| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would it break the game if characters can freely choose a general OR ancestry feat at level 3 and every odd level beyond?
Similarly, would it be any way unbalanced if characters can choose either a skill feat, or a skill increase, at every level?
Obviously all level and proficiency prerequisites would still apply, since we still can't have level 5 characters running around with legendary skills. I'm just curious as to why players are limited to an even split between skill feats and skill increases, as well as between general and ancestry feats.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that would screw up several balance assumptions pretty badly, yes.
Ancestry Feats are flat out better than General Feats at levels past 1st. Often by quite a bit. So allowing people to take whichever is not a good thing for game balance.
Likewise, for the most part Skill increases are much better than Skill Feats (there are exceptions), so throwing them in the same pool will not result in good things.
Switching up feats will not break the game at all.
Switching skill feats and skill increases would *demolish* the game.
To go into a bit more detail, feats generally give you more options, and getting loads of them generally doesn't make you unstoppable like it would in PF1. Some synergize really well, and some Ancestry feats are particularly strong, but overall the game balance will be pretty okay. You will need to keep an eye on DCs and CR and make sure you don't need to adjust challenges a bit. Level requirements on feats really help make sure things stay on track.
Skill increases however are very rare. If you could trade a skill feat out for a skill increase, I would probably make that trade 90% of the time. You'd wind up with skill bonuses way outside the DC charts, and you'll have access to game-breaking skill feats at very early levels. The entire TEML system for skills would be just utterly unrecognizable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Switching up feats will not break the game at all.
Switching skill feats and skill increases would *demolish* the game.
To go into a bit more detail, feats generally give you more options, and getting loads of them generally doesn't make you unstoppable like it would in PF1. Some synergize really well, and some Ancestry feats are particularly strong, but overall the game balance will be pretty okay. You will need to keep an eye on DCs and CR and make sure you don't need to adjust challenges a bit. Level requirements on feats really help make sure things stay on track.
Skill increases however are very rare. If you could trade a skill feat out for a skill increase, I would probably make that trade 90% of the time. You'd wind up with skill bonuses way outside the DC charts, and you'll have access to game-breaking skill feats at very early levels. The entire TEML system for skills would be just utterly unrecognizable.
But....why would that happen when skill increases are gated behind levels? No matter how many skill increases you get, you won't hit Legendary until level 15, period.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But....why would that happen when skill increases are gated behind levels? No matter how many skill increases you get, you won't hit Legendary until level 15, period.
True, but being Expert in far more skills than the game assumes is almost as bad, and people certainly wouldn't take any meaningful number of Skill Feats
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that would screw up several balance assumptions pretty badly, yes.
Ancestry Feats are flat out better than General Feats at levels past 1st. Often by quite a bit. So allowing people to take whichever is not a good thing for game balance.
Likewise, for the most part Skill increases are much better than Skill Feats (there are exceptions), so throwing them in the same pool will not result in good things.
This is true, but I'd note that it could become less true if they print more general feats that aren't level 1, since there are only a couple of those (not counting skill feats) and they are only level 3.
Frankly I quite hope that happens - the higher level feats are a lot cooler than the low level feats, even the ones that aren't necessarily much more powerful, and having access to new cool things as you level is more interesting than picking your 5th favourite general feat at level 19.
In the same vein, how stupid would it be to allow the General Feat slot to be open to ANY Feat take-able at the time? Because that's something I heard over and over in the playtest, but in the full version would it still be a crazy person idea?
Switching up feats will not break the game at all.
Switching skill feats and skill increases would *demolish* the game.
To go into a bit more detail, feats generally give you more options, and getting loads of them generally doesn't make you unstoppable like it would in PF1. Some synergize really well, and some Ancestry feats are particularly strong, but overall the game balance will be pretty okay. You will need to keep an eye on DCs and CR and make sure you don't need to adjust challenges a bit. Level requirements on feats really help make sure things stay on track.
Skill increases however are very rare. If you could trade a skill feat out for a skill increase, I would probably make that trade 90% of the time. You'd wind up with skill bonuses way outside the DC charts, and you'll have access to game-breaking skill feats at very early levels. The entire TEML system for skills would be just utterly unrecognizable.
It wouldn't break anything, rogues already have 19 skill ups and still get 10 skill feats on top of that.
Worst case scenario, someone has as many skill ups as a rogue, but doesn't have the feats to do anything special with them.
Skill increases however are very rare.
TBH I don't think changing that paradigm would be all that bad. Skill Increases are too rare, in my opinion if you aren't a rogue. Not sure if the OP's suggestion is the right way to go but I think the way 2e handles upgrading skills was a mistake.
and you'll have access to game-breaking skill feats at very early levels.
This isn't really true though. You're still hardcapped on how high your skills can go by your level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skill increases however are very rare.TBH I don't think changing that paradigm would be all that bad. Skill Increases are too rare, in my opinion if you aren't a rogue. Not sure if the OP's suggestion is the right way to go but I think the way 2e handles upgrading skills was a mistake.
and you'll have access to game-breaking skill feats at very early levels.This isn't really true though. You're still hardcapped on how high your skills can go by your level.
Yeah, I didn't think through my statement enough, and forgot about the skill level level gates. I change my judgement and would argue that it wouldn't break the game.
It would change the dynamic between high skill classes (rogue) and others, but Sherkock is right, it'd be at most as unbalanced as having all the skillups as a rogue.
I should have given it more thought because my own house rule of +1 class feat at every odd level gets a lot of kneejerk as OP but from where I'm sitting as the GM looking at these characters, I don't see it that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would change the dynamic between high skill classes (rogue)
For me at least that's a good thing. I think the current paradigm is a little too skewed.
I know PF1 rogues got more skill points than other classes so the dynamic was kind of still there, but skill points were a much more manageable resource in that game.
In PF2 the only way to try to play catchup with the rogue is to multiclass into rogue yourself and spend a significant number of high value class feats.
The gap's also much larger in PF2. In PF1 high skill classes like Rangers and Bards were 2 skills behind the rogue and in PF2 they get less than half as many SIs.