Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 9119841" data-attributes="member: 6778210">Sorry if I came off a bit brusque, just that specific case irritates me.And when it comes down to it, I think most of the class feats are actually pretty dope, though there are some that are meant to be more ribbon-ish or character-specific: you may not need it most of the time, but some players might want it. For some games they kind of let you make it up, for Paizo here they made it into a Feat that you can choose. And the thing is that you can select the more niche stuff because your power level isn't really as dependent on your Feat choice: your power is largely built into the class itself and its numbers, the Feats generally expand or focus on how you exert that power.I don't think they are meaningless, but I do think they lack necessity. I think that's by design: there aren't skill feats or general feats that are necessarily must haves, but there are some that are more useful than others if you want them to be. But there are a whole bunch you can just take to sort of back-fill your character concept, which I think is what is meant. I think the problem is that we've been taught to optimize in such a way that we look at Feats that are limited and dismiss them.The numbers are really what's meant to push you away: attacking anything at -10 is generally not a great look unless you really outclass it or have a gimmick around it. Your third action (though not necessarily your last) is generally meant to be something else, whether it be a Step to force the enemy to waste an Action moving, a Feint or Demoralize to make your own attacks stronger, or a Knowledge Check to try and divine something about your attacker. The problem is that the idea of more attacks having a penalty is generally not in line with the most recent iterations of the d20 paradigm, so it can be a bit harder to adapt. There's no disadvantage for a Fighter attacking 3 times in 5E; in fact, it's basically a necessity for them to get every attack in they can. With PF2, it's more meant to maximize your potential attacks: if you can attack once but somehow force an enemy into an Attack of Opportunity on their turn, that's more valuable than 3 attacks in your own. For example, Tripping an enemy has value that it doesn't in 5E because getting up triggers an AoO in PF2. Now everyone doesn't have one, but to the guys that do that's incredibly valuable because there's no multiple attack penalty for a reaction attack. I can understand the feeling, since that's how I figured it was before I played with it. You move slower and do fewer things because you want that benefit. But when you use your Reaction to fully negate some damage, it's just a great feeling because it feels like you have a shield. Like, I had a guy with a Tower Shield who moved like a snail when he used it but he was almost untouchable because of it. He only got one attack when he used it to full potential, but he was damn hard to tag back. It's a very different kind of feel to someone who is nimble without a shield who can run around, attack more, etc.I mean, you can always wait for them to update Nethys, too. But I'm excited for the update because it does feel like they are doing what I wanted Wizards do with the Ranger and make some improvements to classes that really needed it. Them fixing the Warpriest by making them better fighters is exactly what I wanted.-</blockquote>

Verification