Horwath
Legend
it's just a theoretical example with spells how bad this solution with maneuvers is.
Level Up (A5E) Issue with maneuvers
VanguardHero
Adventurer
It's a similar case to some Skill Feats in PF2 being 2nd Level and requiring Expert, which was in Core something that only Rogues could achieve. It's not the most intuitive, admittedly, but it's thorough and future proofing, which is good design. And it's not a "Feat tax" to "fix" anything, that's just, at current, the only way to take advantage of those numbers. Could be more in the future, could not be, but either way they are covered. "Adept gets this here, but a specialist Adept leaning into it can get it earlier, here".
Sansang
Villager
Skill Feats in PF2e are general and cross classes. It's fair that at start only a single class could get that specific instance of a feat because, as you said, for future classes the system is already in line to allow them for getting that feat if it's the case.
In here we are talking about a single class that, without multiclassing, can't use a feature he gets on his own at the level it gets it. This is not going to change with new material except for maybe a single new archetype/subclass that will get bonus maneuvers at said level, but I think it's not great to make the the adept and every subclass bad just because maybe in the future there will be a special subclass which will be able to use that feature at that level.
In here we are talking about a single class that, without multiclassing, can't use a feature he gets on his own at the level it gets it. This is not going to change with new material except for maybe a single new archetype/subclass that will get bonus maneuvers at said level, but I think it's not great to make the the adept and every subclass bad just because maybe in the future there will be a special subclass which will be able to use that feature at that level.
Waller
Legend
A class doesn't contain the entire rules of the game. It doesn't tell you how an attack roll works, or what a hit point is, either. It doesn't give you the stats of the quarterstaff in the suggested equipment section, or tell you what AC is. At no point does it explain what these 'proficiencies' it keeps referring to are. By your logic, classes are therefore unuseable.
When you see previews which are part of a book, you have to accept that it's just a preview, and that there's more to the book. Any other expectation is unrealistic and unreasonable. You've been beating this same drum for a couple of days now. If I were them, I'd probably just stop sharing previews at this point.
Sansang
Villager
I'm sorry but I beg to disagree. A preview shows way more informations that the preview itself. It shows the concepts, the ideas and the design goals of the designers. If someone shows me a preview it means, to me, that he/she is proud of what he/she is showing to me and that bit of information is highly important.
Now, since you refer at what I said the previous days, those posts shows you exactly what I mean. At first I was alarmed because from the way the sinergy feats were designed they gave me the idea of tax feats. Then I noticed that Adept Speed is really similar to a tax feat. Now It looks like that to use a feature a PC gained said PC needs to pay a feat (a tax).
As you can see, since the first preview I did read, I've been able to see how the designers likes the concept of tax feats, because obviously the design is coherent (as it should be), and every bits of informations that I acquire seems to confirm that. I obviously would be happy to be wrong.
That's not a problem, the designers needs to design exactly the game they like with the rules they prefer, but since I'm still trying to understand if I want to invest myself in this system, I need to express my concern so that some people can explain me what I misunderstand or see from the wrong point of view.
I fear you're going to be very disappointed with the rest of the previews we have lined up. They're literally just pages from the book, and not every other page that that page might relate to (which would pretty much be the whole book). I think you'd best brace yourself, because we're not able to meet your expectations on this. Sorry!
Sansang
Villager
I think I explained myself poorly, which happens quite often to be honest. In the same way you can understand if you like the style of writing of an author when you read some pages of a book, I think that it's understandable the way a group of designers design a rulebook by reading some pages. Obviously not everything can be clear or obvious, and with the absence of a context some things can be misunderstood, but still you can get an idea. So yeah, the preview of a few pages gives away more than just those few pages.
Normally I would agree with this, except we had the designer come here and actually tell us the "rest of the story", namely that the gap is intentionally designed to allow specific feats to fill.
dave2008
Legend
That is not what the designer said. If I understood correctly, they said there is no gap. The Adept has many other features the make up it is feature quotient. It would not be balanced to give it the additional feature. However, if someone wants to lean into that concept and invest into it, there is a feat for that. The cost of the feat makes providing that extra feature balanced. At least that is how I read @Mike Myler's explanation
EDIT: now is this a clunky design? Possibly, but I don't really do character design much and I don't know all the moving parts. I agree it looks clunky on paper at this point. But in the end - who knows!
Last edited:
dave2008
Legend
I guess the issue I have with your assessment is that you are seeing "taxes" were there aren't any IMO.
- Synergy feats: small portion of the feats for those who want feats that build on top of each other (some actually want this). Not the standard and currently only about 25% of the feats - though I noticed there are stretch goals to add more. They are specifically noted so that you know what you are getting into. They are not "gotchas" so that you accidentally start down a chain and can't get out. And 100% not required - so not a tax.
- Adept. It is not a feat tax as the Adpet is fully featured without taking a feat. If you want an additional feature, then you pay for it. It is not requirement to make it work (which would be a tax), is a cost you pay to get an additional feature. If there was no cost, it wouldn't be balanced.
Similar Threads
Level Up (A5E)
Trade up/down maneuvers
Level Up (A5E)
Banking maneuvers