|
Okay so joke title aside, the more and more I play PF2, the more I feel that there needs to be a bit of rebalancing.
One of the things I liked about PF1 is that you could probably build anything. Dwarf Aldori sword lord? Sure. Gnomish Paladin? Surprisingly good. Halfling strength fighter? I have one of those. Seriously, unless the build was REALLY in the weeds like, say, a sling-Staff user (which pretty much required slip slinger style) you were good.
But man, in PF2 it seems like you either start as human (or part human) or you are extremely limited. Wanna play someone with access to a weird racial weapon when not part of that race? Only humans can do that (unconventional weaponry). Want to start off trained in dueling swords as a non-fighter? Only humans can do that with an extra general feat to get weapon proficiency. Heck, whole classes have entire feat sections dedicated to one specific human feat (natural ambition is the only way to get a spellcaster’s level 1 feat).
Recently I thought it might be fun to be a Dwarf Aldori duelist. Know what I discovered? I either start as a fighter instead of a swashbuckler, or I have to delay until level 4 to get into it because I don’t get a general feat for weapon proficiency until level 3. Meanwhile humans (and. . . I guess tengu) can be trained in dueling swords off the bat at level 1.
I know this sounds a lot like complaining but . . . listen every spellcaster has a list of feats that can ONLY be taken if you choose natural ambition. There are a slew of 1st level general feats that can only be taken if you are human. . . Just seems unfair.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd chalk that first problem up to PF2's proficiency system being actually horrible than it really being a problem with humans.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this sounds a lot like complaining but . . . listen every spellcaster has a list of feats that can ONLY be taken if you choose natural ambition. There are a slew of 1st level general feats that can only be taken if you are human. . . Just seems unfair.
All of these feats can be taken by other races, just not at first level. So you're not restricted, you're just delayed. Which is an important difference. Your dwarven aldori swashbuckler is still a viable character, he just comes online a little later. And a GM can always make exceptions on a case by case basis if they think the character interesting and not overpowered.
But this flexibility is very much a reason WHY people play humans. Without something like this humans would go from a premier choice to an also ran a LOT of the time.
Paizo wants humans to be the most common race. How else can they accomplish this EXCEPT by giving a large mechanical incentive for lots of characters to be human?
And, even WITH this incentive, I'd say that significantly less than 1/2 the PFS characters I see are human. Probably less than 1/4.
I don't like some of the world implications of this choice all the time either. But I think the rules are pretty much working as intended in terms of incentivizing players to pick humans.
Personally, I think gnomes are overpowered :-). It is SUCH an attractive race for any character that wants to dump Strength.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As mentioned above, humans are generalist all-rounders, and are therefore more flexible, especially at level 1. If you take that away from them, what are they left with? Poor eyesight? Yeahhh, I'll pass on that. Also, let's not forget that most of the things mentioned above can be achieved by other races, just at higher levels
Other races have a lot of good stuff, especially if you don't mind waiting for the mid levels.
I understand the desire to make everything be as flexible as humans. Player options can be fun. But then what are humans left with? Honestly, this sounds more like a plea for a homebrew rule to give everyone an extra first level class feat and general feat than it does a legitimate complaint about humans.
P.S.
I also have no idea where someone might get the idea that a wizard can't take a 1st level class feat at 2nd level... I mean, of course they have some 1st level class feats. If they didn't, then that would just result in screwing over human wizards for no apparent reason, but that doesn't mean that those feats are exclusive to first level. Same as any other class feat.
Re: Caster feats: You can take 1st level feats at later levels so "ONLY be taken" is a bit hyperbolic.
And yeah, RPG humans with their generalist generic nature have to get their bonuses in IMO flavorless ways (as with previous editions BTW) which amounts to swapping Ancestry feats for Class & General ones. Coo beans, yet hardly different than in 3.X/PF1 where the bonus feat & skill points were often required to achieve an early build idea, and were considered OP/required by many players.
In PF2, I find the unfairness balances both ways, i.e. if you want to move 35' at level 1 you need to be an Elf. Should a Dwarf have that option too? No. For them how about getting Poison Resistance? Or what about a martial being able to cast a Cantrip? Or maybe you want Scent? Or a natural attack w/o your class's support? Or one of those boosts to certain types of saves?
All of these limit what Ancestries one can choose from, that is if one wants/needs to begin with them. I don't think of 1st level as the defining version of a PC (especially when it comes to concepts built around being a master or lord). Nor do I think all Ancestries should balance so well as to become a mere veneer (i.e. Starfinder). I'm happy for the distinctions between Ancestries, much like those between classes which cannot be bridged in PF2, i.e. a 3.X/PF1 full caster could often outperform a martial at martial endeavors. Was that fairness fair?
I find it quirky that much of the advice in Advice defaults to a human Ancestry, almost like a holdover from PF1. The stat penalty of say a Halfling can often translate to a +1 save, and have little negative effect on most casters, while at 5th they can snag a 1st level class feat and catch up to a Human. Unfair? Dunno. Or one can be a Gnome and get that familiar w/o relying on one's class. That's like a 2nd level feat instead of a Human getting only a 1st level one. Unfair? Dunno.
Focusing in on specific elements will unearth inequalities, yes, and IMO it should if our choices are meant to carry weight. Seems to balance overall to me.
---
Separately, in the narrative of Golarion, it also explains the prevalence of humans in certain factions that non-humans have a mechanical hurdle to overcome re: the factions' archetypes. :)
ETA: Lots of ninjas, and Paul J. reminded me of my realization that the Summoner class is pretty much built for Gnomes.
But then you'd have to PLAY a human, I do that everyday, rather do something else in a fantasy world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, humans can't get what requires the genetics of full blooded races most of the time or without huge investment.
Out of 3.5, PF1e, PF2e and 5e. PF2e has by far the least OP human choice...
Although 5e has that b#&#@$#@ new "custom race" option that is even worse than variant human. But still.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of these feats can be taken by other races, just not at first level
Well that's not exactly true. Adaptive Anadi get it at 1st and anyone can is they use the Deep Backgrounds variant rule if they take Homeland: Another Ancestry’s Settlement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Aldori Swordlord thing is a problem with the weapon proficiency system. Specifically, you need need both martial weapon proficiency and a feat (so two feats if you don't have martial proficiency) to become proficient in an advanced weapon.
So a Human Fighter can take the dedication at 2nd level, but a Dwarf fighter can't take it until 4th, and a Dwarf rogue can't take it until 8th.
A potential house rule fix to this I've considered is just giving everybody an extra general feat at 1st level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another potential solution is to work within the rules and realize that maybe that's just not something everyone can do at first level. Apparently it's a hard thing to master that exact weapon. I'd also be surprised if a GM didn't allow you to at least reflavor an existing sword of some kind until you get the proficiency to use the thing that you want to build towards.
I've never understand the obsession some people (I'm not saying anyone in this thread in particular, but I've seen it in the past) have with using a specific weapon or specific combination of abilities and being annoyed that it's not as easy as they would have liked, or perhaps flat-out impossible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another solution is to tweak the retraining rules, since my experience is that the problem is less "I have to wait 8 levels to be able to do what I want" and more "It feels bad to take a 2nd level feat instead of an 8th level feat" since feats generally do get flashier and more impressive as you level.
If you could retrain you 2nd level class feat to the Aldori dedication once you gain proficiency, it would feel a lot better.
The Aldori Swordlord thing is a problem with the weapon proficiency system. Specifically, you need need both martial weapon proficiency and a feat (so two feats if you don't have martial proficiency) to become proficient in an advanced weapon.
So a Human Fighter can take the dedication at 2nd level, but a Dwarf fighter can't take it until 4th, and a Dwarf rogue can't take it until 8th.
A human can have Versatile Heritage and General Training to have 2 extra general feats from 1.
A potential house rule fix to this I've considered is just giving everybody an extra general feat at 1st level.
Yes I like that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A potential house rule fix to this I've considered is just giving everybody an extra general feat at 1st level.
Yes I like that.
I'm not sure that I do.
It would affect many characters quite significantly, making many characters get at level 1 what they now can't get until level 3. For some characters it would be a significant power up, for others not so much.
I think that it would also make humans significantly less attractive for many builds.
I think the better solution if the GM wants parties to be more versatile and to not have to suffer the problems of level 1 (or 2) would be to just start the game at level 2 or 3.
It would affect many characters quite significantly, making many characters get at level 1 what they now can't get until level 3.
I think that is for the best: right not you have it where most character races can't be adopted until they are 3rd level... IMo, that just seems wrong.
Can you think of anything specifically that breaks if instead of only a human taking general feats, everyone can? I can't.
I think the better solution if the GM wants parties to be more versatile and to not have to suffer the problems of level 1 (or 2) would be to just start the game at level 2 or 3.
While I generally DO like starting at 3rd or 4th, it really doesn't fix issues like Adopted. If I start play with a 3rd level adopted Ancestor Oracle, neither of those 1st level feats can be from that adopted race even if I start the game with the feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a mitigating factor that is unfortunately ignored in a large percentage of games is vision and light levels. A lot of GMs seem to just assume that most caves and dungeons are well-lit, when in reality most caves and old abandoned crypts/dungeons should be dimly-lit at best. Because this is one of the features of the rules that is largely handwaved, humans being one of the small selection of ancestries that don't have any special vision isn't the handicap that it should be.
For example, if a standard human ranger gets into a fight at night time in the wilderness (or a cave), even if the wizard is helpful and casts the light spell on the rangers bow (so that the ranger isn't blind), they have a 25% chance of automatically missing any target beyond 20 feet, and can't even target anything beyond 40 feet. The lack of low-light or darkvision isn't trivial.
You can do things to mitigate this (be a half-elf, buy a magic item, etc) but that requires your human to invest resources a dwarf or elf wouldn't have had to.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the ratio of human to non-human characters in just about any adventuring party I've seen, I don't see a lot of evidence that players want to play human characters, even if the human ancestry is overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a mitigating factor that is unfortunately ignored in a large percentage of games is vision and light levels. A lot of GMs seem to just assume that most caves and dungeons are well-lit, when in reality most caves and old abandoned crypts/dungeons should be dimly-lit at best. Because this is one of the features of the rules that is largely handwaved, humans being one of the small selection of ancestries that don't have any special vision isn't the handicap that it should be.
For example, if a standard human ranger gets into a fight at night time in the wilderness (or a cave), even if the wizard is helpful and casts the light spell on the rangers bow (so that the ranger isn't blind), they have a 25% chance of automatically missing any target beyond 20 feet, and can't even target anything beyond 40 feet. The lack of low-light or darkvision isn't trivial.
You can do things to mitigate this (be a half-elf, buy a magic item, etc) but that requires your human to invest resources a dwarf or elf wouldn't have had to.
Maybe so but I think the problen isn't humans but everyone else.
70% of the bestairy have darkvision, many of the PC ancestries too. Plus you can always go Gloomseeker or take a heritage option to get it.Its too common - thats why GMs ignore it.
Items are cheap. I prefer humans, and sprites...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm... I think Adopted Ancestry for other characters should add something to it's text
Special You can only take this feat at Level 1. If you do not have a Level 1 feat to take it you may take it anyway and have to pick it up by level 3.
So a little bit like the Runelord for the Wizard
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm... I think Adopted Ancestry for other characters should add something to it's text
Special You can only take this feat at Level 1. If you do not have a Level 1 feat to take it you may take it anyway and have to pick it up by level 3.
So a little bit like the Runelord for the Wizard
But why? If my level 10 orc fighter takes a pause from adventuring to live among gnomes for a year, they should be able to take Adopted Ancestry after that event. There is no reason to limit it level 1 or 3.
Sure, if the "adoption" is not part of the character background there should be some event to make it make sense (GM approval). Maybe "If you take this feat after level 3, it gains the Uncommon trait".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you think of anything specifically that breaks if instead of only a human taking general feats, everyone can? I can't.
I'm not saying "break" so much as significantly change the low level game. Many, many decision points would be much easier. Some characters would significantly shore over a weakness.
For a great many characters a 1st level feat is going to directly translate into higher AC (Armor proficiency), better perception or saving throw.
I know that it would cause me personally to play fewer humans as the primary mechanical reason I chose human for some characters was that general feat (sometimes I choose race for roleplaying reasons, sometimes for mechanical reasons when race wasn't part of the core character concept).
Can you think of anything specifically that breaks if instead of only a human taking general feats, everyone can? I can't.I'm not saying "break" so much as significantly change the low level game. Many, many decision points would be much easier. Some characters would significantly shore over a weakness.
For a great many characters a 1st level feat is going to directly translate into higher AC (Armor proficiency), better perception or saving throw.
I know that it would cause me personally to play fewer humans as the primary mechanical reason I chose human for some characters was that general feat (sometimes I choose race for roleplaying reasons, sometimes for mechanical reasons when race wasn't part of the core character concept).
None of that sounds bad to me...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a great many characters a 1st level feat is going to directly translate into higher AC (Armor proficiency), better perception or saving throw.
Doesn't seem that bad. Having really terrible AC at 1 or 2 because your build relies on a level 2/3 feat always felt super awkward to me anyways.
I know that it would cause me personally to play fewer humans
This I don't agree with. TWO general feats or more Humans taking Natural Ambition/Natural Skill/Adapted Cantrip or Skilled Heritage/Planar Scion heritage/etc is still super duper appealing, imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm... I think Adopted Ancestry for other characters should add something to it's text
Special You can only take this feat at Level 1. If you do not have a Level 1 feat to take it you may take it anyway and have to pick it up by level 3.
So a little bit like the Runelord for the Wizard
But why? If my level 10 orc fighter takes a pause from adventuring to live among gnomes for a year, they should be able to take Adopted Ancestry after that event. There is no reason to limit it level 1 or 3.
imo living a year among some folks is hardly enough to adopt their way of thinking in a way that seems reasonable enough for the feat
it's more of a flavour thing admittedly but I think adopting an ancestries way of thinking, its traditions and culture should require you to live a significant part of your life among them, not just a year or two between adventures (except maybe your species just lives for like 5 years anyway)
|
Hmmm... I think Adopted Ancestry for other characters should add something to it's text
Special You can only take this feat at Level 1. If you do not have a Level 1 feat to take it you may take it anyway and have to pick it up by level 3.
So a little bit like the Runelord for the Wizard
But why? If my level 10 orc fighter takes a pause from adventuring to live among gnomes for a year, they should be able to take Adopted Ancestry after that event. There is no reason to limit it level 1 or 3.
imo living a year among some folks is hardly enough to adopt their way of thinking in a way that seems reasonable enough for the feat
it's more of a flavour thing admittedly but I think adopting an ancestries way of thinking, its traditions and culture should require you to live a significant part of your life among them, not just a year or two between adventures (except maybe your species just lives for like 5 years anyway)
You realize a Fighter can suddenly get a familiar and cast spells with even less reasons, right ?
Living in a foreign country for a year, you very easily could pick up one of their cultural weapons and learn its use. More so if already a warrior. This is done all the time.
Having lived overseas, I've seen that a determined person (like say, a hero often is) could pick up most any skill linked to that culture. It requires immersion and investment, but since that's off-camera & handwavy, it's simple to add to the narrative. The experience should change the PC though!
I think the deeper psychological aspects (like many Elf feats) or the magical feats (ditto) would be the steeper hill, yet that's represented by having to pay a whole feat simply to get the privilege of qualifying. It's too steep IMO.
I also think sometimes there's the problem that the PC doesn't have such things in their backstory and don't have time to immerse, yet they can still adopt the Ancestry's ways enough. And gain a mercantile connection to bring in their wares.
"Have you ever even been to Minkai? Or met a Tian person for that matter?!"
"I've read their picture books. A lot."
"You mean those stupid ones you keep quoting?"
"You are already dead."
|
|
I know that it would cause me personally to play fewer humansThis I don't agree with.
I don't think you can disagree with my statement about how it would have affected MY choices :-) :-)
But to be clear, it wouldn't mean I'd NEVER have chosen a human. Just that in some specific cases I'd have gone non human