Wondering if any of you folks feel like there be real feat taxes for any classes and/or Archetype builds in 2e?
The one that sticks out to me is melee specialists and sudden leap/flying kick etc.
If your DM is fairly strict on wealth your unlikely to have a fully upgraded ranged weapon, even unlikely to have one that will do magical damage. If you are wearing heavy armor and have no real dexterity you are even more limited to short range throwing weapons. These are all bottlenecks to be sure but...
Animal barbarian you lose your ability to rage for a day just got using a ranged weapon. They are not bottlenecked imo. Sudden leap is straight feat tax.
I've played with the idea that sudden leap being a base action instead of a feat that just requires suitable athletic investment. But I haven't pulled the trigger yet.
But I loathe the day where I see 2+party members left useless by a semi intelligent flying creature with ranged attacks. Makes me consider automatic dice progression variant rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual wielders need to take a feat like double slice to be comparable at all to other builds.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
An animal barbarian can use a ranged weapon just fine. Just not while raging.
A flying enemy is a suboptimal situation for a melee fighter. That's when the plan B comes into play - the backup ranged weapons or other tactics. They might not be so effective but also not useless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I consider the whole "You have to take two more feats from this dedication before selecting a new one" a feat tax.
Characters have to deal with a large variety of settings, enemies, obstacles, and outright fantastical events. There's no "tax" to options that help you deal with those, especially if there are many alternatives.
If somebody builds a 10 Dex warrior and/or declines to invest in a decent ranged weapon, then they'd better find a way to deal with flyers, much like they should have some mobility so they don't get kited or be able to swim if tossed into water. Thank goodness PF2 provides several options, including some awesome ones where you to leap up and smack them, maybe even knock them to the ground! For me, that was one of the first "martials get to be cool" discoveries re: PF2 rather than rely on the casters to provide Fly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An animal barbarian can use a ranged weapon just fine. Just not while raging.
A flying enemy is a suboptimal situation for a melee fighter. That's when the plan B comes into play - the backup ranged weapons or other tactics. They might not be so effective but also not useless.
This is also why the martial vs caster arguments are often flawed to me, most assume a martial with maxed wep dmg vs caster dmg. Ignoring the situational nature of martial attacks and of having to swap weapons+cost of enchanting two weps
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are extremely few tax feats in my opinion.
Of course, there are some feats enabling some gameplays, like Double Slice for a 2-weapon fighter. But they are no tax feats as you can choose not to take them and play a 2-handed Fighter. They are just enabling some gameplay and if you like this gameplay then you take them.
There are a few follow-up feats. If some of them are bad, then it looks like a tax feat. Alchemist uses that a lot. I think most of the tax feats will be found in the Alchemist's list.
This is also why the martial vs caster arguments are often flawed to me, most assume a martial with maxed wep dmg vs caster dmg. Ignoring the situational nature of martial attacks and of having to swap weapons+cost of enchanting two wepsAn animal barbarian can use a ranged weapon just fine. Just not while raging.
A flying enemy is a suboptimal situation for a melee fighter. That's when the plan B comes into play - the backup ranged weapons or other tactics. They might not be so effective but also not useless.
the biggest issue for me is that people forget that spells can be saved against, damage cannot.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
the biggest issue for me is that people forget that spells can be saved against, damage cannot.
Uh, you do make attack rolls. And there are plenty of things that mitigate damage?
I am not sure what your point is.
the biggest issue for me is that people forget that spells can be saved against, damage cannot.Uh, you do make attack rolls. And there are plenty of things that mitigate damage?
I am not sure what your point is.
I guess we are speaking past each other here. I'll see myself out.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the problem is that the term "feat tax" is poorly defined.
To me, a Feat Tax is a feat you are required to take as a prerequisite to gain access to a later feat that doesn't actually modify that feat or change how it works.
The classic example in P1 is Combat Reflexes needed for Improved Feint or Improved Trip. Combat Expertise doesn't do the same thing as either of those feats. Those feats don't modify how Combat Expertise works. It's just a feat that you have to take to get to a later feat. Just a box to check before you can take the next feat.
P2 really eliminates that. With the exception of Dedication feats, which I will get to below, the only time a feat has a prior feat as a prerequisite is when the new feat modifies the prior feat or grant new options.
Dedications feat do seem to fit into this category. I take the Dedication feat to gain access to the feats that just have the XXX dedication feat as a prerequisite. That being said, most Dedication feats have their own independent benefits, and it is also true that it is no different than needing to be a Fighter to gain access to Fighter feats.
In these sorts of discussions, it would be valuable if the rules were linked so we could all be having a discussion on the same page.
Here, I will start for you ...
Sudden Leap
Flying Kick
I cannot find "melee specialist". What is it?
The actual initial feat for most archetypes ("[Foo] Dedication") is a pretty underwhelming feat. This is part of why I'm such a fan of the free archetype variant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P2 really eliminates that. With the exception of Dedication feats, which I will get to below, the only time a feat has a prior feat as a prerequisite is when the new feat modifies the prior feat or grant new options.
This has been my experience as well.
Dedications feat do seem to fit into this category. I take the Dedication feat to gain access to the feats that just have the XXX dedication feat as a prerequisite. That being said, most Dedication feats have their own independent benefits, and it is also true that it is no different than needing to be a Fighter to gain access to Fighter feats.
But as you mention, the Dedication feats do, actually, have benefits. For some classes/builds moreso than others.
A aside. I appreciate the approach. I have had more campaign issues from players dipping into classes just to get that "one" feat/ability. Since we've been using 2e, I have not had that issue, nor do I foresee it. Moreover, with the Free Archetype variant, situations where an archetype is really needed become very easy to work with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since there exist very, very few prerequisite feats besides archetype feats, and those being basically entirely new options and granting you new options equivalent to most equal level feats from normal class options, but expect you to be taking them for the sake of actually filling out those feats and not the dedication (the dedication mostly setting you up for the later feats while providing the necessary baseline functionality necessary to use them) I don't see it as being feat tax heavy at all.
There is probably only one or two examples of where this mostly might be impactful. Namely, such as a situation as using one dedication feat to qualify for another, like with archer into eldritch archer. I don't see many classes that could use eldritch archer to it's most extreme effect beyond cantrips being able to even take the class at 6, but that's another point entirely.
I feel like there is a misconception as to what the issue was with how 1e used to work. The tax wasn't just in having to take a feat to do a thing (although that is indeed something that often happened in 1e and still a thing in 2e). The tax was the feats leading up to that. You HAD to take Dazzling Display, a feat gunslingers would never use, to ever use Gun Twirling. This is what is meant by a tax. Useless clutter to do the thing you want, but there was no way to get around it without really pushing the limits where you could. (for the gunslinger, it meant taking a specific archetype, for example, which made that archetype one of the strongest since it opened up one of the strongest player options in a feat heavy build. It is feat heavy BECAUSE it is tax heavy)
If you were taking a dedication feat, then never wanting the feats in that dedication in the first place, that's kind of absurd given how many more options are available inside of a class and in other archetypes that sometimes have overlapping dedication feats in terms of functionality. You should take dedication feats to progress in that archetype, not to get the initial bonus. Many of them have very, very good feats.
The feat system seems set up in a way to tax you as little as possible, is my point, and that's a damn good quality to have. The only thing gating most players is level and available class feat slots, but that's only so you aren't able to do literally everything possible and for you to choose your toolbox carefully. Some classes, however, get to cheat and that's cool. Fighters, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual wielders need to take a feat like double slice to be comparable at all to other builds.
How so? you could do just fine with a d8 in one hand, an agile d6 in the other and something like exacting strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual wielders need to take a feat like double slice to be comparable at all to other builds.How so? you could do just fine with a d8 in one hand, an agile d6 in the other and something like exacting strike.
Double slice lets you take two attacks at the same MAP, which kinda feels, I dunno.... better(?) that "all other builds".
The main tax I've seen is the Medicine feat chain that most parties will want one person to take.
Double slice lets you take two attacks at the same MAP, which kinda feels, I dunno.... better(?) that "all other builds".Dual wielders need to take a feat like double slice to be comparable at all to other builds.How so? you could do just fine with a d8 in one hand, an agile d6 in the other and something like exacting strike.
I'd much rather go up against a Double Slice user than a reach-AOO-maul build. Its OK, but the inherent limitations and requirements to get two attacks at full MAP and the action cost are blegh.
I much prefer the one action two attack variant used by rangers or flurry of blows for the tactical flexibility...
But as noted, using two weapons just in order to use both a one handed weapon alongside an agile offhand weapon is totally valid and viable. The falloff for such a attack routine is probably less bad than it seems...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any Animal Companion line of feats and the Druid's Wild Shape line of feats feel a bit tax-ey to me. Once you choose one of these paths of play, you have to keep investing feats for them to stay relevant in high levels. You're spending feats to keep up, not really to gain new options (though wild shape line of feats gives you new options in addition to keeping you up).
I haven't seen anything on the order of PF1 Combat Expertise though.
I think this is a slightly different Phonomena than a feat "tax" - this is a way of having a single class feature that takes up "half" of your class ability budget, if you need to spend half of your class resources to make sure it's maxed out.
You actually retain some scaling if you stop investing feats, but an "Animal Companion" druid has about half as many feats as a non AC druid to spend on other things.
That's a modular class feature, not a tax.
Its a tax if every Druid "needs" an AC to be relevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only feat tax I've seen that I think qualifies is the Adopted Ancestry general feat. It literally grants you nothing on its own. You need to pick other additional, specific feats to have it do anything at all.
Its a tax if every Druid "needs" an AC to be relevant.
I mean not necessarily. A lot of the worst feat taxes in PF1 were feat taxes for specific builds too, after all.
When considering how much of a "tax" something is or isn't, I think it's important to think about how much you're taking that feat just to gain access to something else and then how much inherent value that feat has anyways. There's also a less tangible and more subjective sense of how it feels to take that feat and whether it legitimately adds to your character overall or feels more like a stumbling block along the way to your real goal.
Its a tax if every Druid "needs" an AC to be relevant.I mean not necessarily. A lot of the worst feat taxes in PF1 were feat taxes for specific builds too, after all.
When considering how much of a "tax" something is or isn't, I think it's important to think about how much you're taking that feat just to gain access to something else and then how much inherent value that feat has anyways. There's also a less tangible and more subjective sense of how it feels to take that feat and whether it legitimately adds to your character overall or feels more like a stumbling block along the way to your real goal.
I generally consider their to be an element of perceived "need" inherent to things i associate with being feat taxes.
Like, Quick Bomber for alchemist was something I perceived as being "needed" for basic functioning as a bomber alchemist (at least until I discovered that all the most effective alchemist strats used Quick Alchemy, and that making bombs ahead of time was best done sparingly because of all the cool stuff you get done by using Quick Alchemy, which doesnt benefit from Quick Bomber).
How about Dangerous Sorcery?
How about Dangerous Sorcery?
Thats a tough one. Structured as it is, it makes a Sorcerer dip attractive for any caster who wants to blast. Neccessary?
Eh... thats tougher. Every blaster is better for it, but I dont know that it "makes" the build.
Only feat tax I've seen that I think qualifies is the Adopted Ancestry general feat. It literally grants you nothing on its own. You need to pick other additional, specific feats to have it do anything at all.
But you then pick the feat you want straight away. You don't spend a level or more with just a feat that does nothing
Every Animal Companion user "needs" additional animal companion scaling feats for their companion to stay relevant, and every wild shape druid "needs" additional wild shape feats if they want to scale their numbers past spell level 5.
The scaling that these builds get without these "need" feats is like the natural scaling a character gets from leveling up without item bonuses and proficiency increases. A level 20 character's numbers is much more than +19 over a level 1 character, and these feats replace the missing proficiency increases / item bonuses.For these respective builds, the feats are needed.
But that's the thing, this isn't a tax, it's investing in a ability to make it better. The thing is that your animal companion doesn't have to be a damage dealer. You can use it exclusively for it's support action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only feat tax I've seen that I think qualifies is the Adopted Ancestry general feat. It literally grants you nothing on its own. You need to pick other additional, specific feats to have it do anything at all.But you then pick the feat you want straight away. You don't spend a level or more with just a feat that does nothing
No it just says "you gain access." No where does it say "you gain a feat."
But that's the thing, this isn't a tax, it's investing in a ability to make it better. The thing is that your animal companion doesn't have to be a damage dealer. You can use it exclusively for it's support action.Every Animal Companion user "needs" additional animal companion scaling feats for their companion to stay relevant, and every wild shape druid "needs" additional wild shape feats if they want to scale their numbers past spell level 5.
The scaling that these builds get without these "need" feats is like the natural scaling a character gets from leveling up without item bonuses and proficiency increases. A level 20 character's numbers is much more than +19 over a level 1 character, and these feats replace the missing proficiency increases / item bonuses.For these respective builds, the feats are needed.
This. Combat relevance is not the sole benefit (or even the primary benefit) of an Animal Companion.
No it just says "you gain access." No where does it say "you gain a feat."Only feat tax I've seen that I think qualifies is the Adopted Ancestry general feat. It literally grants you nothing on its own. You need to pick other additional, specific feats to have it do anything at all.But you then pick the feat you want straight away. You don't spend a level or more with just a feat that does nothing
Adopted Ancestry is weird because its explicitly a tax - a tax on expanding your character options outside their normal bounds.
So, its a literal tax, but is it what is meant by a feat tax?
But that's the thing, this isn't a tax, it's investing in a ability to make it better. The thing is that your animal companion doesn't have to be a damage dealer. You can use it exclusively for it's support action.This seems to be an issue of semantics. We need to define what a tax feat is. Some people in above posts have their own definitions for it, but it doesn't match mine.
To me, a tax feat is a feat that's needed for a specific build that doesn't unlock anything of significance. The feat can come first (as in PF1 Combat Expertise) or come second (as in animal companion stat boosting feats or wild shape feats).
Compared to a nimble dex-specialized companion, a level 20 young animal companion has about -7 AC, It's saves are about -6/-9/-6, and has -40 max hp. In the tight math of PF2, the build concept of having a pet that fights alongside you is unlocked and viable at level 1, but then becomes a pet that dies in one reaction at level 20.
Yes, but the "cost" of the Nimble companion is X feats. At no part of the feat progression did you spend a feat and not receive a benefit not equal to rhe sum of the feats spent.
At no point did a feat you spent reward "nothing of significance" its just that the cost of the feature youre getting is more than one feat.
The cost is probably better expressed as X% of your elective class resources.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, a definition of "feat tax" seams to be in order, because even out of the box I can think of at least 3 instances where the term "feat tax" could be applied:
1) A feat that does not do much on its own but is needed to unlock follow-up feats.
2) A feat that you have to take no matter the build because it simply is too good to ignore.
3) A chain of feats that you need to follow in order to not devaluate earlier decisions.
Dual wielders need to take a feat like double slice to be comparable at all to other builds.How so? you could do just fine with a d8 in one hand, an agile d6 in the other and something like exacting strike.
The benefit of having "a d8 in one hand, an agile d6 in the other" is incredibly small. Much smaller than the benefit of having a shield or using a two handed weapon. So dual wielders need a feat like double slice to even compare to those different combat styles (and remain worse in most situations even with that feat, but at least they're a lot closer).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The benefit of having "a d8 in one hand, an agile d6 in the other" is incredibly small. Much smaller than the benefit of having a shield or using a two handed weapon. So dual wielders need a feat like double slice to even compare to those different combat styles (and remain worse in most situations even with that feat, but at least they're a lot closer).Dual wielders need to take a feat like double slice to be comparable at all to other builds.How so? you could do just fine with a d8 in one hand, an agile d6 in the other and something like exacting strike.
See whats confusing to me, is that it isn't that much worse even without any feats, and a build that uses double slice is actually very powerful. Meanwhile Power Attack is considered significantly weaker (and even then I don't think its *bad* persay) than the other options.
Like, what do you even consider a strong option if making both your first and second strike with full bonuses isn't a dominant?
Adopted Ancestry is in the same vein as Combat Expertise. Its a feat that everyone needs to take to expand their option, even if you will never use its actual benefit.
Dedication feats are in the same vein as Improved Unarmed Strike. You have to take that feat to get any number of other feat paths. But once you start those path you are highly pushed to finish it to complete the tree. Unlike PF1 you cant even start another path half way through.
This is even worse for martials getting dedication into other martial classes. That initial feat is usually has no real benefit.
Then things like AoO, Combat Medicine, and Assurance are feats that people will always get because they are just too good.
Combat medicine I agree with. Medicine is a dominant strat for just about any player. Hower, I personally, in all the characters I've made in pathbuilder and played at tables, have rarely picked assurance or AoO. I usually have class feats or general feats that better represent the character I'm playing. AoO in particular has a lot of stiff competition with other class feats at the levels it becomes available for martial classes.
I consider the whole "You have to take two more feats from this dedication before selecting a new one" a feat tax.A return of "Favored Class" mechanics would be a neat way to mitigate this.
It sort of is a favored class mechanic in a way. If you only ever take one dedication feat, you don't care about that restriction on taking other dedication feats.
|
It sort of is a favored class mechanic in a way. If you only ever take one dedication feat, you don't care about that restriction on taking other dedication feats.I consider the whole "You have to take two more feats from this dedication before selecting a new one" a feat tax.A return of "Favored Class" mechanics would be a neat way to mitigate this.
I mean harkening back to earlier editions, where certain races had a relaxed math with certain classes. Easy enough to make it more ancestry agnostic as well as modularly scaling. Imagine:
Favored Class
(General Feat 3)
Requirement: You ancestry granted a boost to an ability score that is a pre-requisite for a dedication feat you have.
Effect: Select an archetype whose dedication feet you have. You only have to take one additional feat before you are allowed to use class feats for other dedications (instead of two).
Cheers.