| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the modularity PF2 is embracing and the way they're making PF1's generally well received talent systems universal.
But I'm a little worried long term that this kind of makes a character's feat options a bit overloaded in terms of the functions they fill. Multiclassing is feats, class talents are feats, actually class features in general are mostly feats, then of course your feats are feats too.
My concern is just that, especially for more esoteric builds or ones that want to lean heavily on dedications, you're going to have to spend a lot of feats just enabling your build at all. A rogue who wants to build an arcane trickster is spending two of their first three feats on multiclass stuff just to enable spellcasting. More if there are specific rogue or wizard class feats they need to fully enable the idea. If they have another dedication they want to go for a more specific option that locks out their feat options for another four levels too.
Granted, this is entirely a self-made problem as opposed to PF1's bounty of +1s and unnecessary taxes, but I'm just a little bit concerned that certain build ideas are going to have to devote a lot of energy just to turn their various features on and not have a lot of room to use feats as a way to customize or flesh out their character.
I'm sort of curious if anyone else has similar or differing opinions about this. So I made a thread, right now. Here. Yep.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I'm really seeing this as a "problem". At least not one that can really be fixed. There will always be options you won't be able to take. Choices you have to make. I don't think there is really a way to solves this problem.
If anything, I think the problem has been alleviated somewhat from PF1. We have multiple feat tracks that opens up more choices. However, there is an upper limit to how helpful more feats would help. Too many and every character starts to look the same.
So, I guess I'm just saying that this is not so much a problem as a feature.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that's nice is that since feats represent "a new option you have" rather than a math enhancer, is that this allows a GM to just give people extra feats without really breaking anything.
In PF1 if you gave someone 5 extra feats, odds are good they will find a way to stack bonuses in such a way that something breaks. A PF2 character with 5 extra feats just has 5 extra things they can do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely get what you mean op. In pf1, you had choices more often, with feats every odd level and class features every even level. And while you get class features normally in pf2 like you would in pf1, feats are class based now. So it's almost like feats in pf1 are gone and instead all we have are class features.
In pf1 we could use our class features to focus on one thing and feats to focus on another. Say to make a gish or the like. In pf2 you will have to focus your feats to do the secondary thing you want your character to be good at and rely on base class stuff to be good at the other. It'll be a wierd change and one we'll have to experiment with in order to see how it works. I do feel like there are some classes that need their feats to be effective, and others that don't really need theirs so it's not as big of a blow to multiclass
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the only situations I see being tight are multiple dedications, like you said. In the playtest, if you had a dedication and wanted ANOTHER dedication you couldn't until you had two other archetype feats.
But beyond that, I don't feel that way and in fact feel the opposite. Many builds I played in first edition didn't come online till ~7th-12th (depending on the concept) because of the feat taxes needed to get to the stuff I wanted. Multiclassing was just a method of getting certain things (3 levels of Unchained Rogue to get Dex to damage for example). And if you were a class that relied heavily on your class level (Like Summoner), Multiclassing was almost never an option.
Now I feel like I can just take what I want without really any major restriction. If I want spells on my rogue, I spend class feats on a dedication and the feats to get the higher level spells. Giving my rogue up to 8th level spells. Yeah, I lost 4th class feats doing it, but I love what I gained out of it. And down the line, as more stuff gets added to the game, more concepts will emerge and older concepts get improved on. A Rogue specific archetype that gets access to spells for example.
In short, yeah. Certain build ideas are going to have to devote a lot of energy, but I feel like that was still true in first edition if not worse. Only time will tell once we have the actual game in our hands.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the worries, that OP has, but I can't share them completely.
A Rogue that want's to be Arcane trickster needs 2 class feats to sneak attack with spells, so that's online at level 4. But I think that's okay. Not every exotic build has to be completely done at level 1. Otherwise... what will you chose for the remaining 19 levels?
And I'm okay with that character missing out on some Rogue feats. Those are the choices you make. It would get boring pretty quick if every character could do everything.
And that's only looking at class feats. But you get skill feats every 2 levels and then general feats on top of that. So I don't see feat starvation...just some builds taking some levels to come together.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I think is likely to happen in official published adventures is stuff like "you have helped the Silver Ravens out of a bind, they offer to make you all members, everyone in the party gains the Silver Raven dedication for free" or "you have rescued the Chernasardo Ranger from the fae holding her captive, in gratitude she offers to teach you all how to make snares, everyone in the party gains the snare crafting skill feat." Or something like that.
I mean, if a character can fight a demon then level up after the fight and possess knowledge they didn't have before the fight, knowledge wholly unrelated to demon fighting, (we all understand this is how leveling up works), then someone motivated can teach you a new feat pretty quickly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I share those fears, honestly, but I'm with PossibleCabbage in that it seems fairly simple to ease that burden. Granting more feats has been easy enough for me, and hasn't led to any real problems -- it primarily just gives characters more options rather than allowing any kind of stacking that breaks something. It seems much like the problem I had with PF1, where an early house rule I developed was giving certain staple feats (weapon focus, spell focus, power attack, etc.) for free, allowing players to use their feats to fine tune their concept. So far, it's been similar with the playtest rules, except there are fewer math boosters and more just general options.
I also think the "it takes too long for concepts to come online" complaint is a bit overblown, at least in comparison to original Pathfinder. A great deal of the front-loaded features were just math spikes that didn't lend a great deal toward enabling concepts. And then there are most archetypes and all prestige classes that exist to enable concepts, but take several levels before getting into full swing.
And one of the designers (Mark, I believe) has said that there will be official rules guidelines for something like handing out extra feats, which helps alleviate my concerns.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big thing everyone is overlooking that’s responding to op with “it’s not that bad” are missing the fact that we have had a severe net loss in choices and resources to choose choices when it comes to builds from PF1 -> PF2 that we have not seen a fix for this far.
Combat Feats and Class Features now occupy the same pool and have half the selections as before
That is to say, now instead of picking a Feat and getting your class Features automatically, archetype or otherwise, you now have to choose between the two.
One way this problem could be solved is the relegation of non-combat oriented Features/Feats to be takable via Skill feats (which for Archetypes/Features has been alluded to but not confirmed).
Another way would be to have a line of Feats dedicated to Archetypes/dedications that is outside the standard Class Feats (seems it did not pan out this way).
The third, and yet to be seen for the most part, is Feats that scale heavily (more value as you level) essentially granting whole feat trees with one selection.
I find your concerns extremely reasonable and it is my biggest concern about the game in transition. The level of customization of builds at the moment is, seemingly, much lower than Core PF1 if you account for Class Features as Feats. If you included the Archetypes from APG, it’s severely behind (as far as what’s revealed so far).
I have been trying to keep up with spoilers, so it’s possible some of the concerns are dealt with or fully realized, but that’s my take as of what I know now.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sort of curious if anyone else has similar or differing opinions about this.
I can see what you're saying. If you're relying on dedications especially, it might take several levels to get to your 'starting point'.
One thing that's nice is that since feats represent "a new option you have" rather than a math enhancer, is that this allows a GM to just give people extra feats without really breaking anything.
While this sounds great, it's going to vary wildly from GM to GM, game to game. I know for myself, It'll most likely take a bit of effort to find a game like that and there isn't any guaranty I'll get in. Secondly, with the followup feats for dedication having level restriction it'd still take a bit to get your character around with some extra feats.
PS: an interesting option might be is giving away a certain amount of multiclass feats to everyone to use when they want [once per level]. Then people could spend them at start to enable builds or hold them for those "Silver Raven dedication" type situations.
One thing that's nice is that since feats represent "a new option you have" rather than a math enhancer, is that this allows a GM to just give people extra feats without really breaking anything.While this sounds great, it's going to vary wildly from GM to GM, game to game. I know for myself, It'll most likely take a bit of effort to find a game like that and there isn't any guaranty I'll get in.
Hopefully, this will be less of a problem with this edition. Since it will be much easier for a GM to control the power creep, there should be less of an issue with allowing players to have bonus feats.
It remains to be seen if GMs will see it that way (and, really, until the final game is out we're not certain it will truly be that way; it will certainly be better in that regard than old Pathfinder, but that isn't really saying too much), but I am hopeful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sort of curious if anyone else has similar or differing opinions about this.I can see what you're saying. If you're relying on dedications especially, it might take several levels to get to your 'starting point'.
One thing that's nice is that since feats represent "a new option you have" rather than a math enhancer, is that this allows a GM to just give people extra feats without really breaking anything.While this sounds great, it's going to vary wildly from GM to GM, game to game. I know for myself, It'll most likely take a bit of effort to find a game like that and there isn't any guaranty I'll get in. Secondly, with the followup feats for dedication having level restriction it'd still take a bit to get your character around with some extra feats.
PS: an interesting option might be is giving away a certain amount of multiclass feats to everyone to use when they want [once per level]. Then people could spend them at start to enable builds or hold them for those "Silver Raven dedication" type situations.
I've always been of the opinion that everybody wanting all character builds at level 1 to be a dumb, imo. Not that wanting it is bad, but how can everybody expect to be 100% of what they want to be at level 1.
I'm also of the opinion that Paladin, Bard, and Druid are higher level ideas, and that one works towards being that kind of character, rather than starting out that way, but I digress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big thing everyone is overlooking that’s responding to op with “it’s not that bad” are missing the fact that we have had a severe net loss in choices and resources to choose choices when it comes to builds from PF1 -> PF2 that we have not seen a fix for this far.
Combat Feats and Class Features now occupy the same pool and have half the selections as before
That is to say, now instead of picking a Feat and getting your class Features automatically, archetype or otherwise, you now have to choose between the two.
This really isn’t an issue though. Features and build paths have condensed down into 2-3 feat chains at most. Class features rarely gave good versatility unless the person was building for it in particular, so it stands to reason that a good amount of people didn’t use class features to their full potential; and with them being a choice to grab rather than freely given their power is allowed to be hiked up. With the PT alone i haven’t come across a concept that really fought over specific feat choice; i.e. i always have floating feats regardless of what build i have tried to make. The one exception is with MC cheese shenanigans. Not saying there isn’t an actual build that doesn’t end up feat starved, but i have yet to run across it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And to respond to customization vs PF1 core it’s pretty silly to think that PF2 has less customization.
It's not silly, it's outright true if you evaluate the choices available.
Add up total Class Features available in PF1, Add up Combat Feats from PF1. Even if you eliminate math oriented Combat Feats, you still have the choice issue of not being able to have both the Class Feature and the Class Feat at any given time.
I think it's silly to not at least acknowledge the fact that where once I could get Smite (in this case now RS) and also choose TWF/Mounted Combat/Cleave/etc. I cannot.
It's as simple as that. There is a net loss as of the Playtest.
Just being able to multi class between each of the 11 classes gives huge amounts of options available.
Not accurate, because before you could multiclass to those options. At best, we're a net even here.
Not to mention, these are likely going to supplement things like Magus as a Class. Given how you can't even accomplish any of these choices until Level 2, it lines up as a net even (at worst).
PF1 core didn’t even have archetypes much less functional multiclassing. Prestige classes were mostly a trap and most classes couldn’t multiclass for fear of giving up their good class features and screwing their BAB progression.
PF1 Core had plenty of Archetypes.. so no idea what you're trying to say here.
It also had functional multiclassing, in fact Oradin was extremely popular (if not meta).
Even with the incentives that PF1 put on staying your same class, I wouldn't say Multiclassing was at all out of place. Archetypes were literally more common than Core classes, so really disagree there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, a lot of feats were just math enhancers or feat taxes, and only one or two chains of feats on a character actually changed your play style. I hope, but don't expect, that the few general feats and several skill feats can replace that void.
I also think one dedication characters are just about fine from what we know so far.
Two dedication characters are more difficult, and I hope they can get some more support.
The swashbuckler/rogue/paladin/monk/cleric ridiculous multiclass chains that would cherry pick features from as many classes as possible appear to be impossible to recreate. In my opinion, that's a good thing.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This really isn’t an issue though. Features and build paths have condensed down into 2-3 feat chains at most.
As mentioned in the comment, I have yet to see any Feat trees condensed that well. If anything, they've just added more unique feat options (like Sudden Charge) that fit an entirely different mold.
It really is an issue, and the only real thing that's been done to alleviate the problem is the reduction of taxes on certain weapons paths. That said, that really only front-loads the benefits, but still leaves a lot of uncovered Features vs. Feats selections past about level 7.
Once you account for the 1/2 feat taxes of most feat intensive builds being removed, the net loss is still there.
Class features rarely gave good versatility unless the person was building for it in particular, so it stands to reason that a good amount of people didn’t use class features to their full potential;
Dubious statement. If that were the case, Archetypes in PF1 wouldn't have been such an amazingly received thing.
They absolutely were used, because people traded the ones they didn't need for ones they did with Archetypes.
To say otherwise is to take away the exact reasons Archetypes were created in the APG.
With the PT alone i haven’t come across a concept that really fought over specific feat choice; i.e. i always have floating feats regardless of what build i have tried to make.
Then I assume you didn't try to use a build of TWF/Archery with any classes that didn't need it by default.
Just because you have anecdotal evidence of no personal issues matching a concept doesn't mean it isn't there.
Match up combat styles possible in PF1. All Combat Styles are possible on all classes, some just cost more feats than others (due to free proficiencies).
That is not the case in PF2. In fact, they had to create a Double Strike equivalent for Rogues after the fact for this exact reason.
It's not that I expect all builds to be possible or good, but I would expect at least the same builds available in PF1 Core (particularly common ones like TWF Rogue and Archery Paladin) to be at the very least available. The goal with a redesign is not to take a step backwards on one of the prime reasons people chose your edition over the competition (customization and value of choice).
The one exception is with MC cheese shenanigans. Not saying there isn’t an actual build that doesn’t end up feat starved, but i have yet to run across it.
Labeling anything that has a complex build as "mc cheese" is a bit silly. Often times, the most feat intensive builds are just strange combinations that aren't that much better than a competing build.
Traiting to get Magical Lineage for Toppling Magic Missile might seem "mc cheese" until you realize that Grease is far more reliable, AoE, and against a better roll 9/10.
I personally loved creative builds that were derived from Feat combinations. It was the reason I carried on to PF1 during the Edition wars (also because I loved 3.0/3.5).
Sacrificing it is sacrificing one of the parts of the game that drew me to it in the first place (and I know I'm not alone there).
Classes gain features every uneven level and one class feat every even looking at the official character of PF2.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 rulebook has no archetypes (that only came later) so yes I’m quite right here.
On to the point of getting Smite and Mounted Combat/cleave you’re again misleading it. Power attack (or its ranged/dex alternative) was necessary in all physical builds.
It quite literally wasn't on builds that didn't focus on Two Handed weapons, particularly Paladin Archery builds and TWF builds (as they often lacked STR to get the Dex required to get them).
As a note, you are misleading my intent by forcing all figurative martials in the previous edition to pick Power Attack.
If that's not the definition of misleading, idk what is.
Not having those feats leaves you just as able to get everything you got in PF1. No one in PF1 took a bunch of feat chains and no passive boosters. Also add in that in PF2 there is a lot smaller feat chains and no annoying prerequisites like combat reflexes and precise shot it becomes even more open. In PF2 if you want to be a player who gets a bunch of different options like cleave/smite/etc you can do it far more easily than in PF1 and it will hurt your character far less.
Yes they reduced the number of Feat taxes. But, as I said, when you account for what taxes were removed (about 2 feats per chain), you still come up at a net loss because Features now cost feats and you still only have the same number of Feats as PF1 in terms of Combat.
Level 1 Paladin Human
PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Aura of Good (CE), Smite 1/day (CE), Detect Evil (CE)
Level 1 Paladin Human
Deity's Domain, Warded Touch, Retributive Strike
So in scenario 1, we have a paladin who not only can fire into melee (like the second), gets a +1/+1 on attack and damage, but can also fire an additional time in combat more than the standard opponent (keep in mind, despite the second paladin can shoot more, he is shooting "less" than the first because everyone gets 3 shots).
On top of the fact that the first one has access to a path the second one doesn't have at all (archery based feats), the first one is also ahead on this path.
On the multiclassing before you could but multiclassing in nearly all cases sucked. The only times it was good was an 18/2 split or so for stealing something like dex to dmg or Paladin saves. (Like the Oradin you mentioned)
I fail to see how the Oradin at any point "sucked", and somehow every Multiclass PF2 would produce is "good". There are dead feats for Multiclass in PF2, such as Fighter for any martial.
And even in those cases it usually wasn’t worth the delay in picking up your core class features. Like I played Inquisitor a lot and it would be good to get a fighter level or such but in the end it wasn’t ever worth giving up slower spell progression or not getting Bane at sixth level.
To you. Worth it depends on the build. Is it worth it to sacrifice Bane with no real intent? Of course.
Is it worth it to sacrifice Bane to get access to X which allows you to do Y? That's really up to the person to decide.
You can't just unilaterally dictate all PF1 Multiclass builds were "bad" just because you personally didn't find value in them. I wasn't a major proponent of standard multiclassing either, but that doesn't mean I didn't see people do it right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 Core had plenty of Archetypes.. so no idea what you're trying to say here.
Huh? Where? Archetypes just came online with advanced players guide, no trace of them in crb
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still am not sure why you’re talking about PF1 archetypes when PF2 multiclassing is essentially archetypes expanded. PF1 allowed you to replace some class features with others. However since some classes didn’t have much features to replace (wizards/clerics are two that come to mind) it was pretty uneven between classes. Now every class basically has an option to archetype into every other class. You are trading core class features (the feats you would have spent to gain new abilities from your core class) to get features from another class. They will also still have prestige like classes to archetype into as well as class specific archetypes. This vastly opens the options for different type of builds.
You are arguing a completely different topic.
What I am stating is simple:
Add up Combat Feats in PF1 Core. Add up Class Features in PF1 Core.
Compared that number count to current Class Feats (covers both those categories).
Add up total gained Combat Feats in PF1 Core. Add up Total gained Class Features in PF1 Core. Add those together. That is the effective "Class Feats" of PF1 Core.
Compare that number to PF2 Class Feats count.
Notice that the latter is less than the former. Also notice how they compete in the same pool of resources.
This is a customization bottleneck not present in PF1. This discussion has been brought up many times and discussed at length.
Now they might have resolved it with Skill Feats allowing dips into Archetypes/Class/Dedication Feats that are not combat oriented, which they alluded to in the case of the Pirate Archetype, but it has not been confirmed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 Core had plenty of Archetypes.. so no idea what you're trying to say here.Huh? Where? Archetypes just came online with advanced players guide, no trace of them in crb
Indeed, APG. I meant they were common across PF1.
I would also argue they were the first unique concept that made it into Pathfinder at all, and were where Paizo really made the game their own.
So I retract my statement of them being in Core.
However, the fact that they are available in Core now is because they are the most recognizable piece of Pathfinder period. To not include them would be a vast mistake.
With that said, when considering "choices available" in the current Core, considering APG Archetypes in the mix helps conceptualize how vast the bottleneck for customization actually is.
That said, even not including them in the comparison, the resource competition of Class Feats vs. Combat Feats + Class Features still has the latter coming up with a lot more options and total things your character can actually do.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully, this will be less of a problem with this edition. Since it will be much easier for a GM to control the power creep, there should be less of an issue with allowing players to have bonus feats.
Where I game, the average game is base rules and maybe a few optional rules like gestalt or background skills if you're lucky. It's much rarer to see true houserules. I don't see PF2 changing this. If the gamemastery guide puts in some optional rules for something like this, that might do it though.
I've always been of the opinion that everybody wanting all character builds at level 1 to be a dumb, imo. Not that wanting it is bad, but how can everybody expect to be 100% of what they want to be at level 1.
I don't think anyone is arguing for 100% out of the gate, but that they want to get to the starting point as soon as possible. If you're trying to emulate a magus, you're not really feeling like one until you can hit someone with your weapon and cast a spell: before then you're really a dude with a sword OR a dude with magic not a dude with a sword AND magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that's nice is that since feats represent "a new option you have" rather than a math enhancer, is that this allows a GM to just give people extra feats without really breaking anything.While this sounds great, it's going to vary wildly from GM to GM, game to game. I know for myself, It'll most likely take a bit of effort to find a game like that and there isn't any guaranty I'll get in. Secondly, with the followup feats for dedication having level restriction it'd still take a bit to get your character around with some extra feats.
Well, a number of Paizo adventures have straight up given bonus feats or extra stats for narrative reasons, so even if your GM won't, that doesn't mean the module writer won't. In doing so in prominent official adventures, you effectively normalize it for everyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry, but I think, like many others here, the Feats won't be that much of a problem.
Yeah, you have to spend feats on combat styles and class features, but the way they sortet it is actually not bad.
Of course, not everyone has as many actions as before and not everyone can be a master at dual wielding and stuff, but on the other hand
lets say you wanted to make a decend dual wield character
you most likely would take dexterity
you take weapon finesse + dual wield + improved dual wield + master dual wield + potentially double block or whatsitcalled and double slice
that makes 4-6 feats
and don't even get me starten on the case that you EVER planned to use whips as an actual efficient weapon
if you want to go dual wield now with a class who doesnt enable it itself - you take dedication, you take the feat to take double slice or whatsitcalled bam - 2 feats and you are good, also you get improved weapon prophiciency (or the option) and a few other optiond down the line
or fighting styles, they were (at the start) basically monk only feats, every style had 3 feats with mostly numerical and imo sometimes minor boni and if you wnated the best boni you had to take all three in order - also often a single feat as tax in addition
now the (monk) fighting styles are all 2 feats and the main strength lies in the first feat without a tax
that makes 3-4 vs 1-2 feats again
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said before everyone can archetype now. And into any combination of classes. They are absolutely included in PF2. There is no multiclassing anymore, everything is just archetypes.
As for feats in 2 vs features plus feats in one that depends on the class. For something like fighter with bonus feats they likely lost out. But for most it’s even or a net boost because of
1. Smaller feat chains
2. No useless prerequisites
3. Removal of math feats (especially for non full BAB classes that absolutely depended on them)Those alone open up room for more options and combinations than PF1 ever had when combined with the new archetype system.
I literally just wrote out a scenario with a level 1 Paladin from Core in both where that is not true though.
You said in the case of Fighter, they might lose out, but it's really the case period.
Smaller feat chains
Smaller Feat chains with half to over half your feats reduced since they now have to cover Class Features and Class Feats.
No useless prerequisites
One, that doesn't have anything to do with the count of feats or the customization bottle neck. That's just a buzzword.
Two, yes there is, exhibit A being any of the Multiclass Archetype feats that require a 16 in an ability score (wholly unnecessary).
Removal of math feats (especially for non full BAB classes that absolutely depended on them)
What non-Full BAB were dependent on Math Feats?
If anything, the math dependent ones were the full BAB for Feats like Power Attack, but I'll get away from that.
Even with the removal of "Math feats", there is still the dichotomy of picking Combat Feats vs. Class Features that did not exist before.
Even if you comb PF1 and remove every single math oriented Combat Feat you still come up with a net loss.
Lay on Hands or Archery? Sorry bud pick one.
Double Strike or Trapfinding? Sorry Mr. Rogue, be combat effective or find traps but not both.
These are currently the case. How one could argue they "don't exist" or it's "not a problem" is something I can't get my head around.
If it's not a problem for you, that's absolutely fine, but we can at least say that they exist can't we? Before you didn't have to choose, now you do. Some like that, others dont.
Given how integral combat is to the game, I do not like the fact that you have to choose between something like LoH vs. Archery or Trapfinding vs. Double Strike. You are forcing players to choose their Role or choose to be effective in combat. That's not a fun choice.
I definitely get what you mean op. In pf1, you had choices more often
Are you sure about this part? Just going by the Playtest rules, when creating a human wizard, you will make 4 ability boost choices, 5 ancestry feat choices, 8 wizard feat choices, 5 general feat choices, 10 skill feat choices and 9 skill increase choices by level 20. That's 41 choices made without taking into account spell choice. Not one single level is devoid of a meaningful choice to develop your character.
If second edition follows the Playtest in this manner there will be no more dead levels.
I would also argue they were the first unique concept that made it into Pathfinder at all, and were where Paizo really made the game their own.I would argue that they were around in 3.5e in the form of "Substitution levels", where you could swap some class features for others, usually based on a background of some sort. They were used in the race books, among other things. Archetypes are a more developed version of the same concept, but I wouldn't call it unique.
You could also trace their lineage back to 2e's kits, particularly the ones in the Complete Bard's Handbook which were all based around replacing core bard features.
And while I would call them precursors, especially in the case of 2E kits, I would call Pathfinder's version unique enough.
Fair point to make though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Multiclass Dedications now only require a 14 in the ability scores, which is nice.
lets say you wanted to make a decend dual wield character
you most likely would take dexterity
you take weapon finesse + dual wield + improved dual wield + master dual wield + potentially double block or whatsitcalled and double slice
Weapon Finesse was typically free, depending on where you could get it. In the case of UC Rogue, you wouldn't have even had to pay for it.
Even then, classes like Ranger got TWF for free, as did a few others (like Fighter) as part of Class Features.
Notice these methods of "free" are not present for any current classes and require Class Feats.
They also don't cost the Rogue Trapfinding (like current), which is the biggest part of the issue.
if you want to go dual wield now with a class who doesnt enable it itself - you take dedication, you take the feat to take double slice or whatsitcalled bam - 2 feats and you are good, also you get improved weapon prophiciency (or the option) and a few other optiond down the line
So to start, you cannot multiclass at level 1, so a build that was previously possible at level 1 is now no longer possible at level 1 (and really isn't possible until you get a second Class Feat since it took a multiclass).
The number of Feats you were able to acquired in PF1 was vastly higher, especially if you combined Class Features to your "feat count" since that is what Class Feats is now (both).
The fact that you're getting the same number of feats for both, when PF2 gives you a LOT less "feats" should say enough.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The customization bottleneck is real.
It boils down to this: if you want to be a druid who is better with a bow than other druids, you have to be less of a druid.
This was not the case in PF1.
It remains to be seen how this was addressed in the final rules, but for what it's worth I've decided that doubling the number of feats every character gets will be a sufficient starting point for my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The customization bottleneck is real.
It boils down to this: if you want to be a druid who is better with a bow than other druids, you have to be less of a druid.
This was not the case in PF1.
It remains to be seen how this was addressed in the final rules, but for what it's worth I've decided that doubling the number of feats every character gets will be a sufficient starting point for my table.
I knew my comrade would show up soon ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone can wield and attack with two weapons at level 1 in PF2. You only need feats to get better at it. Some things that were feats are just built in.
Sure there were a lot more feats in PF1, but the number of feats does not equate to power or to reasonable options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class features still exists and you gain one every even level looking at the official portuguese character sheet and we know that class specific archetypes exist are already defined in the core book so they will eventually be released.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It boils down to this: if you want to be a druid who is better with a bow than other druids, you have to be less of a druid.
Is my PF1 druid that doubled down on summoning and animal companion feats more of a druid than one that took archery feats?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The customization bottleneck is real.
It boils down to this: if you want to be a druid who is better with a bow than other druids, you have to be less of a druid.
This was not the case in PF1.
That was the case in PF1 due to opportunity cost. If your 1st level feat is Point Blank Shot it isn't Natural spell or some other more druidy feat.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was the case in PF1 due to opportunity cost. If your 1st level feat is Point Blank Shot it isn't Natural spell or some other more druidy feat.The customization bottleneck is real.
It boils down to this: if you want to be a druid who is better with a bow than other druids, you have to be less of a druid.
This was not the case in PF1.
But you didn't sacrifice "Woodland Stride" to get it, your choice for combat prowess came to choosing between those two, not choosing between being a standard Druid and using a bow.
That's the core of the issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Midnightoker - I don’t see any real issue with building Archery onto any concept. TWF is its own beast though, and not an example of what you’re talking about; also the reason they gave rogue a specific one wasn’t because they couldn’t do it early enough, it was because they wanted rogue to have a more thematic one.
Archetypes kinda prove my point as well but i’ll Call it a fair 50/50. If people are choosing an Archetype in 1e it’s cause they’re trading out Class Features they don’t deem useful enough to keep usually.
As for the anecdotal evidence, you could tone it down some. I’m not saying there’s no issue what so ever that could possibly ever exist. I’m saying shuffling combat and class feats togeather doesn’t seem to be any real issue. Some of the feats got shuffled into Skill Feats and that gives people an opportunity to select feats that they otherwise wouldn’t in 1e. A pure net gain in that regard.
As for shorter feat chains, that one’s really simple to point out, but will have to do so in a later post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was the case in PF1 due to opportunity cost. If your 1st level feat is Point Blank Shot it isn't Natural spell or some other more druidy feat.The customization bottleneck is real.
It boils down to this: if you want to be a druid who is better with a bow than other druids, you have to be less of a druid.
This was not the case in PF1.
But you didn't sacrifice "Woodland Stride" to get it, your choice for combat prowess came to choosing between those two, not choosing between being a standard Druid and using a bow.
That's the core of the issue.
So I agree with your premise, that this might possibly be an issue (we won't know for sure until a few books come out and we see where the game grows to). But one of the advantages I see with PF2 class feats as I can just say as GM you all get an additional feat at 1st level and not break the game. Rules for this are supposed to be in the GMG.
Which I expect could be the way they handle more powerful Ancesties/Heritages.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was the case in PF1 due to opportunity cost. If your 1st level feat is Point Blank Shot it isn't Natural spell or some other more druidy feat.The customization bottleneck is real.
It boils down to this: if you want to be a druid who is better with a bow than other druids, you have to be less of a druid.
This was not the case in PF1.
But you didn't sacrifice "Woodland Stride" to get it, your choice for combat prowess came to choosing between those two, not choosing between being a standard Druid and using a bow.
That's the core of the issue.
That is a slightly different conclusion from the post I was responding to.
Yours is dependent upon what you consider to be a standard druid. I'd agree PF2 has through design declared that a standard druid is mostly the static class features (which for druid is primal prepared spellcasting plus some proficiency stuff) with everything else being optional. That's a different idea of what a druid is than in PF1.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, a class has a nice little basket of stuff. For example, Druids had in their little basket an animal companion, spells, wild shape, and some other utility things.
If they wanted to be good at archery (or at least distinguish themselves as better at archery than their friend Bob "Casty-face" McCaster who took metamagic feats to be better at spellcasting), they could use feats to add archery feats to their basket.
In PF2, if you want to distinguish yourself as a better archer than Bob, you have to take things out of your basket while seeking whatever dedication lets you excel at archery. Oh no, now you're a pretty good archer but you can't turn into a bear :(
This is a fundamentally different paradigm. You may like it just fine, and it might be a perfectly serviceable game design method, but it very much is different.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, a class has a nice little basket of stuff. For example, Druids had in their little basket an animal companion, spells, wild shape, and some other utility things.
In fairness, this is way too much stuff in a basket, from a game design point of view. There's a reason Druid is the D in CoDzilla.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, a class has a nice little basket of stuff. For example, Druids had in their little basket an animal companion, spells, wild shape, and some other utility things.In fairness, this is way too much stuff in a basket, from a game design point of view. There's a reason Druid is the D in CoDzilla.
Agreed. That's why I'm okay with the PF2 druid having a smaller overall kit.
I'm just not okay with someone having to sacrifice too much of their core class flavor to distinguish themselves in their chosen fighting style.
Since it's come up before: I'm also not okay with someone deciding on playing explicitly an Archer Druid and me telling them "Oh, you don't need to invest any resources to get better at archery, just pick up a bow!" Because that shuts down customization and the feeling that your character is special and unique. Investing in things is a fun part of an RPG!
So I'm ruling that everyone gets double the number of class feats, so they can feel free to spend some on non-class stuff like weapon dedications.