A little worried about feat starvation in PF2

[Gaulin]

It's too bad there aren't a set of universal feats that characters could take instead of a class feat. Things that aren't integral to the substance of a specific class. Bows shouldn't be limited to rangers or fighters, but they can keep their own unique actions for them. Make some feats that allow any character to be good at a thing in place of class feats.

[Leotamer]

I didn't consider feats in order to buff weaker weapons, I think there might be place for that, but I am still iffy about it. I think I would need examples, as I am unfamiliar with the pf1. (Fractional math is scary)

[graystone]

Edge93 wrote:

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.

That's something the system already has though: look at monk's stances once. More than pressure, you're forced into using the stances unarmed attack as your sole weapon while in a stance. Secondly, with the ability to move around runes I'm not sure why it'd be an issue if stick with that one weapon. What breaks if you "stick with that one weapon and not use any others"?

[Captain Morgan]

Gaulin wrote:

It's too bad there aren't a set of universal feats that characters could take instead of a class feat. Things that aren't integral to the substance of a specific class. Bows shouldn't be limited to rangers or fighters, but they can keep their own unique actions for them. Make some feats that allow any character to be good at a thing in place of class feats.

There are. It's called "martial weapon proficiency." You take that general feat, you're good with bows. Rangers and fighters keep their unique actions. That is literally how the system works.

[Leotamer]

I don't think monk's stances are not analogues. Monk stances are effectively equipping radically different variations of unarmed attacks with their own additional effects, and monks are the unarmed class. And while there are some feats that encourage to use one stance, there are also feats that encourage you to use multiple stances. It would be less accurate than trying to compare a shortbow to a crossbow.

I think there is an opportunity cost of having players specializing in weaponry, the more specialized their equipment, the more loot becomes either tailor-made to the party, less exciting because you keep getting selling fodder, or a chore because you keep needing to respec to your new weapon.

This opportunity cost is a thing with specializing in a class of weapon, but I think there is more to be gained from it and there is still some flexibility. I don't see what you get in return for that cost with going down to very specific weapons.

Image going to fight the big guy of the monster manual, Tree Razor, and you have a fighter that specializes in axes ready to take his, just to find out his a slightly different variant where none of your bonuses apply to it.

[Albatoonoe]

Weapon specialization is a double edged sword. While it is nice to deal superior in a certain style, it can also be deeply restricting, reducing your freedom as you climb in levels. I like the broader style approaches for this reason.

I think it is a lot of give and take with these different systems. Considering the general approach of making PF2 more digestable, it seems like the current method is ideal for what they are trying to make.

[Pumpkinhead11]

graystone wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

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.

That's something the system already has though: look at monk's stances once. More than pressure, you're forced into using the stances unarmed attack as your sole weapon while in a stance. Secondly, with the ability to move around runes I'm not sure why it'd be an issue if stick with that one weapon. What breaks if you "stick with that one weapon and not use any others"?

Point-Blank Shot and Slippery Shooter are Stances that rely on Ranged Weapons, so. . . I guess there are feats that pressure players to favor some weapons over others already.

[Edge93]

EDIT: Fixed misplacement of my addition to this post. Mobile silliness.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

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.

Aside from simple v martial, when are you finding weapons just better than others? Within the same proficiency and handedness weapons are all pretty closely balanced with one another, with lower damage having more traits for doing stuff. I know not everyone thinks traits are particularly useful, but they're useful enough to warrant the damage differences IMO.

[Cyouni]

I had two characters that specialized in specific weapons in 1E, and anyone who played in those games would have associated those weapons with those characters. One was an inquisitor with a greataxe, and the other an alchemist with a dagger. Both were built with those weapons in mind.

Neither had any feats that specifically pertained to those weapons. The alchemist even had wakizashi proficiency by the end, but stayed with the dagger because it was iconic to the character.

Why do these characters need some sort of weird weapon-specializing feat to prove that they like to use those weapons?

[Malk_Content]

Cyouni wrote:

I had two characters that specialized in specific weapons in 1E, and anyone who played in those games would have associated those weapons with those characters. One was an inquisitor with a greataxe, and the other an alchemist with a dagger. Both were built with those weapons in mind.

Neither had any feats that specifically pertained to those weapons. The alchemist even had wakizashi proficiency by the end, but stayed with the dagger because it was iconic to the character.

Why do these characters need some sort of weird weapon-specializing feat to prove that they like to use those weapons?

I think this is where I have some disconnect too.

Like I have never shown someone my character sheet so they can see what I've specialized in. I just don't care what my character sheet reveals. I care what it enables the character to do in game. So my bow druid is bow druid enough for me if he a) uses a bow b) doesn't suck at it and c) is also a druid. If someone looks at my sheet and say "hey you could also use rapiers!" my response would be "yes."

[Edge93]

Squiggit wrote:

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.

I disagree on weapons being worse than others, unless you're talking simple v martial v exotic (in which case a feat for a wholesale bump to a category would make the most sense). Some weapons do more damage, but it's balanced out by traits. Some weapons are better for certain styles of fighting than others, but that's a natural by-product of having weapons be interestingly different.

PF1 had a huge problem with weapons being clearly inferior to others, but PF1 alleviates that pretty well. Especially with weapons maxing at fpur dice in the CRB instead of six like in the PT.

[Pumpkinhead11]

Some people like the aesthetics more that the functionality. One of the things to like about 3.5 and PF1e is it allows you to get into the nitty gritty to truly flesh out a concept no matter how simple or complex. If i make a character that focuses on a specific weapon it makes sense that i’ll want to focus on it. If someone isn’t focused on the aesthetic then functionality becomes more important.

[Shisumo]

Apparently, to be invested in a weapon means to have made mechanical choices such that not using that weapon becomes suboptimal. Thus, it relieves an apparent pressure to optimize by using a weapon other than what is desired, simply because that other weapon is the optimal choice.

Just saying "I want to use a bow" is not enough. It must be reinforced such that there is a mechanical reason to use a bow and not another weapon - seemingly, no matter how slim a reason, as long as it exists - or using a bow will somehow be unsatisfying.

[Squiggit]

Shisumo wrote:

Just saying "I want to use a bow" is not enough. It must be reinforced such that there is a mechanical reason to use a bow and not another weapon - seemingly, no matter how slim a reason, as long as it exists - or using a bow will somehow be unsatisfying.

I feel like you're kind of thumbing your nose at it here but I don't think it's entirely an unreasonable concern.

Certainly anyone can use any weapon they want and probably do decent enough, but it can be understandably frustrating I think to realize that the weapon you want to use is just strictly inferior to another. It's often not even really a playstyle choice, because most weapons don't really have much of an effect on how you play the character anyways. So you end up pretty much just paying a tax on an aesthetic choice.

[Malk_Content]

Squiggit wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Just saying "I want to use a bow" is not enough. It must be reinforced such that there is a mechanical reason to use a bow and not another weapon - seemingly, no matter how slim a reason, as long as it exists - or using a bow will somehow be unsatisfying.

I feel like you're kind of thumbing your nose at it here but I don't think it's entirely an unreasonable concern.

Certainly anyone can use any weapon they want and probably do decent enough, but it can be understandably frustrating I think to realize that the weapon you want to use is just strictly inferior to another. It's often not even really a playstyle choice, because most weapons don't really have much of an effect on how you play the character anyways. So you end up pretty much just paying a tax on an aesthetic choice.

Can you give an example of this within PF2 with weapons of the same tier?

[Lanathar]

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.

So how about something that lets you do the Disney Robin Hood thing where you fire a grappling hook with a bow as a skill feat - since the combat ones aren’t really as necessary any more

That is investment and fun

And I think earlier on Lethe mentioned something about weapon specific skills feats ?

Considering equipment trick was a thing in 1E then this could be something that arrives eventually

[Leotamer]

I like the idea of an magic archer dedication, and so when attack with a bow you could cast a spell that costs two or less as a part of the attack. (And all of the actions probably would be switched to verbal because you are holding a bow) I am not sure about the exact mechanics, but I think you can do something interesting with it.

[Malk_Content]

Leotamer wrote:

I like the idea of an magic archer dedication, and so when attack with a bow you could cast a spell that costs two or less as a part of the attack. (And all of the actions probably would be switched to verbal because you are holding a bow) I am not sure about the exact mechanics, but I think you can do something interesting with it.

While it isn't bow specific one of my players had excellent fun with Magical Striker and a bow. He was a buff focused caster so could cast a buff and then fire a supercharged arrow

[Lanathar]

Shisumo wrote:

Apparently, to be invested in a weapon means to have made mechanical choices such that not using that weapon becomes suboptimal. Thus, it relieves an apparent pressure to optimize by using a weapon other than what is desired, simply because that other weapon is the optimal choice.

Just saying "I want to use a bow" is not enough. It must be reinforced such that there is a mechanical reason to use a bow and not another weapon - seemingly, no matter how slim a reason, as long as it exists - or using a bow will somehow be unsatisfying.

This seems to be another person summarising one of the main complaints this thread has boiled into

Currently the only general feat is for the proficiency but that only makes you as good as a fighter or a ranger with no feat. But those classes are supposed to be better with bows (as casters cast spells)

- Perhaps there will be equipment feats as skill feats
- I doubt there will be many general feats to boost combat options from what we have seen
- There may be some variant rules in the gamemasters guide. Gestalt was mentioned which I imagine is close to the point being discussed about making dedications available from level 1. Easy fixes in such a modular system but no help for PFS

I have long since forgotten what launched off this thread but I am not certain how this equates to feat starvation. A lot of useless feats or taxes are gone and there are choices every level .

Some people don’t like these choices but in most cases the choices offered up actually offer you more than in the past both because there are more choices to make and lot of the old forced “choices” are gone (because let’s be honest point blank and precise shot were not really a “choice” in 1E if you wanted to be an archer)

But it seems like fixes will be in there

The point on investment makes a little more sense when viewed through the sphere of the weapon you did not invest in rather than the one you did . This has been mentioned a few times but I didn’t seem to get it until summarised in the quoted post. But it seems like a deliberate choice to not have the situations were someone find a super cool bastard sword but has spent 6 feats on a longsword as a fighter so it goes in the loot bag. Not satisfactory for everyone but the decision that has been made (and then there is this point being discussed on rune transfer which I don’t know anything about)

[Malk_Content]

Lanathar wrote:

(and then there is this point being discussed on rune transfer which I don’t know anything about)

Basically unless it is a unique artifact, you can nab the magical properties of any weapon and move it to another.

So you find the hypothetical awesome bastard sword but you prefer longsword. You don't have to ditch the awesome enhancements or your longsword, you just move the enhancements over to the long sword with a short ritual.

[Kraege]

Short ritual and a repair kit, I think it was.

[ChibiNyan]

Don't think this thread right now is about "My druid can't specialize in archery" so much as "There's no resource to add some non-druid stuff to my druid (replace druid with any class) at a reasonable time." Certainly general feats exist but don't have the necessary options and you don't even get one at lv1. The other option is archetypes, but they are too slow and quickly begin costing a lot of "Druid" abilities in exchange for getting your 1 thingy.

Essentially, there is 1 dimension of character customization currently missing from the rules that did exist in PF1. PF2 added skill feats and ancestry feats to open up new avenues, but they don't replace the need to have a combat feat every now and then to flesh out a concept. I realize they're merged into class feats but you have to wonder if your Druid/Fighter with 0 Druid feats is even a Druid anymore. This wasn't a problem before.

[Malk_Content]

Given that the feat tree for Fighter stuff is 2 big, no you aren't giving up a lot of druid stuff for your 1 thingy. You are giving up 2 druid thingies, and with the freedom of the retraining rules you can shift about what it is you are giving up exactly when you see fit.

And I'll note the example almost always comes back to the Fighter, because the Fighter's thematic problem in PF1 is they laid claim to nothing. Now in PF2 they lay claim to some things, just like every other class does and it feels weird because fighter stuff wasn't put up against other stuff in a 1 to 1 comparison. Other classes if you wanted their stuff, you absolutely had to give up levels to get. So now Fighter have actual valuable feats and they cost the same to get as everyone elses.

Replace Fighter with literally any other martial and we can see the discrepency. Wanted Barbarian fighting styles, then you had to lose druid features (levels) to get Barbarian features (levels.) Want Rogue fighting styles? Same again. A Druid with 0 druid feats in PF2 at level 20 is more Druid than the PF1 who had to lose 10 levels in other classes to get other stuff.

[Alyran]

ChibiNyan wrote:

Don't think this thread right now is about "My druid can't specialize in archery" so much as "There's no resource to add some non-druid stuff to my druid (replace druid with any class) at a reasonable time." Certainly general feats exist but don't have the necessary options and you don't even get one at lv1. The other option is archetypes, but they are too slow and quickly begin costing a lot of "Druid" abilities in exchange for getting your 1 thingy.

Essentially, there is 1 dimension of character customization currently missing from the rules that did exist in PF1. PF2 added skill feats and ancestry feats to open up new avenues, but they don't replace the need to have a combat feat every now and then to flesh out a concept. I realize they're merged into class feats but you have to wonder if your Druid/Fighter with 0 Druid feats is even a Druid anymore. This wasn't a problem before.

I don't think there is any argument to be made that you aren't a druid anymore, even if you give up every single class feat you get for multi-classing. You still have full primal caster progression and whatever your initial path gave you.

[Lanathar]

Malk_Content wrote:

Given that the feat tree for Fighter stuff is 2 big, no you aren't giving up a lot of druid stuff for your 1 thingy. You are giving up 2 druid thingies, and with the freedom of the retraining rules you can shift about what it is you are giving up exactly when you see fit.

And I'll note the example almost always comes back to the Fighter, because the Fighter's thematic problem in PF1 is they laid claim to nothing. Now in PF2 they lay claim to some things, just like every other class does and it feels weird because fighter stuff wasn't put up against other stuff in a 1 to 1 comparison. Other classes if you wanted their stuff, you absolutely had to give up levels to get. So now Fighter have actual valuable feats and they cost the same to get as everyone elses.

Replace Fighter with literally any other martial and we can see the discrepency. Wanted Barbarian fighting styles, then you had to lose druid features (levels) to get Barbarian features (levels.) Want Rogue fighting styles? Same again. A Druid with 0 druid feats in PF2 at level 20 is more Druid than the PF1 who had to lose 10 levels in other classes to get other stuff.

Yes I think it has been missed that the Fighter feats are supposed to be their "thing" now and people haven't worked that out. They seem to think they are entitled to another classes' abilities because that is how it always used to work

I have obviously read this thread as well as the multiclass one and some on reddit and complaining about class feats seems common. And it is always the martial ones.

One thing that doesn't help is that some old feat names have been kept. For example I have seen complaints about Power attack being class limited now - clearly by people who assume it is still a necessary maths fix for all martials. When is absolutely isn't

[Arakasius]

I wouldn’t be against having an extremely limited set of feats that give some small capacity in weapon usage or magic usage. Things along the lines of a worse martial feat or a cantrip or such. I Would like those feats to be under the class feat options so people aren’t taking every feat as combat, but thinking about it a bit more that likely doesn’t matter. There isn’t really a ton of general feat slots and it’s likely already that someone can use those all on combat through things like improved initiative, increased speed, battle medic, etc. We already see things like weapon proficiency there so I could see a follow up there to allow a bit of low power customization. Regardless if there is something like this now, I think as time goes on we’ll see some of this added as more books come out.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think it's eminently reasonable to, given a character who wants to be good at unrelated thing, to focus on one of those things first. So I've got no issue with level 2 dedications. Sure, you can't play a sword wizard straight off most of the time, but you can choose between "sword" or "wizard" then get the other one next level.

[Shisumo]

Squiggit wrote:

Shisumo wrote:

Just saying "I want to use a bow" is not enough. It must be reinforced such that there is a mechanical reason to use a bow and not another weapon - seemingly, no matter how slim a reason, as long as it exists - or using a bow will somehow be unsatisfying.

I feel like you're kind of thumbing your nose at it here but I don't think it's entirely an unreasonable concern.

It isn't meant to be dismissive; I'm genuinely trying to summarize Lethe's perspective, and they did say that the advantage could be "as weak as a skill feat" as long as it was something to hang their hat on.

Squiggit wrote:

Certainly anyone can use any weapon they want and probably do decent enough, but it can be understandably frustrating I think to realize that the weapon you want to use is just strictly inferior to another. It's often not even really a playstyle choice, because most weapons don't really have much of an effect on how you play the character anyways. So you end up pretty much just paying a tax on an aesthetic choice.

That's an issue of weapon design, though, not feat competition. It's also one that the development team are aware of and working specifically to make sure does not cause issues this time around. As Malk implied, even in the playtest there doesn't actually seem to be any great examples of this. (Longbows are an arguable example form the playtest, but we know that they have been improved for the final.)

[Lanathar]

How have longbows been improved?

[Lanathar]

Does anyone think half-elves should get some kind of boost relating to multiclass archetypes? Their old theme was being adaptable? Either easier entry (ignore the pre-requisite) or earlier entry (level 1)? B

[Malk_Content]

Lanathar wrote:

How have longbows been improved?

The volley penalty kicks in at a shorter range so you aren't at a penalty in most fights.

[Edge93]

Lanathar wrote:

Does anyone think half-elves should get some kind of boost relating to multiclass archetypes? Their old theme was being adaptable? Either easier entry (ignore the pre-requisite) or earlier entry (level 1)? B

One Playtest update added a level 9 human ancestry feat called Multitalented. It gives you a Multiclass dedication feat even if you don't meet the prerequisites. This of course lets you ignore ability score requirements but I think it also let's you start another Multiclass even if you haven't taken enough feats from your first to do so otherwise.

Not half elf specific, but half elf available.

[Lanathar]

So if the playtest is anything to go by then over an adventuring career there is:

- 5 general feats
- 5 ancestry feats
- 10 skill feats
- 10/11 class feats

On top of class abilities
Added into class pathways and multiclass there seems be a large scope for variety on paper

Also weapons are all unique now which should also lead to more variety than before

What is known about pathways such as warpriest cleric or bomber alchemist ? Are these selected at level 1 or do they take the place of the multiclass archetype feats? I believe it is the former (level 1) ?

[Crayon]

Even if you like Feats (eww), it's hard for me to see how anyone could think there're too few of them in PF2. It seems very much the opposite as far as I'm concerned...

[Bhrymm]

A point for those worried about a lack of options in PF2 to think about. The playtest rulebook is 434 pages. The 2 edition CRB is 660 pages iirc. That's more than 50% larger. I don't think lack of options will be a problem. :)

[Saint Evil]

Although Martial Weapon Proficiency is a feat... it had/(has?) a prereq of Simple Weapon Proficiency which is another to take for the druid. And when

So then elf ancestral feat gets brought up ... but now it compels a racial chooice.

So this is where the Fighter, for multiclassing, gets brought in to the discussion. As a means to get mere proficiency. (And due to the other martial types given unwanted things) But again the delay to acquire.

It is not a desire to 'steal' the Fighter's (or any other martial's toys) cool powers. Class feats are Class powers.

And ironic to me is that Pf2 martials finally have there own styles as shown by how Fighter and Rogue TWF is different.

The combat type, fighting style feats in Pf1 were generic

The Power Attack chain on Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin were the same for all.

The corollary for casters were the Metamagic feats. Now existing as different Class Feats. And variance with in them.

The future may give martial types Focus powers as gets advocated for gunslinger/swashbuckler grit/panache in another thread. (May or may not work in dead magic)

[Saint Evil]

Bhrymm wrote:

A point for those worried about a lack of options in PF2 to think about. The playtest rulebook is 434 pages. The 2 edition CRB is 660 pages iirc. That's more than 50% larger. I don't think lack of options will be a problem. :)

Lack of options is not the topic. Execution of available options is.

[Bhrymm]

Saint Evil wrote:

Although Martial Weapon Proficiency is a feat... it had/(has?) a prereq of Simple Weapon Proficiency which is another to take for the druid.

All classes aside from Monk and wizard start trained in Simple Weapons.

[Malk_Content]

The druid has simple weapon proficiency, so they can get to bows in three ways (ancestry, general, class) that is options to get they want in in 3/4 of the options you have.

The reason we are talking about stealing class features is because saying "you can easily get proficiency" wasn't enough to use the bow. The poster HAD to have more investment than that, just so it could be on their sheet (the actual in game effect seemed to be totally unrelated) but was upset that the way to get increased investment in martial weapons was to go to martial classes. That is why I mention this disconnect were the thing other classes are good at get recognized as worth multiclassing for, but the Fighter isn't. This is effectively saying "I don't think the fighter should have anything special."

[Squiggit]

Kind of off topic but I just wanted to thank everyone who's been posting in here. I didn't expect nearly this much discussion when I first started the thread and I think it's been really interesting to see all these different perspectives on these issues, what people are worried about or not worried about and why, all that stuff.

[Seisho]

You're welcome

[Arakasius]

Saint Evil wrote:

Although Martial Weapon Proficiency is a feat... it had/(has?) a prereq of Simple Weapon Proficiency which is another to take for the druid. And when

So then elf ancestral feat gets brought up ... but now it compels a racial chooice.

So this is where the Fighter, for multiclassing, gets brought in to the discussion. As a means to get mere proficiency. (And due to the other martial types given unwanted things) But again the delay to acquire.

It is not a desire to 'steal' the Fighter's (or any other martial's toys) cool powers. Class feats are Class powers.

And ironic to me is that Pf2 martials finally have there own styles as shown by how Fighter and Rogue TWF is different.

The combat type, fighting style feats in Pf1 were generic

The Power Attack chain on Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin were the same for all.

The corollary for casters were the Metamagic feats. Now existing as different Class Feats. And variance with in them.

The future may give martial types Focus powers as gets advocated for gunslinger/swashbuckler grit/panache in another thread. (May or may not work in dead magic)

Couple things. One like people said druids already have simple weapons, so it’s just one general feat to get all martial weapons.

Second I don’t think it’s correct to call metamagic and combat feats a corollary. Martial had combat feats but often the best usage of them was casters like clerics who could use them with high level spells. On the flip side metamagic feats are completely useless for martials and not accessible. But now in PF2 it will go both ways. For someone to be good at magic or at combat they will need to find a way to invest in it.

[PossibleCabbage]

What we can do with combinations of a class and a technique that is not normally available to that class is make it into a class archetype, assuming enough people want to do this sort of thing.

So something like a runesmithing wizard with better weapon proficiency and crafting acumen, or an Erastilite Druid who can use a longbow in the woods are good options for a class archetype. Probably things that are less popular (e.g. Polearm Bards) will have to multiclass, but if there's a thematic commonality that makes people want to combine things together, we can do it as a class archetype post-CRB.

I mean, you'd be hard pressed to find an archer druid in PF1 who was not an Erastilite, since they could get that "Wis-to-hit with a longbow" feat."

[Temperans]

Okay, it took a while to read everything so let's kind of refresh this a bit. Also sorry for the long post, it was a lot of pages to condense (I even think I may have done it wrong).

Long paraphrased version of arguments. Pls excuse me if anything sounds like an attack, I just tried to type it up as I recalled it from my point of view.:

Original topic: Classes get to few Class Feat slots and are too diverse. This may cause problems for character that should be simple, but dont have enough feats to pay for: dedication, archetype, Class ability loss, etc.

Disenting opinion: You get Ancestry, Skill, and General feats too; also, the game has always had delayed [suck it up].

Counter argument: We aren't talking about those feats [we like skill feats being a thing]. We are talking about character not being able to be their class if the want to fight.

Counter Counter argument: You can't have everything, it's good that X class can't do what they did before. Look they even removed feat taxes.

C*2 Counter argument: Yeah, it's great they removed feat taxes, but that's not the problem. The problem is you can't play X concept without losing your Class abilities.

C*3 Counter argument: Yes, but the fact there arent feat taxes means it's okay to lose things.

C*4 Counter argument: For some concepts it's not okay. There are things that can't be done now, without having to multiclass and lose half your things.

C*5 Counter argument: Well you shouldn't expect to steal things from Fighters or other martial. Besides, PF2 makes you a lot more competent, there arent feat taxes after all.

C*6 Counter arguement: Is it really that bad to get weapon (or weapon group) specific feats that aren't Class feats, just to show "hey look I'm good at this"? Even a lowly trick shot Skill feat.

C*7 Counter argument: That is too much, proficiency is more than enough to use things. It would take away from Fighters and other (specially non-martial) classes specializing in weapons is bad.

(sounds to me like the "bad wrong fun" trend is starting)

C*8 Counter argument: We dont want to steal from Fighters and it's nice martial classes get different play styles

Having listed that, I can see both sides of the argument.

* The people asking for a fix, are trying to more closely recreate PF1e thematic. Where you had a pool of General feats and a "pool" of Class abilities. Things like Rogue/Ninja, Kineticist, Vigilante, Ranger, Magus, Arcanist, Occultist, etc. are all seen as what PF2e could had been. Where you can take specific Class abilities, and supplement them with General feats (usually combat due to the system).
They like that PF2e removed the feat taxes, made skills more useful by adding skills feats, improved weapons, gave classes distinct yet similar abilities; But, are having trouble with how nearly everything costs class features so you cant be a: Human Pirate Fighter 1/Universalist Wizard 1 Archer with a Parrot Familar that likes to use Hand of the Apprentice as a way to call attention or when drunk.

* The people saying everything is fine, think that everything is well expressed by the current system. They see having 1 pool for multiclassing, archetypes, class abilities, and combat power as a way to limit builds meaningfully. They see Fighters as having finally gotten it's own unique stuff (p.s. they already had Advance Armor/Weapon Training); And that casters got a better balance, less stuff for druids and more for the rest.
They like the same things the other side likes. But the also like how caster need to lose more to gain martial combat abilities, while martial on the other hand may be gaining more magical abilities for a similar cost, with less cost to them. They also like how different builds (ways to use Class feats) result in different characters based on what Classes were used and when.

[Temperans]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Probably things that are less popular (e.g. Polearm Bards) will have to multiclass,...

It's kind of weird that Shelyn didnt get a straight up Bard archetype like Sarenrae (who got 2). I mean Shelyn is straight up the goddess of art, love, beauty, and music; She even wants people to go around doing music (or other artsy stuff) and practicing martial combat.

[Lanathar]

So @Temperans - I am impressed that you have the fortitude to go all the way back through things

I am not going to touch on the list of arguments and counter arguments as I might go cross eyed. I am not sure there are really 8+ counter arguments but it is late at the time I am reading this.

Also invoking “bad wrong fun” misses the point (by quite a long way in my view) and I don’t think is what anyone is saying or suggesting.

A few points on the “second half”:

Fighters do indeed have advanced weapon and armor training but it took a long time after core to get there , is not known by everyone and appears in side books. And it is debatable as to whether they beat out “lots of combat” feats as the key feature of the class

Your final paragraph seems to be saying that martial gain magic abilities at “less cost to them”. Do you mean less cost that magical classes gaining martial abilities . Because again I don’t think anyone thinks that on that side of the debate. Both sides are giving up class feats . Spellcasters are not giving up spells for fighting power they are giving up class feats . And martials are not giving up proficiencies or other class features.

The idea that martials are giving up less seems to be based on you assuming :
- the limited spells you get from a magic dedication is worth more than a class feat that a martial character could get instead
- that class feats magical characters can get are inherently better than the alternate martial ones they might want to swap for

I don’t think there is enough knowledge of what all the feats can do to make that assessment

[Lanathar]

Temperans wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Probably things that are less popular (e.g. Polearm Bards) will have to multiclass,...

It's kind of weird that Shelyn didnt get a straight up Bard archetype like Sarenrae (who got 2). I mean Shelyn is straight up the goddess of art, love, beauty, and music; She even wants people to go around doing music (or other artsy stuff) and practicing martial combat.

I was wondering what you were talking about and then realised you meant 1E

Bard does seem a weird chassis for Sarenrae warriors but it is clearly going all in on the dancing element

I wonder how the dervish things will appear in this edition. Potentially a prestige archetype for all

[Leotamer]

I think one issue that is core to this is opportunity cost. If you want 2 devotions, then that costs at least 4 feats. You can not be the paragon of your class while investing into another class, no matter how many feats you have, unless you cap how much you can spend towards it.

Even in a classless system, where it is a pile of feats and abilities that you can configure together, a person building a pure wizard would be more wizardry than a wizard with that is good with a sword, unless there is a point at which the pure wizard can no longer make himself more magical.

Yes, when using spending class feats you have to consider if you want to be more like your class or more like something else, but the only way around this is making a separate pool investing in non class feats that a person who wants to build a pure-class would have no need of and that would disrupt their builds.

By removing tax feats, all pf2 is simplified this opportunity cost and made it easier to understand. If my simple math is correct, you can tri-class in pathfinder 2e as early as level 9. (Main Class, 3 Dedications in one class, 1 Dedication in another) Your Fighter-Rogue-Wizard would not be as fighty as other fighters, roguey as other rogues or as wizardy as other wizards, but again the only way around that is to restrict how they can spend their resources to make themselves more like their class.

I also feel like you mischaracterized a lot of the points you disagree with, but this is long enough and wanted to focus on this core point.

[Temperans]

@Lanathar

I said it's the start of "Bad wrong fun" because part of the discussion was about how eventually Paizo will release enough material where that can definetly return. I see the stance that, "other classes specially caster" should get martial feats because it messes with fighters as very much the start of that. Even more specially when the debate is whether Class feats are a bottleneck.

I think it is sad that Fighters didnt had it originally, but its specifically why it should had been made core in PF2e. That was such a great mechanics people where willing to dip 5 lvs of 5 just to get it. Also, I always saw the Key feature of Fighters as being Armor/Weapon masters. Their bonus feats are just the easiest way to represent it; Even still they even got lots of Fighter Exclusive feats and where the best at using Equipment/Weapon/Armor Tricks.

As for the casters losing out with feats. A caster that multiclasses loses out on Metamagic and other quality of life upgrades, they have less health (so less front line), and the feats they get would generally be under level.
On the other hand, martials that multiclass lose out on some abilities while getting progressively better spell progression (from what I remember reading). Their high health makes them more capable of standing in the front line, where touch spells can have great effects even if underlevel.