Thaumaturge is whack. It's a franken-class that breaks the rules...

[Karmagator]

Yeah, FA is extremely cool for playing around with options and rounding out a character. I love it and wouldn't want to play without it. But in my experience you are definitely right - most characters don't need it. They'd just like it.

But not everyone wants that. Not even only new players, some people just like it a bit simpler. Base PF2 is already not simple. When instead of 5 options at a certain level, you give that player like 30, then that is extremely counterproductive.

[The-Magic-Sword]

We actually do use free archetype, and for the most part it doesn't tend to make a difference to role overlap because action saturation is too important, that player sounds hard to deal with, especially since a lot of their 'role' is secretly just damage anyway, which usually isn't a problem for players since more of it is always helpful.

Usually when I see it, its more like the less assertive player and the more assertive player both created charisma-faces or dexterity-monkeys and the more assertive player doesn't leave room for the less assertive one to step in and talk to NPCs, or take point in a dungeon situation or something, and they end up getting used to thinking of the more assertive player as better at it.

Free Archetype is actually kind of nice for it, because the quieter player can re-carve a niche for themselves using it to take medic or something.

[Red Griffyn]

Karmagator wrote:

Yeah, FA is extremely cool for playing around with options and rounding out a character. I love it and wouldn't want to play without it. But in my experience you are definitely right - most characters don't need it. They'd just like it.

FA builds are just much more satisfying. This is because FA provides the following benefits:

1.) Decouples class Feats from multiclassing feats so they don't have to share a feat pool. This is closer to other TTRPG multiclass mechanics but still has the build in double level feat progression restrictions that minimizes front loaded monster builds.

2.) Expedites build completion (L6-L8 vs. L12-L14 usually for my builds).

3.) Feels far less restrictive (some paint this as meaningful choice but to me it always feels like it does away with a facet of illusion of choice in the core system design)

4.) Leads to more narratively satisfying/complex characters (one axis of a PC is their class, so being freed up to take one or more additional axis of PC development without stagnating on your primary axis is more satisfying. People can be more than one thing and grow in more than one direction at the same time. For me this just makes PCs more relateable as well.

5.) Drops nonsensical feat exit taxes. The rule opens up GM adjudication to allow you to leave an archetype without taking 3 feats total where it makes sense (e.g., the guy who wants to spend a hot 2 levels studying a different archetype and only ever takes dedication feats -> that could literally never happen with the FA variant rule).

6.) Opens up narrative continuity player choice options for people (not me) who like to build re-actively to what happens in their campaign. You can't typically afford for everyone to become a martial artist, but maybe after training at a temple it is afforded to you without much ado by the GM via this rule.

7.) Its just the right amount of additional feats to enable but not drown the PC in options. Specifically I mean that there is always another feat or 2 that could 'be good/better' on the build if I am optimizing for something. So I'm always left wanting more feats and never looking around wondering what to spend a feat on. At the same time due to the limits in place on vertical progression there are often breakpoint levels on builds where you don't 'have' to take a feat of any specific kind because its only a fractional gain, which opens up 'guilt free' flavour options to actually be selected making better PCs.

Do I need all those thing? Sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes it is no. But I would never be able to build as satisfying a PC without FA than I can with FA.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think my main issue with FA is that it creates a gap between "players who are using their free archetype to maximize power" and "players who are using their free archetype for one of those archetypes that wouldn't otherwise be worth taking, but are fun and thematic."

Like there's a big difference between the Magus going FA into psychic or the monk going Student of Perfection into Jalmeray Heavenseeker and the characters who are taking like celebrity or dandy.

I feel like in a FA game it's especially important to talk to players about their expectations and goals for the game so we're not ending up with players feeling like they "wasted" their free archetype by not minmaxing.

[Captain Morgan]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think my main issue with FA is that it creates a gap between "players who are using their free archetype to maximize power" and "players who are using their free archetype for one of those archetypes that wouldn't otherwise be worth taking, but are fun and thematic."

Like there's a big difference between the Magus going FA into psychic or the monk going Student of Perfection into Jalmeray Heavenseeker and the characters who are taking like celebrity or dandy.

I feel like in a FA game it's especially important to talk to players about their expectations and goals for the game so we're not ending up with players feeling like they "wasted" their free archetype by not minmaxing.

Yeah. My ideal would be using a curated list of archetypes which are thematically appropriate to the campaign. But even thematics don't fully account for balancing. Animal Tamer and Beast Master are appropriate for Extinction Curse and Quest for the Frozen Flame specifically, but both are marked power upgrades.

[Red Griffyn]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think my main issue with FA is that it creates a gap between "players who are using their free archetype to maximize power" and "players who are using their free archetype for one of those archetypes that wouldn't otherwise be worth taking, but are fun and thematic."

Like there's a big difference between the Magus going FA into psychic or the monk going Student of Perfection into Jalmeray Heavenseeker and the characters who are taking like celebrity or dandy.

I feel like in a FA game it's especially important to talk to players about their expectations and goals for the game so we're not ending up with players feeling like they "wasted" their free archetype by not minmaxing.

But PF2e isn't just combat. The people taking celebrity or dandy are gaining skill bumps, gaining interesting options for out of combat (like gossip lore and even in combat things like acknowledge fan). If you spend all of your feats trying to build a nova IW magus then great, but you won't be good at the rest of the game? Not only that but I need to spend at least a L2 feat and L6 feat to do it. I can achieve a similar result (except where a true strike could happen) with force fang(just a L2 feat), no amped cantrips, and not locking my archetype selection out for 3 feats if you calculate the DPR. So we're still within a reasonable % margin of each other even if you decided to be a society heavy magus.

YMMV based on the AP, homebrew, and kind of GM you have but in a well balanced game being good at combat at the expense of skills (or vice versa) has consequences.

For example, we need to sneak into the royal wedding but maybe we have to fight our way in (potentially giving up our cover and sacrificing mission objectives), or maybe we can sneak in through the sewer (but that is a skill that folks might not have, and still we have to fight some sewer beast), or maybe our L7+ dandy will use their 'party crasher' feat to construct totally legitimate invitations and circumnavigate all encounters/skill challenges/resource drains of the options (and we arrive without being covered in blood/guts or sewer poop). Being able to tactically nuke the guards with an amped IW ranged weapon isn't in any way as powerful as the Dandy Archetype option in this case.

That doesn't mean there aren't a range of better or worse options. The game can't be perfectly balanced and there are a lot of super niche and very weak options that Paizo publishes (far more than there are marginal vertical progression improvement options).

If the GM only wants to run a dungeon crawler then yeah you won't necessarily pick skill heavy options. Vice versa if you're in a AP like strength of thousands that is very skill heavy, pushing into combat only options will get overshadowed by being an awesome skill monkey. We shouldn't keep forgetting there is an entire other part of the game (i.e., roll-play and role-play).

Its okay to have a sub-optimal build. Even in a game with all 4 of the PCs you just identified, its far more likely that people are happy because they actually built what they wanted. If at some point they aren't having fun anymore then kill/build a new character or let them retrain options they don't want anymore. Hell maybe the GM could 'do something' other than being a totally neutral arbitrator and design some more encounters that enable the thing(s) the PCs built for by taking the flavourful option (e.g., maybe a few extra fights on a boat for the pirate archetype so they can swing from ropes).

[Finoan]

Karmagator wrote:

Base PF2 is already not simple. When instead of 5 options at a certain level, you give that player like 30, then that is extremely counterproductive.

And of course, a reminder that in PF1 you get a General Feat at level 1. So have fun choosing one of those.

[exequiel759]

Finoan wrote:

Karmagator wrote:

Base PF2 is already not simple. When instead of 5 options at a certain level, you give that player like 30, then that is extremely counterproductive.

And of course, a reminder that in PF1 you get a General Feat at level 1. So have fun choosing one of those.

Not a general feat, you get a feat. Period. Feat categories in PF1e only existed for certain interactos but not much else. If you were getting a feat from your advancement it always was any feat that you met the prerequisites of.

[exequiel759]

Red Griffyn wrote:

4.) Leads to more narratively satisfying/complex characters (one axis of a PC is their class, so being freed up to take one or more additional axis of PC development without stagnating on your primary axis is more satisfying. People can be more than one thing and grow in more than one direction at the same time. For me this just makes PCs more relateable as well.

I feel there's a common misconception of people that think that the only way to contribute in the game is to take sentinel or other combat-related archetypes, when most of the time the classes that would like to take those are classes that rather than getting a boost they are patching the things their class lacks and that probably should have (I.E, warpriests not having heavy armor) so its not like they are "specializing" into something but rather getting more options.

All archetypes give combat-related or social-related abilities for characters to use, and while I won't deny there's archetypes that are clearly better than others, I think it is far from certain archetypes making other players feel bad because they chose something for flavor.

[Riddlyn]

I use FA builds to do both. If going high enough I will usually choose one archetype for combat and one for flavor.

[Deriven Firelion]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think my main issue with FA is that it creates a gap between "players who are using their free archetype to maximize power" and "players who are using their free archetype for one of those archetypes that wouldn't otherwise be worth taking, but are fun and thematic."

Like there's a big difference between the Magus going FA into psychic or the monk going Student of Perfection into Jalmeray Heavenseeker and the characters who are taking like celebrity or dandy.

I feel like in a FA game it's especially important to talk to players about their expectations and goals for the game so we're not ending up with players feeling like they "wasted" their free archetype by not minmaxing.

I would use FA to increase my power. You would have to limit me or I would do it. My entire goal in these games is to wreck the enemy in combat. I will gladly leave the role-play skill stuff to other players that enjoy that part.

I prefer FA or Dual Class because I like making powerful characters.

[pauljathome]

Captain Morgan wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think my main issue with FA is that it creates a gap between "players who are using their free archetype to maximize power" and "players who are using their free archetype for one of those archetypes that wouldn't otherwise be worth taking, but are fun and thematic."

Like there's a big difference between the Magus going FA into psychic or the monk going Student of Perfection into Jalmeray Heavenseeker and the characters who are taking like celebrity or dandy.

I feel like in a FA game it's especially important to talk to players about their expectations and goals for the game so we're not ending up with players feeling like they "wasted" their free archetype by not minmaxing.

Yeah. My ideal would be using a curated list of archetypes which are thematically appropriate to the campaign. But even thematics don't fully account for balancing. Animal Tamer and Beast Master are appropriate for Extinction Curse and Quest for the Frozen Flame specifically, but both are marked power upgrades.

Its not even that simple. I've sometimes used Free Archetype to cover a weakness in my character or bolster a strength and then used my ACTUAL class feats to grab the "flavour" choices.

[Captain Morgan]

Yeah, the actual problem FA helps with is that PF2 has a class feat bottleneck. There's just a bit too much demand for them between combat enhancers, souped up skill feats, and flavor enhancers like familiars or cauldrons. FA is just the only officially sanctioned way to alleviate this problem, but double class feats is potentially a better solution if you want to lean into multiple aspects of your class identity instead of adding external elements.

[exequiel759]

I would gladly give up most if not all my skill feats for a few extra class feats at certain levels.

I hardly know what to do with them if I'm not playing a healer.

[AestheticDialectic]

Yeah, the degree of skill feats is probably too much. The list is too long, they do too many weirdly minor and specific things. There are only a few I really make sure to get. You get too many of them so end up scraping the bottom of the barrel pretty frequently, plus general feats can be skill feats. Idk, I think we could have reduced the number of skill feats to fewer more impactful ones and gain only five over the course of our career and still allow general feats to be swapped with skill feats. I do like the idea of 14-15 instead of 10 class feats, something like a bonus class feat at levels 5, 9, 13 and 17. Especially if follow up books end up with more class feats. I think that would be what I would want from PF3

[OceanshieldwolPF 2.5]

Eh, I said this at the outset during the playtest: "skill feat". Is it a skill, is it a feat? I've always thought both iterations of PF suffer from the publishing of too many feats that are super, super marginal and completely situational or are the complete opposite - almost auto-picks.

Some of these skill-feats, like Battle Medicine, and Bon Mot are essentially a feat in and of themselves, are active and actions that are skill-conversant and narratively fluent... Others, like Hefty Hauler or Arcane Sense are quite powerful/useful feats with little to no skill-conversancy apart from a requirement. And then there is...Pilgrim's Token. Helps...on a tie in initiative. If you are religious. Or Armor Assist. For those times you were asleep, or are besieged and had a few too many drinks the night before. Really, really useful. Just....terribly game breaking.

[Gortle]

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

almost auto-picks.

Some times the autopicks are simply so there is a cost. So you have to choose one or the other. If you want to pick up the medicine skill feats then you can't pick up these other skill feats.

[AestheticDialectic]

Ideally feats should be picking between different equally potent build options. Powerful things should compete with powerful things so classes have build diversity. The issue is when one thing is clearly always better. Choices between feats should be what kind of fighter, wizard or cleric you are. What your focus is

[Easl]

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Ideally feats should be picking between different equally potent build options. Powerful things should compete with powerful things so classes have build diversity. The issue is when one thing is clearly always better. Choices between feats should be what kind of fighter, wizard or cleric you are. What your focus is

Two considerations and an agreement.

First: the problem is, there is no single answer to "potent for what." If your group sessions are 3 hours of six combats, intimidating glare is more potent than charming liar. If your group sessions are 3 hours of six social encounters, charming liar is more potent than intimidating glare. I am wary of "powerful" being used as shorthand for "useful in combat." That's not the only metric of value.

Second: in terms of game design, the devs probably can't be faulted for not knowing ahead of time which skill feats would be taken and used a lot and which wouldn't. In that respect, it makes sense to offer a wide variety of capabilities in these feats and let the chips fall where they may in terms of which ones players often choose and which ones never get chosen. If they had perfect foresight, this could be laid at their feet as an error. But they don't, so it shouldn't be.

An agreement: having said those things, the remaster and other revision cycles seems like a good time to take stock and update. Use feedback from the community to combine or buff up skill feats nobody takes, for instance, to make them more appealing. This is unfortunately one area where tabletop games don't have the agility of computer-based games; the devs don't have access to anything like a "use counter" to help them do this. So I'd expect them to be fairly conservative about it. But I do agree with your core complaint; the list should present choices that not only allow players to create a wide variety of builds, but which are also all things they expect to get a fair amount of use out of. Regardless of how much your group values combat over noncombat scenes or vice versa, a skill feat that gets rolled/used once per four sessions just isn't as impactful to the PC as a skill feat that gets rolled/used multiple times per session.

[roquepo]

pauljathome wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think my main issue with FA is that it creates a gap between "players who are using their free archetype to maximize power" and "players who are using their free archetype for one of those archetypes that wouldn't otherwise be worth taking, but are fun and thematic."

Like there's a big difference between the Magus going FA into psychic or the monk going Student of Perfection into Jalmeray Heavenseeker and the characters who are taking like celebrity or dandy.

I feel like in a FA game it's especially important to talk to players about their expectations and goals for the game so we're not ending up with players feeling like they "wasted" their free archetype by not minmaxing.

Yeah. My ideal would be using a curated list of archetypes which are thematically appropriate to the campaign. But even thematics don't fully account for balancing. Animal Tamer and Beast Master are appropriate for Extinction Curse and Quest for the Frozen Flame specifically, but both are marked power upgrades.

Its not even that simple. I've sometimes used Free Archetype to cover a weakness in my character or bolster a strength and then used my ACTUAL class feats to grab the "flavour" choices.

Going somewhat back on track, this is how I feel when building a FA Thaumaturge.

[exequiel759]

Easl wrote:

Second: in terms of game design, the devs probably can't be faulted for not knowing ahead of time which skill feats would be taken and used a lot and which wouldn't. In that respect, it makes sense to offer a wide variety of capabilities in these feats and let the chips fall where they may in terms of which ones players often choose and which ones never get chosen. If they had perfect foresight, this could be laid at their feet as an error. But they don't, so it shouldn't be.

I mean, if you print Battle Medicine and Eyes of Numbers in the same book I would expect that one of those is likely going to be more prevalent than the other.

[Pronate11]

exequiel759 wrote:

Easl wrote:

Second: in terms of game design, the devs probably can't be faulted for not knowing ahead of time which skill feats would be taken and used a lot and which wouldn't. In that respect, it makes sense to offer a wide variety of capabilities in these feats and let the chips fall where they may in terms of which ones players often choose and which ones never get chosen. If they had perfect foresight, this could be laid at their feet as an error. But they don't, so it shouldn't be.

I mean, if you print Battle Medicine and Eyes of Numbers in the same book I would expect that one of those is likely going to be more prevalent than the other.

yea, Eye for Numbers really needs a nerf.

[Alchemic_Genius]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think my main issue with FA is that it creates a gap between "players who are using their free archetype to maximize power" and "players who are using their free archetype for one of those archetypes that wouldn't otherwise be worth taking, but are fun and thematic."

Like there's a big difference between the Magus going FA into psychic or the monk going Student of Perfection into Jalmeray Heavenseeker and the characters who are taking like celebrity or dandy.

I feel like in a FA game it's especially important to talk to players about their expectations and goals for the game so we're not ending up with players feeling like they "wasted" their free archetype by not minmaxing.

I find it weird that people treat dandy like it's a weak pick thats only there for memes or flavor.

The base dedication is two expert skills that cover most social situations; since at level 2, assuming you background and 2nd level skill feats go at society feats; society can practically replace most uses of diplomacy provided you're able to tap your social circle while deception covers any lying you have to do; the downtime activity is just gravy.

Gossip lore is an uber knowledge with dubious knowledge tied on. Really solid

Distracting Flattery is a solid when brining your more boorish allies to the social event; if you have an ally the runs Intimidate, you can use this feat to negate the drawback of Coerce; which is really cool. Otherwise you can safely pass on it, but with the right party composition, this feat is a really good support ability.

Fabricated Connections just doubles down on the "allowing you to replace other skills with your dandy skills" thing; letting you sub in for Make and Impression and Request 1/day is probably sufficient to meet your needs when you can't just use your connections from society feats. The Earn Income and Subsist are pretty much ribbon benefits, but like, most games I played in have enough downtime where Earn Income is helpful, so may as well make it off one of your best skills.

Party Crasher is like, the only base dandy feat that I would call situational, but if you're going in on the social aspects of your character (which, let's face it, if you're playing a dandy, you are), it's a garanteed way to get an audience with anyone of social importance, which, if you have the connections feat, means you then can get them as a contact; all at no roll. A week of forcing your way into social events giving you access to basically anyone at no roll is REALLY good if you're clever

[Easl]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think my main issue with FA is that it creates a gap between "players who are using their free archetype to maximize power" and "players who are using their free archetype for one of those archetypes that wouldn't otherwise be worth taking, but are fun and thematic."...

I find it weird that people treat dandy like it's a weak pick thats only there for memes or flavor....

But how much dpr does it add? If it ain't combat, it's fluff! ;)

I kid, but I think that mindset is somewhat easy to fall into. Or maybe many GMs don't put critical, campaign-changing win-the-session social, intrigue, investigative, exploration, etc. encounters in their campaigns. So the players in those campaigns don't see succeeding at social, intrigue, etc... as a high priority.

[The Raven Black]

Or the combat rules are very detailed and balanced, with many parameters and many ways to win.

Whereas the social rules are not.

Which makes them much easier to be an all or nothing.

[Jacob Jett]

This kind of boils down to individual tables and GMs and how much time is going to be spend in combat vs social situations.

And of course, other games have implemented social situations as combat systems (Genesys basically does this).

[MEATSHED]

Easl wrote:

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think my main issue with FA is that it creates a gap between "players who are using their free archetype to maximize power" and "players who are using their free archetype for one of those archetypes that wouldn't otherwise be worth taking, but are fun and thematic."...

I find it weird that people treat dandy like it's a weak pick thats only there for memes or flavor....

But how much dpr does it add? If it ain't combat, it's fluff! ;)

I kid, but I think that mindset is somewhat easy to fall into. Or maybe many GMs don't put critical, campaign-changing win-the-session social, intrigue, investigative, exploration, etc. encounters in their campaigns. So the players in those campaigns don't see succeeding at social, intrigue, etc... as a high priority.

I mean it does have issues, Fabricated Connection mostly replaces diplomacy checks with deception checks, which is a skill you already have trained, probably have a good stat mod in and in any campaign where the dandy/connection abilities are coming up frequently is just a good skill to invest in because of its feats. Focusing on an int skill and charisma skill is also kind of rough for a lot of classes.

[Bluemagetim]

i would imagine fabricated connection is a one trick pony. The first time you use it in a town to earn income it might get you paid but the next time they know you didnt actually do the work you convinced the you did.
I can guess there would be negative repercussions on players who attempt to over use the feat. I mean they are basically acting as a con and the same con on the same people can get you hurt.

[Gortle]

Easl wrote:

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Ideally feats should be picking between different equally potent build options. Powerful things should compete with powerful things so classes have build diversity. The issue is when one thing is clearly always better. Choices between feats should be what kind of fighter, wizard or cleric you are. What your focus is

Two considerations and an agreement.

First: the problem is, there is no single answer to "potent for what." If your group sessions are 3 hours of six combats, intimidating glare is more potent than charming liar. If your group sessions are 3 hours of six social encounters, charming liar is more potent than intimidating glare. I am wary of "powerful" being used as shorthand for "useful in combat." That's not the only metric of value.

Very happy for multiple value metrics and options which are good for particular styles of play.

Easl wrote:

Second: in terms of game design, the devs probably can't be faulted for not knowing ahead of time which skill feats would be taken and used a lot and which wouldn't. In that respect, it makes sense to offer a wide variety of capabilities in these feats and let the chips fall where they may in terms of which ones players often choose and which ones never get chosen. If they had perfect foresight, this could be laid at their feet as an error. But they don't, so it shouldn't be.

Perfectly no. But some of it is pretty obvious.

Easl wrote:

An agreement: having said those things, the remaster and other revision cycles seems like a good time to take stock and update. Use feedback from the community to combine or buff up skill feats nobody takes, for instance, to make them more appealing.

Paizo have clearly been doing this so far which is good. Apart from my own particular hobby horses that they missed.

[ObsessiveCompulsiveWolf]

And now back to the Thaumaturgenstein…

[Squiggit]

Easl wrote:

If they had perfect foresight, this could be laid at their feet as an error. But they don't, so it shouldn't be.

This is kind of a gross oversimplification. Yes, the developers don't have perfect foresight and surely some of the developments within the system and how people play it weren't predicted ahead of time.

But not only did they build this system, they also built many of the adventures people play (which in turn dictate the efficacy and prevalence of certain activities).

You do not need to be an oracle to figure out that certain options are much more generally useful, especially within the framework they've established, than others.

Trying to represent the developers as somehow helpless or incapable of understanding here is kind of silly.

[Errenor]

Squiggit wrote:

You do not need to be an oracle to figure out that certain options are much more generally useful, especially within the framework they've established, than others.

Trying to represent the developers as somehow helpless or incapable of understanding here is kind of silly.

And still there are so many very niche and barely useful options that makes you wonder what was the point. In some parts the game is very measured, strict and reasonable while other parts look senseless. It's confusing sometimes.

[Ravingdork]

Errenor wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

You do not need to be an oracle to figure out that certain options are much more generally useful, especially within the framework they've established, than others.

Trying to represent the developers as somehow helpless or incapable of understanding here is kind of silly.

And still there are so many very niche and barely useful options that makes you wonder what was the point. In some parts the game is very measured, strict and reasonable while other parts look senseless. It's confusing sometimes.

*shrugs*

Different writers with different ideas. Short of having one person with one unifying vision do all the work, which isn’t at all practical, there really isn't much that can be done about it. Different authors are going to have different ideas about what's worth writing about for this game, just as different players are going to find different value in different things. I for one think it's good that we have a wide range of options.

[Jacob Jett]

One person's rubbish is another's treasure and vice versa. At least one of my old players recently confessed to me that he purposefully chooses sub-optimal options because it makes the character more interesting to role-play.

I'm like, as long as everyone's having a good time, it kinda doesn't matter what's optimal or not or senseless to some.

[Karmagator]

And thankfully PF2 is very lenient when it comes to suboptimal choices (except in a few very specific areas), so people like that don't (really) get punished either.

[Errenor]

Ravingdork wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

You do not need to be an oracle to figure out that certain options are much more generally useful, especially within the framework they've established, than others.

Trying to represent the developers as somehow helpless or incapable of understanding here is kind of silly.

And still there are so many very niche and barely useful options that makes you wonder what was the point. In some parts the game is very measured, strict and reasonable while other parts look senseless. It's confusing sometimes.

*shrugs*

Different writers with different ideas. Short of having one person with one unifying vision do all the work, which isn’t at all practical, there really isn't much that can be done about it. Different authors are going to have different ideas about what's worth writing about for this game, just as different players are going to find different value in different things. I for one think it's good that we have a wide range of options.

All true. But my reply was to the post that said noticing bad options was easy with the existing framework in place.

And I don't talk about just a little suboptimal options, see the mentioned Eye for Numbers. I can imagine a lot, but I can't imagine any situation where it could be used and having or not having that feat would change anything for a story (without the GM being insufferable jerk). Well, +2 to Decipher maths has at least some substance, I guess.

[pH unbalanced]

Errenor wrote:

And I don't talk about just a little suboptimal options, see the mentioned Eye for Numbers. I can imagine a lot, but I can't imagine any situation where it could be used and having or not having that feat would change anything for a story (without the GM being insufferable jerk). Well, +2 to Decipher maths has at least some substance, I guess.

Eye for Numbers is a great feat if you are doing heists or infiltrations. You get a lot of good info during the scouting phase automatically and quickly (kind of like Assurance for Perception).

If those aren't the kinds of missions you tend to play...then yeah, not particularly useful.

[exequiel759]

I don't know in which situation it could be useful or important to count stuff fast during an infiltration, or rather, why doesn't the system or GM allow that with the rule of cool instead of forcing a tax feat? The characters are already capable of doing superhuman feats of strength, why a particularly smart character wouldn't be able to do really fast math in a second if they were smart enough? That's the problem of most skill feats; the vast majority of them are things that any sensible GM would be able to handle with just skill checks or just allow it to happen with rule of cool and these skill feats should instead be guidelines in a sidebar rather than options you are forced to take to "make your character feel unique".

I already went very in-depth about this in another topic, but IMO hard coding non-combat actions in the way some skill feats like Eyes for Numbers do is IMO for the worse, since most social-heavy or less combat focused campaigns already lean towards more rule of cool than being very RAW with the rules since not every single interaction in the world is cofidied into the rules. Also the people that enjoy those kinds of campaigns likely have some experience with rules light systems and thus don't like being guided by the rules that much in regards to outside of combat interactions (even my own table, which is far from being heavy on social encounters or heavy RP, doesn't use the attitude rules for NPCs in favor or just RP those interactions). Skill feats aren't a bad idea, in fact, most people that come from either 5e or PF1e would likely be drawn to the idea of improving their skills with their own resource instead of wasting their otherwise combat resources, but the fact that Paizo initially printed a ton of frankly bad skill feats like Eyes for Numbers made the foundation of that system weaker in my opinion, and I feel even Paizo agrees on that since almost every single skill feat printed after the core books were always more insteresting and not as basic or plain as "you can count stuff really fast".

[MEATSHED]

Yeah even some higher proficiency feats are like that, divine guidance gives you the ability to read holy texts to find a "passage, parable, or aphorism" related to a current problem you are facing. It doesn't give the answer to a problem, it gives you guidance on how to deal with it. This is literally one of the main points of holy texts in the real world and it's locked behind having legendary in religion.

[pH unbalanced]

exequiel759 wrote:

I don't know in which situation it could be useful or important to count stuff fast during an infiltration, or rather, why doesn't the system or GM allow that with the rule of cool instead of forcing a tax feat? The characters are already capable of doing superhuman feats of strength, why a particularly smart character wouldn't be able to do really fast math in a second if they were smart enough? That's the problem of most skill feats; the vast majority of them are things that any sensible GM would be able to handle with just skill checks or just allow it to happen with rule of cool and these skill feats should instead be guidelines in a sidebar rather than options you are forced to take to "make your character feel unique".

If you are doing espionage-focused missions, you normally don't want to "Rule of Cool" away the dice rolls -- that's when you get to have your investment in your skills shine. Rule of Cool means letting the investments that your character *does* make count more, so that they feel smart for having done that.

Some advantages that Eye for Numbers could give you are:

No Perception roll necessary to count things -- which I would include counting generic people so you know things like troop deployments and such. So it's like Assurance for Perception, which is not something you can ordinarily get Assurance for. Most GMs would force Perception rolls to get the amount of detail you often want.

No time necessary to count. Normally the Perception check would take at least an action. Since this is actionless, as a GM I would give a circumstance Bonus to Stealth or Deception checks around this since you don't have to spend time studying the things you want to count so you are exposed for less time and/or are less obviously since you didn't have to noticeably pay any attention to the subject.

Generally speaking, I don't think most skill feats take away the *possibility* of people doing a thing without it. They just take away the possibility of doing it without a dice roll. And it rewards the person who wants that to be their shtick.

All that said -- Eye of Numbers is extremely situational. In most campaigns it won't be worth much.

[graystone]

pH unbalanced wrote:

No Perception roll necessary to count things -- which I would include counting generic people so you know things like troop deployments and such.

It isn't overly useful for this: it only counts people but can't tell you anything about them: Can't tell if they are archers, cavalry, casters or cooks and scribes... As such, it's useless in telling if it's a trade caravan or an attack group as ALL it does is count numbers: full stop.

pH unbalanced wrote:

No Perception roll necessary to count things

I don't see DM's asking for rolls for generic estimates unless it's for something that needs done quicky. Who asks for a perception check to glance at the table with obvious potions on it and ask for a perception check to get a ROUGH estimate on the amount?

pH unbalanced wrote:

Most GMs would force Perception rolls to get the amount of detail you often want.

"You immediately learn the number of visually similar items in a group you can see (such as coins, books, or people), rounded to the first digit in the total number. For example, you could look at a case of potion vials and learn that it held about 30 vials, but you wouldn't know that it was exactly 33 vials, how many different types of potions there were, or how many of which type. Similarly, you could look at a pile of 2,805 coins and know that there were about 3,000 coins in all."

I've got to be honest... That's pretty much what DM's I've played with normally give. 'You see about 2 dozen men' or 'it looks like 2 or 3 thousand gold' are things I'd expect to hear without the feat. The difference would be that the feat doesn't seem to take an action but for things like watching for troop movements, it's a non-factor anyway so it's only useful when you're on a time limit like 'we have to grab the best loot quickly before the guards come' type scenarios which I find to be pretty uncommon. Seems super niche ribbon effect IMO: the +2 Decipher Writing, while niche, seems more useful.

[exequiel759]

Rule of cool isn't just handweaving checks assuming the PCs success, rule of cool is allowing PCs to do stuff they normally wouldn't or that the system doesn't normally have rules for that, like for example, assuming a smart PC could count really fast or at least allow them to make a check for that.

If you want to sell Eyes for Numbers as something that avoids GM fiat, then sure, I guess it could be actually useful if your GM is kinda a~@~%%#-ish, but IMO Eyes of Numbers (and a ton of other skill feats) aren't about avoiding GM fiat but rather are the ways the system allows them to make those actions to begin with. But well, let's assume that indeed the intention of those feats is to avoid GM fiat; why does a PF2e, which mainly is a combat sim, needs feats like Eyes for Numbers that don't provide options in combat and the situations in which the feat itself would be useful are very scarce in this kind of system? Let's not forget that stuff like Eyes for Numbers has to compete with other skill feats which not only are less situational, but also way more useful as a whole and that could even be useful in combat like Battle Medicine, Bon Mot, Risky Surgery, Intimidating Glare, Trick Magic Item, Experienced Smuggler, Concealing Legerdemain, Subtle Theft, etc. And I'm only mentioning 1st-level feats here. If all skill feats had the same power level as Eyes for Numbers I guess some would consider it as a viable option, but even among the more situational skill feats Eyes for Numbers is simply too niche to consider as an option.

[exequiel759]

Eyes for Numbers also made me remember that Society is one of the worst culprits of having skill feats that could be otherwise handled by the GM. Read Lips should be something you should be able to do if you speak the language you are trying to discern, all the Connections feats should be just a regular Diplomacy or Society action, and Biographical Eye (which requires you to be master) is literally just a glorified RK check with more steps.

[Bluemagetim]

If the story calls for a bean counting contest and someone comes out with a jar full of beans that feat has you covered.

[Kaspyr2077]

In some campaign out there, someone has made decent use out of having a character with Eyes for Numbers do some military scouting and come back with accurate troop numbers and dispositions. And good for them.

Still, though, true military combat with hundreds of people isn't exactly what PF is for, and you could do a lot more good in any number of situations with the much better feats listed above. I don't think that scouting needs to be gated behind a feat, either. It feels like the feat exists to fill someone's quota.

[Bluemagetim]

You could be playing a criminal character making a deal with other shady types and you quickly count the payment without taking your eyes away from the otherside for too long. You see theres about the right amount so you hand over the goods. Or you see that its not enough and you use a deception check to start combat.

[MEATSHED]

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

Still, though, true military combat with hundreds of people isn't exactly what PF is for, and you could do a lot more good in any number of situations with the much better feats listed above. I don't think that scouting needs to be gated behind a feat, either. It feels like the feat exists to fill someone's quota.

This is kind of the issue with a lot of them. Like yeah in certain campaigns they can come up fairly often but there are usually better systems to do those campaigns in.

[Errenor]

pH unbalanced wrote:

Errenor wrote:

And I don't talk about just a little suboptimal options, see the mentioned Eye for Numbers. I can imagine a lot, but I can't imagine any situation where it could be used and having or not having that feat would change anything for a story (without the GM being insufferable jerk). Well, +2 to Decipher maths has at least some substance, I guess.

Eye for Numbers is a great feat if you are doing heists or infiltrations. You get a lot of good info during the scouting phase automatically and quickly (kind of like Assurance for Perception).

If those aren't the kinds of missions you tend to play...then yeah, not particularly useful.

It's exactly the thing I was talking about. If a GM doesn't allow you to get this info on a mission without that feat, they are that jerk.

exequiel759 wrote:

Eyes for Numbers also made me remember that Society is one of the worst culprits of having skill feats that could be otherwise handled by the GM. Read Lips should be something you should be able to do if you speak the language you are trying to discern

Well, no, lip reading is at least a real skill. I definitely don't have it. Not meaning you can discern a couple of very common words like 'hello', but read a conversation completely, as if you were hearing it. I was very tempted to take the feat a couple of times for my characters. But yet haven't as it's still too niche.

[The Raven Black]

Errenor wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

Errenor wrote:

And I don't talk about just a little suboptimal options, see the mentioned Eye for Numbers. I can imagine a lot, but I can't imagine any situation where it could be used and having or not having that feat would change anything for a story (without the GM being insufferable jerk). Well, +2 to Decipher maths has at least some substance, I guess.

Eye for Numbers is a great feat if you are doing heists or infiltrations. You get a lot of good info during the scouting phase automatically and quickly (kind of like Assurance for Perception).

If those aren't the kinds of missions you tend to play...then yeah, not particularly useful.

It's exactly the thing I was talking about. If a GM doesn't allow you to get this info on a mission without that feat, they are that jerk.

exequiel759 wrote:

Eyes for Numbers also made me remember that Society is one of the worst culprits of having skill feats that could be otherwise handled by the GM. Read Lips should be something you should be able to do if you speak the language you are trying to discern

Well, no, lip reading is at least a real skill. I definitely don't have it. Not meaning you can discern a couple of very common words like 'hello', but read a conversation completely, as if you were hearing it. I was very tempted to take the feat a couple of times for my characters. But yet haven't as it's still too niche.

With Eye for numbers you can get a pretty precise assessment of an amount of things by looking at the heap for 2 seconds.

Try doing this IRL. I know I can't.

And the feat also gives you a circumstance bonus to other checks.

The feat is not required to count things. But it makes you extremely good at this.