Feat... How does that work out well? With Classic Multiclassing I'd have 1 of Each.

Rogue Feat at level 1. Alchemist Dedication at level 2. Basic Concoction at 4.

And you still have full sneak attack, aren't -1 BAB, haven't lost favoured class bonuses, aren't 2 levels lower for all rogue things, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There was a Reason I deleted that Cyouni, I realized that and checked it for myself thanks.

I did still have problems when I did the checking months ago, like going over Class Features in exchange for Class Feats (which is covered by Classic Multiclassing better in my opinion), but yes I give on the Class Feats at least being Equivalent, with the Feat Tax, thanks to the level 1 Class Feats.

*Sighs* I think I'm just gonna bow out now, my game is dead as of next month, and PF 2e & D&D 5e both don't interest me for different reasons. If you want to know them, I gave my story... *points back a few of her posts* I'm a niche case that this game doesn't appeal to and that's fine it's its own game and I respect that, so I'm gonna stop now.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm sorry Lethe but if you keep up bringing specific examples that are sortable I'll sort them if possible. And I'm not well versed in the playtest, I just looked at the SRD to see if it could work and in ten minutes I found it did. Perhaps make an example that doesn't keep coming back to losing out on Druid stuff if you want people to take a more holistic approach.

But I can't see your point. 1 Feat is too little investment, 2 feats is too much. You want there to be weak options to show investment but haven't given an example of what that might look like. You prefer a system in which your character is trash for several levels so you can be invested when it finally reaches baseline competence but lament a PF2 build taking 6 levels to show an advantage over other bow users (but not over other druids.)

Maybe an example of what you think a weapon/style feat would look like in PF2 without stepping on martial advantages, that isn't a pure maths booster (and thus becomes best for everyone) and is a general feat would help me understand your desired content.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

And to note a PF1 character x who takes option y is absolutely worse at z than one who took a z thing. Yes you can take a bow things at 1, but you HAVE lost out on a druid thing in that case, because opportunity cost is a thing. You could have been a better spell casting druid, or a better summoner, or a better companion. In fact the only Druidy thing you couldn't improve on at level 1 is Wild Shaping, because it only starts at level 6. Which is also why I thought my level 6 comparison was fine, because your example concept included Bow use and Wild Shaping. PF 2 has that at baseline available at lvl 1, PF1 not until 6 regardless of the bow side of things.

EDIT: In terms of PF2 just letting you swap weapons and thus investment is worth less. That is way better than finding a longsword +1 and swapping to it even though you've taken Weapon Focus Shortsword (for whatever reason) because the Longsword is superior despite your feat. In that situation your investment does nothing AND you've just picked up the best weapon.


This is a really long thread.

But feelings and passion are involved. And the start post was a broad thing that has raised subtopics.

It is not Combat feats per se but weapon style access (with the bow druid combo discussed.). An elf with a bow is normal.

But as it stands the old system is gone and Paizo has shifted paradigm. Pros and/or cons with that. As it stands with Class feats Paizo focused on castery things or other priorities with Casters and the weaponry stuff is so far on the martial classes. Finite book space. I expect supplements.

WatersLethe is understandablely concerned with this and that 'flavor' choices on weapon style may loose to more math oriented optimums.


Dracala wrote:
*Sighs* I think I'm just gonna bow out now, my game is dead as of next month, and PF 2e & D&D 5e both don't interest me for different reasons. If you want to know them, I gave my story... *points back a few of her posts* I'm a niche case that this game doesn't appeal to and that's fine it's its own game and I respect that, so I'm gonna stop now.

I feel sympathy at your loss. And understand why your posts seem .. ranting.

I did not like the new multiclass at first. And I came from 2e dnd where I liked it but I knew that its system was a bit too OP.

I do wonder how now Fighter with Wizard will be different from the inverse hp aside.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:


. Something as simple as the magical weapon the boss was wielding could send me down a totally different game experience for several or more levels.

So his bit has lodged in my brain a little and has been bothering me. First off, this seems like the sort of problem swapping runes between weapons should pretty much solve for you, With very rare exceptions for special weapons or artifacts.

But even setting that aside... what's the alternative? You wind up with a build that doesn't mesh with your loot drop, and you're then a less effective character whether or not you switch to said weapon? Is it more fun receiving an awesome axe you can't use because your character specced fora swords? Honestly asking. It seems lame to me. I'd rather pick use the axe until I get back to town and can swap the rune onto my sword.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

I think I understand what WatersLethe wants here - WatersLethe, please correct me if I am wrong:

They want to be able to build a Druid that they can point to and say "my druid is different because they are good at using bows". Which seems entirely reasonable to me. And naturally they want this to be true at as early a level as possible.

A couple of methods have been proposed, based on what we know of the rules:

Option 1) Be an elf (or half-elf) and get Elven Weapon Familiarity at level 1.
This gets them bow proficiencies, however it is not entirely bow-focused, and of course they may not want their character to be an elf/half-elf.

They still aren't an archer druid, they are a druid who can use elven weapons - the difference between their character and an elven curve blade druid or a longsword / rapier druid is "I'm holding a bow at the moment". That's not an archer druid in the sense that they want.

Option 2) Multiclass Fighter at level 2, getting a bunch of weapon proficiencies, then take an archery feat from this multiclass at 4.

This gets them:
Level 1: untrained at bows, unless combined with option 1), which they then retrain out of at level 2.
Level 2 and 3: A druid/fighter who happens to have a bow.
Level 4: An archer druid/fighter.

Contrary to what some people here have said, they have *not* complained about certain options being "too strong" or "too weak". Power level is not the concern. They have complained that they are insufficiently bow-specific.

So, in order to answer the question, "how does one make an archer druid in PF2", we need to come up with a character build such that:

* It is a druid
* Is at least trained in bows from level 1
* Looking at this character sheet, without seeing the equipment list, one could recognize it as clearly an archer druid build.
* Doing the above by as low a level as possible

I cannot think of a build in Errata 1.6 / what bits we know of the final version which satisfies this criteria better than Option 1+2 above, so level 4 is the best I can do. Can someone else do better?


The problem is that doing more than what the PT already does in this matter would require bringing back some of the hyperspecialization problems of PF1. Lethe has a problem with the things that make a Druid invested in a bow at level 1 amd 2 because they also make you invested in other things AS WELL. That's frankly just not a bad problem to have.


Right now, we are comparing a preview of pf2e core to years off pf1e. As far I know, the modular nature of pf2e would make it very easy to create an elf feat or two that is specifically bonuses to a bow, very easy to create to create a generic archer archetype, very easy to create a bow-druid archetype.

Feat chains are not inherently bad, but I feel like having a consolidated feat tree in one book with side-grades listed in other books be easier to understand and cause less rule-confusion than trying to string together a long chains of feat from completely separate books using alternative rules found in another book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dave2 wrote:
If you are purely talking weapon style choice. Then I would think a DM would let you do that. Trade out one weapon group with the other.

Not something everyone can do... I wouldn't suggest trying that at the next PFS table you're at, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Isn't it immensely unfair for weapon-using classes (a.k.a. Martials) when their schtick is "stolen" by casting classes (Casters) easily while spellcasting is so hard to do the opposite?

If weapon based fighting is such a "small" concept that it has weight similar to or lower than a single casting tradition (like Arcane) or a spell school (like Evocation), the devs might have condensed all Martials into a single class, but alas, they chose not to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Other than "proficiency with a bow" what would an archer druid need to feel like an archer? Like, if we gave them the ability to take archery related feats instead of druidy feats, isn't that essentially "you can choose to be less of a druid and more of something else"? Short of "printing archery feats specifically for druids" (which is sort of off-theme) what could we do?

Like a dedication which gives longbow proficiency and access to archery feats seems a solution for every level except one. I feel like "my character concept does not function until level n, n>1" is not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like "my character concept does not function until level n, n>1" is not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think anyone said they were, but it's also one of those problems PF1 had that a new system could have improved upon.

Quote:
Like a dedication which gives longbow proficiency and access to archery feats seems a solution for every level except one.

I'm starting to feel like dedications starting at level 2 is a design paradigm that causes more issues than it actually solves.


Squiggit wrote:


Quote:
Like a dedication which gives longbow proficiency and access to archery feats seems a solution for every level except one.
I'm starting to feel like dedications starting at level 2 is a design paradigm that causes more issues than it actually solves.

This has me curious. Could you elaborate?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like with this example is that "druids with bows" is not great because it trending very close to ranger, and the only bow druid archetype I found in 1e is the survivor which is forced into animal companion, has a bonus to surprise rounds, and does stuff with traps (with only proficiency with bows) sounds like a ranger archetype.

We have feat-classing, we have ancestry feats that can be expanded later, and we might get a archery dedication, thus avoiding the need to multi-class. How much more do we need? Esp. when we have a marital class heavily associated with bows and primal magic.

And I am not sure that I see the problem in having a niche character build open at level 2 instead of level 1. Do you really need your build fully functional before level 2? This could be my own ignorance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Other than "proficiency with a bow" what would an archer druid need to feel like an archer? Like, if we gave them the ability to take archery related feats instead of druidy feats, isn't that essentially "you can choose to be less of a druid and more of something else"? Short of "printing archery feats specifically for druids" (which is sort of off-theme) what could we do?

Like a dedication which gives longbow proficiency and access to archery feats seems a solution for every level except one. I feel like "my character concept does not function until level n, n>1" is not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.

They have been pretty clear that for the most part they’re looking for something to show proof of specific investment within a reasonable level range. Water has said they’re okay with a skill feat, so long as it focused on bow (simply as an example) rather than a general array of weapons. No comment has been made if a Bow specific Archetype that gives a benefit with the dedication (like increased proficiency or +1 to hit with the bow just to spitball) would be good enough or not though.

Their complaint has been if they use a bow and come across a +1 dagger or something there is nothing that would be prioritizing the bow since the dagger would even give a better hit chance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leotamer wrote:

I feel like with this example is that "druids with bows" is not great because it trending very close to ranger, and the only bow druid archetype I found in 1e is the survivor which is forced into animal companion, has a bonus to surprise rounds, and does stuff with traps (with only proficiency with bows) sounds like a ranger archetype.

We have feat-classing, we have ancestry feats that can be expanded later, and we might get a archery dedication, thus avoiding the need to multi-class. How much more do we need? Esp. when we have a marital class heavily associated with bows and primal magic.

And I am not sure that I see the problem in having a niche character build open at level 2 instead of level 1. Do you really need your build fully functional before level 2? This could be my own ignorance.

Could use another class as an example. Sorc, Wizard, and Bard end up coming across the same issue from a technical standpoint.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:


Quote:
Like a dedication which gives longbow proficiency and access to archery feats seems a solution for every level except one.
I'm starting to feel like dedications starting at level 2 is a design paradigm that causes more issues than it actually solves.
This has me curious. Could you elaborate?

I think the idea is that if you allow them at 1st level it solves a whole lot of problems with concepts not being available. Which there's a fair bit of truth to.

Of course, this is perhaps the easiest fix in the history of fixes (you just allow people to take Dedications at level 1).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, I dunno, I think in a game where "I want to supplex dragons" is a legitimate goal you can set for your character but that starts you off fighting kobolds... sometimes you are just gonna have to wait a few levels.

Also, there's numerous ways to hack armor, weapons, or cantrips over to your character at level 1 through ancestry feats, so there's a lot of ways to get "Battle mage" going at 1st level. Including just playing a bard or cleric, for example. But I also think that if you are going to point to a non-core class, it is probably worth waiting to see if they just make a new version of that class before complaining that you can't do it properly. As we discussed in another thread, it is possible that the magus could return as an 8 hitpoint, 3 spellslots per spell level arcane caster with weapons and armor proficiency.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:


Quote:
Like a dedication which gives longbow proficiency and access to archery feats seems a solution for every level except one.
I'm starting to feel like dedications starting at level 2 is a design paradigm that causes more issues than it actually solves.
This has me curious. Could you elaborate?

I think the idea is that if you allow them at 1st level it solves a whole lot of problems with concepts not being available. Which there's a fair bit of truth to.

Of course, this is perhaps the easiest fix in the history of fixes (you just allow people to take Dedications at level 1).

But from my understanding that’s not Water’s core issue. Correct me if i’m wrong but it’s been more around ‘proof of investment’ and a reason to choose it over an otherwise more optimal choice. The soonest you can grab Point-Blank would be level 4; a fifth of the way into your character. Double shot ends up being at level 8. Those end up as rather long gaps that didn’t exist as prominately in 1e for this class; even if it was because of grabbing feat taxes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One of my big problems with Lethe's argument is that to satisfy the guidelines they've given the only solution would be to make specific feats for every single weapon in the book that anyone can take within the first couple of levels.

I'm not sure that's reasonable, and I'm not sure that's something we should have, it's a big step back to PF1 hyperspecialization.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Yeah, I dunno, I think in a game where "I want to supplex dragons" is a legitimate goal you can set for your character but that starts you off fighting kobolds... sometimes you are just gonna have to wait a few levels.

Also, there's numerous ways to hack armor, weapons, or cantrips over to your character at level 1 through ancestry feats, so there's a lot of ways to get "Battle mage" going at 1st level. Including just playing a bard or cleric, for example. But I also think that if you are going to point to a non-core class, it is probably worth waiting to see if they just make a new version of that class before complaining that you can't do it properly. As we discussed in another thread, it is possible that the magus could return as an 8 hitpoint, 3 spellslots per spell level arcane caster with weapons and armor proficiency.

Huh? I mean, this example technically falls under Gish, but i don’t believe that is the main point of the example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

One of my big problems with Lethe's argument is that to satisfy the guidelines they've given the only solution would be to make specific feats for every single weapon in the book that anyone can take within the first couple of levels.

I'm not sure that's reasonable, and I'm not sure that's something we should have, it's a big step back to PF1 hyperspecialization.

That really isn't true: a feat that makes you pick a single weapon would work just as well. For instance a trick shot feat that works with any single ranged weapon isn't a huge strain on the system and does what they want. A similar melee feat, lets call it unusual moves, could cover the rest of the weapons.: You look at the character sheet, see trick shot[long bow] and know that they prefer using a longbow.


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

One of my big problems with Lethe's argument is that to satisfy the guidelines they've given the only solution would be to make specific feats for every single weapon in the book that anyone can take within the first couple of levels.

I'm not sure that's reasonable, and I'm not sure that's something we should have, it's a big step back to PF1 hyperspecialization.

That really isn't true: a feat that makes you pick a single weapon would work just as well. For instance a trick shot feat that works with any single ranged weapon isn't a huge strain on the system and does what they want. A similar melee feat, lets call it unusual moves, could cover the rest of the weapons.: You look at the character sheet, see trick shot[long bow] and know that they prefer using a longbow.

Except there's two problems with that.

One, it makes someone who takes that feat with x weapon no different than someone who takes it with y weapon. Which admittedly isnt a big issue I suppose, feats like Double Slice work no differently with shortswords as with hatchets.

But the much bigger issue is what I said about hyperspecialization. You publish a feat like that, and anyone who wants that ability is now pressured to stick with that one weapon and not use any others. That's not something we need in this system.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it is a wise idea to have very specific feats for specific weapons. I think categorizing by type does more than enough. A sword, an ax, a hammer, and a pole-arm are all going to fight significantly different and I think it is fine to have mechanics around that, but I don't see that difference with a longbow/shortbow (bow vs crossbow, sure) unless you get very realistic and we are talking about the class that can turn into a bear.

I also don't think we should have generic feats that can apply to sword/ax/hammer/etc. At least not a lot of them, maybe a few basic ones for things like crit specialization. I don't know how that will work in the core rules. But otherwise, a hammer feat should be a hammer feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

One of my big problems with Lethe's argument is that to satisfy the guidelines they've given the only solution would be to make specific feats for every single weapon in the book that anyone can take within the first couple of levels.

I'm not sure that's reasonable, and I'm not sure that's something we should have, it's a big step back to PF1 hyperspecialization.

That really isn't true: a feat that makes you pick a single weapon would work just as well. For instance a trick shot feat that works with any single ranged weapon isn't a huge strain on the system and does what they want. A similar melee feat, lets call it unusual moves, could cover the rest of the weapons.: You look at the character sheet, see trick shot[long bow] and know that they prefer using a longbow.

Except there's two problems with that.

One, it makes someone who takes that feat with x weapon no different than someone who takes it with y weapon. Which admittedly isnt a big issue I suppose, feats like Double Slice work no differently with shortswords as with hatchets.

But the much bigger issue is what I said about hyperspecialization. You publish a feat like that, and anyone who wants that ability is now pressured to stick with that one weapon and not use any others. That's not something we need in this system.

Except for retraining being a core thing. Also there’s the counter argument of picking up a better weapon of a different weapon group you can use being better; anyone in that situation is now pressured to use that one weapon and not use the one they prefer.

@Leotamer - Catagorizing by weapon group might be good enough. With the example given, if ‘Trick Shot’ simply required a bow or crossbow it might be a good enough distinction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This has me curious. Could you elaborate?

Nothing really groundbreaking to the thought, I just think that when it comes to enabling concepts it would feel better if you could start doing it from level 1 and expand upon it at level 2 instead of starting at level 2 and expanding at level 4.

That doesn't solve Water's issues with investment, but it does help address enabling concepts in a more timely fashion which I think is important.

Leotamer wrote:
I don't think it is a wise idea to have very specific feats for specific weapons.

While normally I agree, this is also a system built with certain weapons being, by design, worse than other weapons. Given that you kind of need specific support for some of those options if you ever want to enable them competitively.

351 to 400 of 614 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / A little worried about feat starvation in PF2 All Messageboards