|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guns & Gears Page 25
Reverse Engineer
Lvl 2 class feat
Requires Expert Crafting, the Inventor only gets that at lvl 3, making this a viable option for lvl 4 class feat, not lvl 2. I don't know if there's any other class feats with this kind of restriction.
Reverse Engineering is a 4th level feat for the Scrounger archetype. So I'm thinking that maybe one of those 2 thinks happenned:
1st - They copy/paste the feat without removing the Expert pre-requisite.
2nd - They intended this to be a lvl 4 class feat.
As it is, you can't buy it at lvl 2 without the use of the free archetype rule, choosing some very specific archetypes.
I've never understood the mindset of it being seen as a negative/bad thing for a feat to be in between two options, which is basically what's happening here. I doubt anyone would bring up whether it should be a 2nd level feat vs a 4th level feat if it was 4th level and required expert or if it was 2nd level and required trained. So... what's the problem with something in between that with marginal benefits for some people?
Same thing with casters getting feats that are "level 1" despite most non-human characters not getting to actually take them until level 2. There just so happens to be more of those examples because there needs to be for things like that human feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only thing I can find is the Pathfinder Archetype from the World Guide. Let's you increase one skill from Trained to Expert at Lv 2.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood the mindset of it being seen as a negative/bad thing for a feat to be in between two options, which is basically what's happening here. I doubt anyone would bring up whether it should be a 2nd level feat vs a 4th level feat if it was 4th level and required expert or if it was 2nd level and required trained. So... what's the problem with something in between that with marginal benefits for some people?
Same thing with casters getting feats that are "level 1" despite most non-human characters not getting to actually take them until level 2. There just so happens to be more of those examples because there needs to be for things like that human feat.
It's not a negative/bad thing. It's just pointing out Occam's razor.
What's more likely? Paizo purposefully designed a feat for a main class that can only be taken at the level it's listed by one specific faction-locked archetype from the Lost Omens: World Guide, while using an optional, non-core, rule from the Game Mastery Guide.
Or somebody did a typo.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood the mindset of it being seen as a negative/bad thing for a feat to be in between two options, which is basically what's happening here. I doubt anyone would bring up whether it should be a 2nd level feat vs a 4th level feat if it was 4th level and required expert or if it was 2nd level and required trained. So... what's the problem with something in between that with marginal benefits for some people?
Same thing with casters getting feats that are "level 1" despite most non-human characters not getting to actually take them until level 2. There just so happens to be more of those examples because there needs to be for things like that human feat.
It's not a negative/bad thing. It's just pointing out Occam's razor.
What's more likely? Paizo purposefully designed a feat for a main class that can only be taken at the level it's listed by one specific faction-locked archetype from the Lost Omens: World Guide, while using an optional, non-core, rule from the Game Mastery Guide.
Or somebody did a typo.
OR, like I said, they left it at level 2 so it could be taken by anyone taking the Inventor Dedication with the Basic Breakthrough feat. If it were level 4, anyone multi-classing would need to take Basic Breakthrough, and then wait until level 8 to take Advanced Breakthrough, when their Crafting would already likely be at Master.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood the mindset of it being seen as a negative/bad thing for a feat to be in between two options, which is basically what's happening here.
The mindset is: This is something that it's being sold as a lvl 2 feat choice for me, them why I can't get this at lvl 2?
I doubt anyone would bring up whether it should be a 2nd level feat vs a 4th level feat if it was 4th level and required expert or if it was 2nd level and required trained.
Yes, no one would bring this up, because it would have been a lvl 4 feat that you can pick at lvl 4, or a lvl 2 feat that you can pick at lvl 2.
So... what's the problem with something in between that with marginal benefits for some people?
Because it involves at least a good understand of the rules to circunvent the restrictions on the feat, and one of the points of 2e is to be more coherent than 1e with this sorta situations.
Same thing with casters getting feats that are "level 1" despite most non-human characters not getting to actually take them until level 2. There just so happens to be more of those examples because there needs to be for things like that human feat.
Most non-human characters still get a lvl 1 class feat, based on their choice of patron, muse, thesis, etc. If those feats were lvl 2 feats, casters would start the game with lvl 2 class feats. Also, inventor is not a caster and this is not a lvl 1 feat.
This is a lot like Skill Feats that require Expert and are level 2. There are plenty of them. Their level requirement is the lowest level that anyone can meet the prereq, not the lowest level that everyone can meet the prereq. There isn't a problem here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OR, like I said, they left it at level 2 so it could be taken by anyone taking the Inventor Dedication with the Basic Breakthrough feat. If it were level 4, anyone multi-classing would need to take Basic Breakthrough, and then wait until level 8 to take Advanced Breakthrough, when their Crafting would already likely be at Master.
Firstly, I never said it shouldn't be level 2. Personally I think its requirement should be trained in crafting not expert. I think they just copied the wording from Reverse Engineering and made it -2 levels (as is the standard formula for "Class Feat to Non-MC Archetype feat") without realizing nobody could actually take it with that requirement.
Secondly, why? The standard for MC Archetypes is half-level access to feats. Why, out of every feat in the game, is this one accessible to the MC Inventor and an actual Inventor at the same level and in the most obtuse way possible?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a lot like Skill Feats that require Expert and are level 2. There are plenty of them. Their level requirement is the lowest level that anyone can meet the prereq, not the lowest level that everyone can meet the prereq. There isn't a problem here.
The difference here though is that skill feats are available to every class so in that pool, there are people that can take it then. Even casters can get 1st level feats with common options.
That isn't the case here: there are exactly 0% of Inventors that can take it without optional rules. It's ONLY possible to get it after the level it is listed at: it doesn't seem right that both the multiclass inventor and the actual class inventor get access to the feat at the exact same level even though one has a limit of 1/2 level for class feat availability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a lot like Skill Feats that require Expert and are level 2. There are plenty of them. Their level requirement is the lowest level that anyone can meet the prereq, not the lowest level that everyone can meet the prereq. There isn't a problem here.
Reverse Engineer isn't a skill feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt anyone would bring up whether it should be a 2nd level feat vs a 4th level feat if it was 4th level and required expert or if it was 2nd level and required trained.
Well... yeah, that's literally the point of the topic. If the perceived problem didn't exist people wouldn't be talking about that perceived problem.
I'm kind of surprised at the aggressive reaction to this thread. It doesn't seem strange at all that some people might see a feat that's literally impossible to take at the level it comes online as something that might be an editing mistake, because that's generally not how feats work. Especially since as a result it means weapon inventors only qualify for a single second level feat... which again is something you can work around but also doesn't really have any precedent in PF2 and feels a bit janky.
I doubt anyone would bring up whether it should be a 2nd level feat vs a 4th level feat if it was 4th level and required expert or if it was 2nd level and required trained.Well... yeah, that's literally the point of the topic. If the perceived problem didn't exist people wouldn't be talking about that perceived problem.
I'm kind of surprised at the aggressive reaction to this thread. It doesn't seem strange at all that some people might see a feat that's literally impossible to take at the level it comes online as something that might be an editing mistake, because that's generally not how feats work. Especially since as a result it means weapon inventors only qualify for a single second level feat... which again is something you can work around but also doesn't really have any precedent in PF2 and feels a bit janky.
I'm legit confused... is the implication here that my reaction you quoted was aggressive? I posted in this thread exactly one time stating my opinion and explaining the logic behind it to a wall of disagreement that I chose not to respond to, because I knew it would be counter-productive as both sides had already made their points and people can come to whatever conclusion they want.
I'm not even claiming I know that it's not a typo. What I said was that I don't understand the assumption that it is / the mindset that goes along with that given x, y, and z explained in the post. Clearly I'm in the minority here and many people see the current wording as a clear indication of an error. But the fact that many people disagree with me does not make me aggressive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On an unrelated note IF the current text is in error I think the most likely scenarios are:
1. The feat is meant to require trained prof, not expert.
2. The Inventor is supposed to (or used to) have expert crafting at level 2 instead of level 3. I know that getting class features like that at even levels isn't typically done, but it's worth noting that they get master and legendary in crafting as soon as possible, so it makes sense for them to get expert as soon as possible as well.
On an unrelated note IF the current text is in error I think the most likely scenarios are:
1. The feat is meant to require trained prof, not expert.
2. The Inventor is supposed to (or used to) have expert crafting at level 2 instead of level 3. I know that getting class features like that at even levels isn't typically done, but it's worth noting that they get master and legendary in crafting as soon as possible, so it makes sense for them to get expert as soon as possible as well.
#1 doesn't make sense IMO, as every inventor by default is trained in craft [even multiclass] though I did notice a few archetype feats in the new books that had requirements you already had to have before the feats could be taken. So while it's possible, I'd hope it's not the reason.
#2 sounds likely IMO: either inventors used to get skills more often or they specifically got craft improvements quicker.
Does anyone still have the playtest?
Maybe they started with Expert Crafting, or maybe a subclass did?