Why do 1st Level Witch Feats Exist?


Rules Discussion


Considering that they get their first witch feat at level 2 and there are enough 2nd level witch feats.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Farnaby wrote:
Considering that they get their first witch feat at level 2 and there are enough 2nd level witch feats.

All classes are required to have a pool of lvl 1 feats because of the human ancestry feat Natural ambition.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also for the Witch Multiclass Dedication.


Nefreet wrote:
Also for the Witch Multiclass Dedication.

OK. I'm confused. What part of the Witch Dedication references level 1 feats only?

Basic Witchcraft lets you get a level 1 or level 2 feat. So if level 1 feats didn't exist, there would still be the level 2 feats to pick from.

And Advanced Witchcraft lets you pick a feat up to half your level, so if you could take the feat at character level 2 you could only pick level 1 class feats - but Advanced Witchcraft is a level 6 feat. You can pick anything up to level 3 feats with that.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does it matter? Every class has level 1 feats. To not include them in some classes would simply make them weaker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the real question is "Why don't casters get a feat at 1st level?"

Low levels are where they're weakest so they really don't need the penalty.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Djinn71 wrote:
I think the real question is "Why don't casters get a feat at 1st level?"

Or is it, "Why do non-casters get a bonus feat at 1st level?"

Asking the first question makes it seem like casters are missing something they're entitled to.

Asking the second question makes you wonder what non-casters are missing that they need compensation for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that it's a strange design decision regardless of which question you ask.

Because of how it works, first level spellcaster feats have to compete a bit harder with second level spellcaster feats than with martial feats.

And choosing to take less than optimal feats for the sake of following a desired character concept becomes a bit more painful for those who do so...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"less than optimal" is not a synonym for problematic, though. As long as the 1st level feats hit the "is good enough" benchmark - which to be clear is a different thing from being "optimal" because there's more than just optimal and bad - then it is fine to assume people will be interested in taking those options.

Especially in a game like PF2 where the major optimization concerns are handled in a mostly automatic fashion, and the choices you make for feats doesn't so much decide whether the character is optimal or not but decides what the optimal behavior for your character to take is (i.e. there's not a noteworthy difference in power level between Power Attack and Point Blank Shot - but if you have one using a two-handed melee weapon will be optimal behavior where it won't with the other)

Thus far, I've seen no one actually pained by choosing a concept-fitting option.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like to think it's Paizo's subtle way of trying to encourage more human PCs in the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Most of the caster first level feats are linked to the class themes. For example the bard's muse gives a 1st level class feat. There is also one non-muse feat for bards which gives an option for a human bard.

The other classes are similar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:
I think the real question is "Why don't casters get a feat at 1st level?"

Or is it, "Why do non-casters get a bonus feat at 1st level?"

Asking the first question makes it seem like casters are missing something they're entitled to.

Asking the second question makes you wonder what non-casters are missing that they need compensation for.

Generally speaking, casters have some form of 1st-level class feature tied to their sub-class instead of a feat (though the feature often includes a feat).

Bard - Muse (which gets you a spell and a feat).
Cleric - Doctrine, either getting you the Domain Initiate feat or a bunch of combat proficiencies, the Shield Block feat, and possibly Deadly Simplicity.
Druid - Order (which gets you an order spell and a feat).
Oracle - Mystery (which gets you all sorts of stuff).
Sorcerer - Bloodline (which gets you a bloodline spell, blood magic, and spells for your repertoire).
Witch - Patron (which gets you a cantrip and a 1st level spell).
Wizard - both a School (learning a spell and a focus spell) and a Thesis (various special abilities).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:
I think the real question is "Why don't casters get a feat at 1st level?"

Or is it, "Why do non-casters get a bonus feat at 1st level?"

Asking the first question makes it seem like casters are missing something they're entitled to.

Asking the second question makes you wonder what non-casters are missing that they need compensation for.

Generally speaking, casters have some form of 1st-level class feature tied to their sub-class instead of a feat (though the feature often includes a feat).

Bard - Muse (which gets you a spell and a feat).
Cleric - Doctrine, either getting you the Domain Initiate feat or a bunch of combat proficiencies, the Shield Block feat, and possibly Deadly Simplicity.
Druid - Order (which gets you an order spell and a feat).
Oracle - Mystery (which gets you all sorts of stuff).
Sorcerer - Bloodline (which gets you a bloodline spell, blood magic, and spells for your repertoire).
Witch - Patron (which gets you a cantrip and a 1st level spell).
Wizard - both a School (learning a spell and a focus spell) and a Thesis (various special abilities).

Most martials also get those kind of chosen class features at 1st level (though they usually aren't packaged as bonus feats), like a Barbarian's Instinct, a Rogue's Racket, or a Ranger's Edge. I guess the issue is that Casters at low levels are uniformly at their weakest and generally only get "good" at like 7+ and get "strong" at level 11+, so why compound that with no feat at 1st level when every other class gets one?


Generally, most classes do in fact give you a feat at Lv.1, though it's not always a direct choice; for casters, the feat typically comes from the class sub-chassis they choose, presumably to limit their flexibility to compensate for their ability to cast spells. As such, and because of the aforementioned Human ancestry feat, every class has a pool of Lv.1 class feats available.

(Note, however, that Oracles, Sorcerers, Witches don't get a feat at Lv.1, though they do gain an extra focus spell or cantrip (generally equivalent to a feat) from their Lv.1 class choice. Wizards may or may not get a feat at Lv.1, depending on the chosen thesis; all Wizards gain a focus spell or feat from their school.)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Why do 1st Level Witch Feats Exist? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.