Well, I have trouble understanding why the bladechanter must be "Fighter / Wizard" and not "Fighter / Sorcerer" or "Rogue / Bard" (Even though I don't know if Bards will be full casters in LevelUp). Nothing in this feats tree remind me of a wizard or a fighter, so to me it's quite an arbitrary decision and limitation. On top of that, it's a feat tree, which is a dangerous path to tax feats. As far as I can remember 5e feats have no requirements other than race (which I find iffy already) or being or not a spellcaster in general (which i find reasonable).
class exclusive feats are bad idea.
Only the new synergy feats have class limitations, it is explained right there in the OP. There are 90 feats total. 42 are updated 5e feats (no prerequisites) and 48 are new. Of those new ones, 24 are new synergy feats (like the example shown) and 24 or general feats with no perquisites.
I think for compatibility issues the choice between a feat and ASI was never going to be taken away (i.e. you get either ASI or feat)Damn, was really hoping Level Up would sidestep the "Want to take a Feat, huh? Well how well did you roll at CharGen for starting stats?" problem. Leads me to couple questions that aren't exactly Feat related, but are relevant to the opportunity cost of taking Feats.
First, did Point Buy/Standard Array get bumped up to not be worse than average compared to rolling? If not I'm worried that more appealing Feats will lead to more rolling for stats, which results in either party members at fundamentally different levels of power throughout the campaign or "suspiciously" good rolled stats.
Second, speaking of starting stats, what was the assumption of party stats when developing the (fantastically thorough) Monster Math? Did it assume the PB/SA levels? If based on that, combined with reliably obtainable magic weapons, Feats will be a lot more appealing instead of feeling like shinies to distract you from that sweet sweet +5 Ability Modifier you should've rolled better for at the start of the campaign.
Concern about the o5e skeleton aside, Synergy Feats are cool as hell and I'm really looking forward to seeing that Untamed one
I disagree, but of course I didn't reply to your comment. I mean PF2 is built completely on the idea of everything (almost) is a class feat and it works great. Personally I don't care for multiclass feats because we don't use multiclassing, so they are waste for us. But that doesn't make them a bad idea.
I don't know enough about feat design to say if these are equivalent or not, but I again I don't really care about multiclass feats as we will not use them. I would say your idea seems to be a good one, so why don't you just do it your way? This is a book of houerules, you should feel free to make tweaks that you like.
Written in AE5 Way though, and at the moment they gave us an example of the way they write feats that I don't really love, like at all. Honestly I would have preferred to see how they rewrote 5E bad feats like linguist and such, probably I would have loved that and never had a second though about it, but at the moment their presentation about feats is: Class requirements and feat trees.
Only Synergy feats have class prequisites. They are designed specifically for multiclass characters.
I see your point: I like feats that do not require specific class limitations (or features), but once you do that the feat itself is necessarily more generic. If you have a feat that requires class features, the feat can build upon those features and become more interesting (and focused).
ok.
