Breaking this out from the "Is this a fair review" thread for all of us not interested in discussing the nature of hit points.
... are you saying that there are already a 1000 feats for PF2?
Per the official SRD at Nethys, there are 2126 feats today, roughly one year after the game's release. The Core Rulebook alone comes with 801 feats.
Feat Filter - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database (it takes several minutes to complete a search with no filters)
Here's my relevant post from the other thread:I'm sure it is well-intentioned to create different 'two weapon fighting' feats that can be taken variably by fighters, rangers, rogues, etc, because each one has its own fiddly math-iness to ensure no build is better than any other build by too much of a margin.
This is a fair point. PF2 calls everything a feat, so you are correct that putting all the feats in one bucket is comparing apples and oranges (though to extend the analogy, both are still fruit ).It is rather disingenuous to say that there are 2126 feats with "all filters off" when feats are heavily siloed. You are never picking feats with "all filter off".
Focussing for the moment of Skill Feats (which are not gated behind a specific Class or Race), there are currently about 170 Skill Feats on Archives of Nethys after the game has been out for 1 year. Your tastes may vary, but to me, this is a lot of skill feats given that most Pathfinder books are continuing to add to that list.
For the record, depending on how many skills you are trained in, that could easily be choosing between 15 skill feats each time you receive a new skill feat. And, as I mentioned, that number is growing as new books come out.While this is true, you're never choosing amongst the full list of 170, since they are all tied to level, and most often to your level of expertise. Usually you have a choice between 1-4 feats for each skill you're trained in (or whatever level of expertise you've reached).
No you never choose between two thousand choices, but that's hardly the point.It is rather disingenuous to say that there are 2126 feats with "all filters off" when feats are heavily siloed. You are never picking feats with "all filter off".
Browsing through half a dozen books to find those feats that you qualify still means dismissing dozens and dozens of feats.While this is true, you're never choosing amongst the full list of 170, since they are all tied to level, and most often to your level of expertise. Usually you have a choice between 1-4 feats for each skill you're trained in (or whatever level of expertise you've reached).
Personally, I like the new way they have covered advancement in non-combat skills, compared to the skill point hassle that was the heart of DD3.x and PF1.
For the record, depending on how many skills you are trained in, that could easily be choosing between 15 skill feats each time you receive a new skill feat. And, as I mentioned, that number is growing as new books come out.
I think if you take every class and subclass and race feature or ability in all of 5E and call them “feats” you’ll probably get way more than 2000.
Pathfinder 2 calls everything feats. All that means is that PF2 has 2000 things in it.
If I were to DM PF2, I would steal this houserule.I do agree that several of the sub-systems are over-engineered. The general philosophy working here is that most actions require a die roll, which is complicating things a ton. Using medicine to treat wounds out of combat should require no die rolling, at all. Something like "10 minutes to heal 5+your level in hitpoints, 10+level for expert, 15+level for master, 20 + level for legendary" would probably be the way to go. Battlefield medicine or stabilizing a character could require rolls, since those are time-sensitive actions performed under stressful conditions. Crafting should function similarly.
I’m dubious of this assumption. The system doesn’t prescribe any particular adventuring day. The only time it even mentions being fully rested is for extreme encounters, which are meant to be infrequent. Severe-threat encounters actually acknowledge that PCs might not be at full resources as a complicating factor (along with bad luck and poor tactics). If the game were predicated on PCs always being rested, then why not just say that?§ the game is predicated on heroes entering each encounter at or close to full health
If the PCs get into something that’s too dangerous for them, they should flee. The CRB mentions it when discussing severe-threat encounters, but the GMG also calls this out. In the Hexploration subsystem, it discusses one approach that includes having encounters so powerful that the correct tactic is to flee. In that case, it doesn’t matter whether PCs are at full hp. They can’t win regardless. If we accept that as a valid encounter, then it’s not too much of a stretch to consider ones where they’re too depleted as valid too. And if those are valid, they become useful tools for applying pressure to PCs in a dungeon.The classic notion of wandering monsters can't easily be used to motivate heroes to keep adventuring while they still have damage