It would be fine, the feats are usually more for options than direct increase in power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely fine. I'm using +1 Class feat every odd level (even first), and +1 first level general feat.
We converted characters but haven't had a chance to play yet. From my perspective as the GM I have zero concerns about their capabilities. If it bumps their power up, PF2 makes it very easy to adjust enemies.
One option I've been considering is just allowing Class feats in General feat slots. Also perhaps providing more ways to use Ancestry slots for General and Class feats. Same number of feats, but more flexibility.
This may not scratch your particular itch, of course.
One option I've been considering is just allowing Class feats in General feat slots. Also perhaps providing more ways to use Ancestry slots for General and Class feats. Same number of feats, but more flexibility.
This may not scratch your particular itch, of course.
I would avoid this method because it kind of defeats the purpose of having separate feat lists. Everyone will tend to get only combat relevant options, and only the strongest of those when there are several.
Sure, you're right. I was just considering other ways before outright giving more feats. There are drawbacks to opening up existing feats, as you say.
|
1 Additional Class Feat, and 1 Ancestry Feat at level 1 is what I'm going with for a higher power level curve so far for my game and it is surprisingly balanced as it mostly just gives characters more options of things they can do.
I only have 2 play sessions under my belt so far for the group so far so it's not a lot of feedback really but the players were all really happy with it.
3 Ancestry feats at 1st level.
Ancestry feats and general feats share the same pool
Extra class feat at every odd level, but use your level/2 round up for the choice of extra class feats:
at lvl1 you can take level 1 class feat,
at lvl3 take lvl 1 or 2 class feat
at lvl5 take lvl 1 or 2 class feat
at lvl7 take lvl 4 or lower class feat
...
at lvl19 take lvl 10 or lower class feat
I'm using +1 Class feat every odd level (even first), and +1 first level general feat.
We converted characters but haven't had a chance to play yet. From my perspective as the GM I have zero concerns about their capabilities. If it bumps their power up, PF2 makes it very easy to adjust enemies.
I'd love to hear how that houserule has worked out so far.
Offhand I'd say you could get rid of most (all?) of those problems by restricting multi-multiclassing, either directly or by increasing the number of feats you need to take from a dedication before you can take another dedication.
I'm not going to defend my house rule too vociferously until I can get some actual play in (my group has had zero free weekends since August 1st), but I will say a few things:
1. Multiclassing. So far, all of the characters I've converted over at level 9 feel like that have most or all of the stuff they had in PF1. My ranger player has a handful of druid spells and is now multiclassing into fighter to get some more options with his bow. My fighter-rogue player is able to play a satisfactory sword and board slayer. My wizard has now multiclassed into Sorcerer and Bard for extra spells because they wanted to have lots of slots to play with like they did in PF1.
At this level, everything feels great from a build perspective. I'm not at all concerned about 2 spells per level of older spells from multiclassing casters, especially since their proficiency and casting stat lags behind. If anything, branching out into multiclassing casters too much and neglecting metamagic or other class feats is on the weak end of the options available.
Don't forget, action economy is tight so spending lots of actions on buff spells (or more easily resisted debuff and attack spells) isn't going to be every martial character's cup of tea, and if it is then all the power to them, right?
If you prefer the simpler, more refined 2E version of classes where you're boxed in a bit more, that's fine.
2. Skills. Trained is the starting point. Getting skill increases and skill feats is what really matters. So I don't have a problem with lots of people winding up with the majority of the skill list trained, it just slightly devalues the skill training feat.
Don't forget, Lore skills are infinite and shouldn't be underestimated. Their design is such that you can lobby for their use, and the more specific a lore, the more likely you'll be able to do something impactful with it.
Offhand I'd say you could get rid of most (all?) of those problems by restricting multi-multiclassing, either directly or by increasing the number of feats you need to take from a dedication before you can take another dedication.
It is definitely valid that if you double the number of class feats available, it is reasonable to consider increasing the number of feats you need to take from a dedication to pick up another dedication.
Honestly, I might be tempted to leave most of the flavor dedications alone, but bump the number of feats required to fulfill only the multiclass dedications by 2 additional feats. Another option would to boost the number of feats needed to fulfill a second dedication taken(not in a chain like Armiger/Signifier for instance). Although I'd want them to be able to take those two extra feats in either the first dedication or the second, not specifically having to have more feats in the multi-class they took last.
I also though, sort of like the idea of of the extra/bonus feats potentially being limited to half level, allowing them to pick up options they passed up, but not necessarily opening multiple top tier abilities.