Is quick block (bastion) a different feat from quick block (fighter) and quick block (champion)?
You can only take a feat once, but are feats from different classes considered different?
There's only one shield block feat, and it's a general feat.
Fighters, champions, and whichever else classes gain the feat make this clear by using the language "You gain the Shield Block general feat" for their Shield Block class feature.
I ment quick block.
Edited the title.
As nobledrake stated, there's one kind of Shield Block. That's it.
It gives you a type of Reaction you can use with your one Reaction per turn (an unfortunate overlapping of vocabulary inherent in PF2 re: actions as well). So even if you could get Shield Block from multiple sources, it wouldn't matter. It's only giving the same exact option, not another use of it.
Where the previous conversation thread had gotten tangled was regarding the later feats which provide Fighter, Champion, & the Bastion Archetype an extra Reaction which they can only use for Shield Block.
For Fighters it's "Quick Shield Block":
You can bring your shield into place with hardly a thought. At the start of each of your turns, you gain an additional reaction that you can use only to Shield Block.
Note that the Bastion feat is exactly the same feat except comes two levels later. As noted, a PC can't take the same feat twice.
Yet for Champions it's "Quick Block":
You can block with your shield instinctively. At the start of each of your turns, you gain an additional reaction that you can use only to perform a Shield Block.
The net effect is exactly the same, except it has a different name and a different trait. Paizo probably should've done what it had with Shield Warden: Have the feat be the same, yet with different prereqs for the different classes.
Since they haven't, that means a PC could take both Quick Shield Block & Quick Block to get your normal Reaction +2 Reactions usable only for Shield Block. You could be Sir Blockster McShieldyface of the Shield Lands. This combo works best with a Champion taking the Bastion Archetype. I'd hesitate to have the most defensive class in the game investing in more defense, yet I suppose with party synergy and tactics the Champion could spread the safety (until their shield broke rather rapidly taking hits for his allies).
A Champion would likely gain more by focusing on offense to catch up with his martial peers.
Tried to edit and add... forum got mad about it.
I initially missed that it's not "Quick Block" in all three cases, but rather is "Quick Shield Block" which is one feat that Fighter and Bastion share, and "Quick Block" that is a second feat that Champion gets.
I did also find the piece of text which shows that any capitalized name - such as any feat - is meant to be a specific rule, and thus not an independent thing every time it shows up. It's on page 17, and goes as follows; "The names of specific statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical elements in Pathfinder are capitalized. This way, when you see the statement “a Strike targets Armor Class,” you know that both Strike and Armor Class are referring to rules."
Ok, so in the specific case, yes because different names. But no for Bastion because that is the Fighter feat (also Viking).
But in general?
For instance, Tumble Behind (Rogue) + Tumble Behind (Swashbuckler)?
Not sure why you would, but could you since they both have different tags?
No. Same name = Same feat.
That's what names are for, especially when deliberately capitalized so that you know that specific feat is that specific feat like you know that Strike is referencing a rule named Strike.
I am not entirely convinced since the feats have separate wording.
"You tumble under and behind your foe to catch them off guard...."
"Your tumbling catches your foe off guard..."
For example where they actually differ, Improved Twin Riposte (fighter) vs Improved Twin Riposte (Ranger). Not that you could get both, but...
"At the start of each of your turns, you gain an additional reaction that you can use only to perform a Twin Riposte against your hunted prey..."
"...At the start of each of your turns, you gain an additional reaction that you can use only to perform a Twin Riposte..."
That is a mechanical difference. Ranger one is specifically limited to prey. The fighter is not.
Though, I agree viking / bastion are specifically the fighter feat, and would not work together. Since they specifically say "This version of..."
|
Presumably a Swashbuckler/Duelist could do something similar with Reflexive Riposte at 10 and Improved Dueling Riposte at 14, though in that case it means taking an extra feat for Dueling Riposte that doesn’t give you any benefit over Opportune Riposte other than qualifying you for the Improved feat. But you end up with two extra reactions to Riposte.
Not sure how useful that is, given that you have to be critically missed in the first place, but it certainly seems like an unintended result of the way class feats are set up.
If not drawing the line at same name = same feat, I think you get into territory of the line making even less sense - especially given that the rules of this edition are meant to be readable as casual language, not a strict legalese or technical speak.
So if your a ranger with Dual Weapon Warrior, Twin Party, Twin Riposte, and and Improved Twin Riposte.
Can you Riposte against anyone, or just your prey?
Or really, does that mean a fighter with Improved Twin Parry can use it at all, since they have no prey?
And when you come to a case like "But it looks like I can technically get 2 additional reactions because I'm a ranger with fighter archetype and took the feat with the same name" I think that's where the 'too good to be true' convention from page 444 kicks in and says "no, that's not actually how this is meant to work"
Well you need to spend a bunch of feats for it, and will break a bunch of shields
In the case of a ranger / dual weapon, you would need to spend multiple useless feats that do not stack in order to get the single one that does.
I.e.
twin parry (ranger) -> twin riposte (ranger) -> improved twin parry (ranger)
twin parry (fighter) -> twin riposte (fighter) -> improved twin parry (fighter)
As you would not be able to twin parry (ranger) -> twin defense (fighter)
Not sure I would call spending 3 feats on the hope you will be critically missed a second time in a round too good, when you can spend those 3 to get a pet instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Same Name = Same Feat universally. I think it would also have to have the same traits and possibly wording.
The design of the game is that feats are in their own buckets. I can foresee them making two feats with the same name but different effects unintentionally, but there being no issue because one is tagged Wizard and one Witch for example and each in their own bucket.
In that case, I could easily see a multiclassed character getting both, and the added confusion from same names being a consequence of multiclassing.
If it's got the same name, the same tags, and the same wording, then yes it's the same feat.