We need more feats!

[littlebum2002]

I've been playing d&d for a short while now, but long enough to have a pretty good idea of what makes a character good or not. But it seems to me that, after awhile, all the characters seem to merge together.

Melee build? A dip in barbarian to get rage, 2 dips in fighter for bonus feats.

Cleric? Level up until you can become a dwoemerkeeper or radiant servant of Pelor.

Bard? Bard 6 then a combination of Lyric Thaumaturge, Sublime Chord, and Virtuoso.

Obviously I am simplifying this a LOT , but my point is, classes aren't really where you customize your characters. You customize them with FEATS.

(Also, I know the above classes are not really optimal, I was just pulling stuff out my behind. Please don't discuss optimal class levels)

The way to customize a character is with feats. There is a huge range of possibilities, they all do fun stuff, and they can branch off in many different directions. I can make 5 different melee characters with the exact same classes and they'll all be vastly different due to feats.

So, in my opinion, I rather have a leveling system with much more feats (like pathfinder), but sacrificing other strengths to balance it out. The way I see the game, feats are the #1 source of fun.

Does anyone else feel this way? Are you in love with feats as well? Do you have 2 level dips into fighter for completely unrelated classes just for the bonus feats?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Red Fel]

Well, that's just "Obvious game design is obvious," isn't it?

Of course feats are where substantial customization comes in. Otherwise, every class that advances spellcasting progression only advances spellcasting progression, every melee class only advances melee, and so on.

... Except that's not entirely true, either.

Yes, feats are a major source of customization. They're Metamagic, they're Weapon Focus, they're your mystical heritage and your source of strength beyond what your class gives you.

But there are just so many classes, aren't there? I mean, if you're playing Fighter until level 20, of course you'll look like almost any other Fighter 20, barring the differences in feats. But you might instead dip into Barbarian for some rage, or Psionics for powers, or Duskblade for spells. Or you might dip into Warblade and learn how melee can really work. And maybe your Cleric doesn't want to be a Dweomerkeeper or Radiant Servant. Maybe she wants to kick butt and take names as a Ruby Knight Vindicator.

And it doesn't end with classes, does it? If you can't tell the difference between a Jermlaine Fighter and a Warforged Fighter, you're just not paying attention. Races can change flavor and mechanics! And let's not forget templates, grafts, and assorted guild affiliations, divine blessings, visits to magical locations...

Feats can be exciting, yes. But if you're relying only on them to give variety to your game, you're missing out on just how much cool stuff your game has to offer.

... And I'm done playing cheerleader.

[Immabozo]

Depends. There are certain class features that cannot be duplicated. Like a War Hulk can hit three squares per hit, with a capstone of hitting all threatened squares. War Hulk can also hit 4 squares with a single thrown boulder.

Others (like spell casting) are obvious.

I do agree, feats are nice and definitely can put the icing on the cake, but If feats were everything, the fighter would be better than it is, instead of a dip. Dungeoncrasher fighter is often better, which trades away feats (at 2 and 6) for a class feature. ACF's are often better that feats. Pounce can be gotten at the cost of a 1 level dip in barbie. Otherwise, it's an epic feat.

[Helcack]

Personally I think it's the player that makes the character is the one who really decides how creative and interesting the character ends up. Feats are fun, but personally I enjoy prestige classes and multi-classing in a bunch of classes because together they allow a character to be almost completely unique. Feats are bomb-diggedy as well though and one of the classes I tend to multi-class in is a fighter variant(though often for one of their cool abilities rather than a feat)

[Novawurmson]

I love feats, too! I think that there should be enormously more feats. The feats presented in the CRB in particular are simply not enough to properly customize a character.

I've been toying with the idea of trying to write 100 feats (and/or collect all of the useful feats from the PF/3.5 books I use).

[Flickerdart]

You're clearly not familiar with very many builds, OP. There are many frequently used classes you're missing, and you don't seem to realize how many feats repeat across builds. Melee? You're either stacking up Power Attack and Shock Trooper trees, or going with Improved Trip and the lot. Cleric? You're probably looking at a DMM setup. Bard? Words of Creation, Song of the White Raven, Song of the Heart, Snowflake Wardance, DFI...I could go on.

The thing about feats is, you get three times fewer feats than classes, and most of the good ones have prerequisites. So during your character's career, you might have the time to get two feat chains completed, or possibly even three if you really wring out some DCFS nonsense. Meanwhile, you get 20 character levels to play with just for showing up.

Feats support what your character does by letting you qualify for stuff and tweaking your options, but they are not what defines characters.

[ericp65]

Not being able to give a given character all the feats I feel he or she needs is my #1 source of frustration with 3.5e (but I'm not willing to play any other edition). This is why I like the Iron Heroes method: each character gains a bonus feat at every even-numbered character level above first. However, even this strategy doesn't completely satisfy me.

Then, there's the issue of Weapon Specialization. My understanding is that only a Fighter 4 or Warblade 6 can take this feat, so for quite a while, I've rebuilt characters to include enough Fighter levels to take the feat. I don't like burning that many levels just to specialize, and more recently, I've seen enough commentary to the effect that this is not good character-building. Maybe I'm placing too much value on specialization?

Could be that someone like me would do better to also adopt the 25-level non-epic progression, rather than stick with the 20-level progression (which feels restrictive, to me; I don't consider 20th level to be all that high, especially for multiclassed characters, and extremely few of mine are single-classed).

[Flickerdart]

Then, there's the issue of Weapon Specialization. My understanding is that only a Fighter 4 or Warblade 6 can take this feat, so for quite a while, I've rebuilt characters to include enough Fighter levels to take the feat. I don't like burning that many levels just to specialize, and more recently, I've seen enough commentary to the effect that this is not good character-building. Maybe I'm placing too much value on specialization?
Weapon Specialization is one of the worst feats in the game - the increase to damage it gives is marginal, and the cost of taking it is high. Why do you go so far out of your way to take it?

[lsfreak]

Weapon Specialization is one of the worst feats in the game - the increase to damage it gives is marginal, and the cost of taking it is high. Why do you go so far out of your way to take it?

For example, you're sinking 4-6 class levels and two feats into +1atk/+2dmg. Going one level in rogue + the Craven feat saves you 3-5 class levels for an average damage increase of 3.5+charlevel when you're flanking. That's about the least optimal way of adding bonus damage for most melee, and it's still double the extra damage of Weapon Spec at minimum, for a single level dip + feat.

Power Attack gives much better increases that you can alter on the fly for zero class levels. Multipliers such as Leap Attack and mitigators such as Shock Trooper make it even better.

For finessing characters, a level of swordsage + Shadow Blade gives you +Dex increase to damage (and, very likely, +2d6 sneak that can be combined with Craven above, for 1-2 class levels + 2 feats for Dex+2d6+charlevel extra damage).

A level in barbarian + extra rage gives you +2 to +6 extra damage and +2 attack and the ability to full-attack on a charge (or, +2 to +6 damage, an extra attack, and full-attack on a charge), again for the same feat investment and 3-5 levels less class investment.

And so on. For +1atk/+2 damage, Weapon Spec suuuuucks for the investment it takes. I'd probably avoid them even if they were a single feat with zero class requirements, with the exception of using them for deeper feat chains (Jack B Quick builds come to mind).

[Immabozo]

And so on. For +1atk/+2 damage, Weapon Spec suuuuucks for the investment it takes. I'd probably avoid them even if they were a single feat with zero class requirements, with the exception of using them for deeper feat chains (Jack B Quick builds come to mind).

Which raises the question, what would make them worth it? Would a +5 to hit and damage be worth it?

[lsfreak]

Which raises the question, what would make them worth it? Would a +5 to hit and damage be worth it?

Probably, for .75BAB TWF to more reliably land their huge numbers of +d6's from sneak/skirmish, or two-handers to reliably land their -lots/+doublelots power attacks. It's the large amounts of +atk that's desireable, at that level. Even then, though, the feat's probably going to primarily be early-game (rocket tag hoooo) filler rather than the core of a build, simply because "+numbers" feats are rather boring compared even to "better +numbers in this specific situation" (Craven, Knowledge Devotion, Power Attack), let alone something that actually lets you do something new and different (Travel Devotion, Staggering Strike, Knockdown).

Really, to remake Weapon Focus/Spec, I'd take a good look at what Knowledge Devotion does at what levels.

[Immabozo]

I gotta say, I love the knockback feat + power attack, reach and combat reflexes. Amazing defense!

[Akal Saris]

Frankly, I prefer PF's feat system of 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc. Feats come far too slowly at the early levels in my taste, which makes a lot of low-level builds similar since there are often 'must-have' feats such as power attack or point blank shot and precise shot.

[littlebum2002]

First, I do agree that race and class customization is fun, but your race only gets picked once, and picking to many classes just means you're not very good at any of them.

I agree with the pathfinder feat progression. I try to get as many games I am involved in as possible to take the Pathfinder feat progression, where you take the feat every other level. It just seems more fun that way, where you have so much extra going on. Every other time you level up, you get that fun moment of digging through splatbooks to find an interesting feat that makes your character do something new you haven't tried yet.

I also agree with the Power Attack and Point Blank Shot problem. It really makes you want to play as a human when starting the game, just to get the needed feats quickly. Maybe you could solve that by giving an extra bonus feat, but only for games starting at 1st level. Otherwise, you pick enough feats where it shouldn't' matter anyway.

[eggynack]

Which raises the question, what would make them worth it? Would a +5 to hit and damage be worth it?
Well, folks sometimes put knowledge devotion on builds, so I'd have to say that the answer is yes. I'm pretty sure that people take it regular style sometimes, as opposed to as a way to gain parity with full BAB classes on a melee build. You could probably do somewhat worse than +5/+5 and be fine. Weapon focus already isn't the absolute worst thing in the world. It's just really mediocre and numerical.

There're plenty of strictly numerical feats that people take on a regular basis without even thinking about it. For example, folks with access to it generally take multiattack, and an across the board +3 to attack would be strictly superior to that. Similarly, having proficiency in the weapon you're using is just a +4 to attack, and yet people take it for spiked chains. You might as well be taking hyper weapon focus (spiked chain) to some extent. Two weapon fighting can't be as easily expressed, particularly due to its nature as a prerequisite, but regular two weapon fighting is still purely numerical. There's an illusion that these feats are providing a character with options, but you're just adding on bigger numbers at the end of the day.

[Jeff the Green]

Which raises the question, what would make them worth it? Would a +5 to hit and damage be worth it?


Well, folks sometimes put knowledge devotion on builds, so I'd have to say that the answer is yes. I'm pretty sure that people take it regular style sometimes, as opposed to as a way to gain parity with full BAB classes on a melee build. You could probably do somewhat worse than +5/+5 and be fine.

Frankly, no. I want my feats to give me new things to do, not just give me bigger numbers. Metamagic opens new realms of possibilities of things to do with your spells; the TWF chain, as lousy as it is, brings precision and crit-fisher builds into feasibility; Martial Study/Stance, Bind Vestige, and Shape Soulmeld give entirely new things to do. The only reasons, in my opinion, to take Knowledge Devotion are that its fluff is cool (I mean, 'I'm so smart that I can hit my enemies harder' is pretty awesome) and that you can get it for the cost of a level of (cloistered) cleric instead of the cost of a feat.

[eggynack]

Frankly, no. I want my feats to give me new things to do, not just give me bigger numbers. Metamagic opens new realms of possibilities of things to do with your spells; the TWF chain, as lousy as it is, brings precision and crit-fisher builds into feasibility; Martial Study/Stance, Bind Vestige, and Shape Soulmeld give entirely new things to do. The only reasons, in my opinion, to take Knowledge Devotion are that its fluff is cool (I mean, 'I'm so smart that I can hit my enemies harder' is pretty awesome) and that you can get it for the cost of a level of (cloistered) cleric instead of the cost of a feat.
Still, would you take something like exotic weapon proficiency (some weapon that opens up character build space)? Like, if you're doing the whole gnomish quickrazor using factotum thing, do you do that without the proficiency? A +5/+5 is strictly better than a weapon proficiency in nearly any situation, and people take proficiencies just about any time they want a weapon they don't have a proficiency in.

Edit: Actually, my claim might be able to be applied more universally. If an exotic weapon gives you choices as opposed to numbers, and if choices are better than numbers, no matter how high those numbers are, martial characters should pick up a spiked chain that they use non-proficiently. I think that new things to do are great, and that feats should be used for that purpose as much as possible, but blindly following the path of options over numbers doesn't make much sense to me. Really, many of the best melee feats, in the game are purely numerical. Power attack, for example. Feats like that get excluded from the dictate of options over numbers, because power attack numbers are really big. There's a line somewhere, and I don't know where it is.

Double edit: The amount of feats that can be expressed numerically might even be broader than that. You mentioned the two weapon fighting line as something that gives you abilities instead of numbers, but even when we're looking at the extra attacks part of the line, we can still measure the amount of damage these things are giving to a build. We could pretty easily set up your TWF rogue against a monster, and our +5/+5 rogue against the same monster, and mathematically determine which deals more damage. A good chunk of the things melee folks do is related to numbers. We just put a veil between us and those numbers most of the time.

[ericp65]

Weapon Specialization is one of the worst feats in the game - the increase to damage it gives is marginal, and the cost of taking it is high. Why do you go so far out of your way to take it?

I think it's an old habit from 2nd ed days, when I wanted characters to get to double specialization whenever possible, striving for +3 to hit and +3 to damage. So, in 3rd edition and 3.5e, the idea got stuck in my head that I should try for the highest level of weapon specialization wherever possible. I couldn't see the forest for the trees, and no one I gamed with had any commentary on this, one way or the other, except for one DM who encouraged such behavior. Those were the days (years, really) of other bad habits, like rarely ever taking a PrC, or even more than two base classes in the case of multiclass characters. My gaming groups and I were barely aware of much beyond core 3.5e books; much of my discovery and learning during the past decade has been solo, and only recently have I discovered on-line communities, such as Usenet, this site, Brilliant Gameologiests, etc. In less than a year, whole new worlds of options have been revealed to me, and the amount of information is staggering! I'm making up for lost time, and revisiting all my characters (three 3-ring binders full), to correct the many mistakes I've made in the past, and to make the characters more valuable assets to whatever parties they might find themselves a part of in the future.

[Vaz]

First, I do agree that race and class customization is fun, but your race only gets picked once, and picking to many classes just means you're not very good at any of them.
Not really. Barbarian, Fighter, (Cloistered) Cleric, Totemist, (Feat) Rogue, Psychic Warrior, Ardent, Monk, Spellthief, Paladin, are all dip friendly classes. Some require a little investment elsewhere in the build like Feats; Open Chakra, Practised Manifester, Master Spellthief, etc, but a Sor18/Paladin 2 is a vastly different beast than Sor20.

Throw in dipfriendly PRC's like UrPriest or Necrocarnate and you are cooking. Even Wizards don't need much investment: Wizard 3/Master Specialist 10/Incantatrix 3/Archmage 4 for example.

[Icewraith]

I've started houseruling feat chaining for crappy progressions like weapon specialization and two-weapon fighting. Burn one feat and you get the entire progression when you would qualify for it (if you took it early) or if you would qualify for the entire chain at the level you're taking it, gain the next feat in the chain every other level until you run out of feats in the chain. Feats on the same "tier" that you qualify for simultaneously work similarly (generally anything with "improved" in the title that has a prerequisite feat).

This takes a little modifying with some of the feats in phb 2, so I give dodge and mobility as a chain, then if the player grabs spring attack it grants them bounding assault and rapid blitz (and whirlwind attack) when they would qualify etc. The core weapon focus/specialization progression is its own chain and then weapon mastery and weapon supremacy are their own chain. The entire core two-weapon fighting progression and dual strike (I think?) is one chain.

Feats like skill focus you can even pick up for free once every 4 levels (but they don't chain into anything if you didn't use a "Real" feat slot on them).

It sort of parallels spell improvement with caster level, although it doesn't eliminate linear fighters quadratic wizards by any stretch of the imagination. At third level the wizard gets another magic missile and the fighter who picked up dodge at first level gains mobility for free. Total homebrew, but with the amount of feats in 3.5, potentially getting stuck with only 7 of them, many of which have onerous and boring prerequisites, sucks.

[Psyren]

@ OP: Play Pathfinder, we customize with archetypes rather than feats (though we have those too.) You can literally have an entire party of six Bard 20s with all of them filling very different roles.

[Flickerdart]

@ OP: Play Pathfinder, we customize with archetypes rather than feats (though we have those too.) You can literally have an entire party of six Bard 20s with all of them filling very different roles.
Archetypes are just ACFs and sub levels, aren't they?

[Dusk Eclipse]

Similar but in my opinion Archetypes go further than simple ACF, some of them really change how you play the class, for example synthetist summoners are similar to gishes while normal summoners are masters of BFC and action economy explotation (via summons and Eidolon)

[Psyren]

Archetypes are just ACFs and sub levels, aren't they?

It goes a lot further than that. A regular bard plays very differently from a Sound Striker Magician Bard, who in turn plays very differently from a Dervish Dancer bard, who in turn plays very differently from an Arcane Duelist, and all four play differently from a Songhealer Animal Speaker etc. An ACF nudges your class in one direction but doesn't fundamentally change how it plays - an archetype is much more extensive.

[Curmudgeon]

There are literally thousands of feats in the D&D 3.5 game, and Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law) applies: most of them are crud. That is, most feats are less powerful and less useful than most class features. That's part of why the Fighter, whose main class feature is a limited selection of additional feats, is intrinsically weak.

To my mind, classes really are where you customize your characters, thanks to the plethora of alternative class features (ACFs), class variants, and substitution levels.

[eggynack]

It goes a lot further than that. A regular bard plays very differently from a Sound Striker Magician Bard, who in turn plays very differently from a Dervish Dancer bard, who in turn plays very differently from an Arcane Duelist, and all four play differently from a Songhealer Animal Speaker etc. An ACF nudges your class in one direction but doesn't fundamentally change how it plays - an archetype is much more extensive.
I don't really see that big a difference between that and 3.5's massive selection of classes. When you combine that with the ACF's and broader selection of PrC's, it seems odd to consider PF more customizable on that basis.

[Psyren]

I don't really see that big a difference between that and 3.5's massive selection of classes. When you combine that with the ACF's and broader selection of PrC's, it seems odd to consider PF more customizable on that basis.

In 3.5, 3 bards, 3 rogues or 3 barbarians will be largely the same unless you PrC out. But PrCs weren't intended to be the first stop for customizing your character - often, they are tied to very specific organizations or causes in a given campaign setting, and have fluff requirements, agendas and influential NPCs the DM is expected to incorporate into the campaign along with them.

For example, Incantatrix is suggested a lot - but how many of the people playing it or suggesting it consider it their responsibility to seek out and destroy planar portals? How many Chameleons regularly report back to and undertake missions for the School of Broad Horizons? How many Sublime Chords teach classes at the Starry Lyceum? How many dipping Mindbenders "give up a great deal of their caster advancement" or "sacrifice magic for manipulation?"

And there's the simple fact that many people don't want to have to multiclass to differentiate their character, and many DMs don't want to have to audit a frankenstein build that pulls classes from 3+ sourcebooks.

[eggynack]

In 3.5, 3 bards, 3 rogues or 3 barbarians will be largely the same unless you PrC out. But PrCs weren't intended to be the first stop for customizing your character - often, they are tied to very specific organizations or causes in a given campaign setting, and have fluff requirements, agendas and influential NPCs the DM is expected to incorporate into the campaign along with them.
True, those nine characters made up of three classes will often be very similar. There are exceptions, but as you noted, they're largely PrC based. However, my point was dependent on the sheer scope of classes, rather than on members of one class being particularly different. Those three "bards" could actually be a bard, a factotum, and a beguiler, and they would indeed be very different. There's not that big a difference between having an archetype that redefines the very nature of a class, and just having a second class that is completely different. Pathfinder has more of the former, and that's fine, but 3.5 has more of the latter. Moreover, because of multiclassing, these 3.5 "archetypes" can be combined in more ways than PF archetypes can. A single class might have little variety, but it doesn't matter, just because of how many classes there are.

[Immabozo]

I disagree with this. Take Beary, the werebear Barbearian. He is all about Strength and Brute force. Even though he goes straight Barbearian, he chooses to spend his gold on middle of the road armor and get the best Dwarven Waraxe he can get, with a +5 enhancement and +5 worth of other enhancements. He depend on his high HP, NA and DR to get him through most fights, power attacking for full all the time.

Or there is Fungueis, the wild mushroom gnome. He is a barbarian 20 too. But he is an entirely different character. He is afraid of long fights, so he goes for spike damage, with dual wield feats, dual wielding maces with lightning mace, on a crit build, with impact, and extra damage on crit enchants. He also has the whirling frenzy and spirit lion totem ACF for another attack and pounce.

Then we have Coup, the large Troll with willing deformity (tall) and aberrant reach feats, with a spike chain has a 40' reach. With the knockback, combat reflexes and weapon finesse, he is a battlefield controller. You've just turned into a Cusinart on the field.

Three characters, entirely different play styles, no multiclassing, no PrC. Yes, wildly different feats, different races, different weapons and armor.

Remember, the motor is only two thirds of the equasion, the blades you equip it with are still very important.

[Psyren]

A werebear barbarian 20 is an epic character - and anyway, I was purely speaking about class, not race. (Though you can play a werebear/troll barbarian in PF too. Not sure what a "mushroom gnome" is.)

All I see there is "one uses a 2-hander, one dual-wields, one uses a spiked chain" which isn't stunning in terms of variation.

[eggynack]

All I see there is "one uses a 2-hander, one dual-wields, one uses a spiked chain" which isn't stunning in terms of variation.
I don't know how different you'd expect any two melee guys to be, but you're not going to find that much melee variety ever, likely in either system. Straight mundane combat isn't really the best or most interesting mechanic in this game. A guy with two swords compared with a guy with one sword is about as far as it goes, and that's true even if you are a different class.

[Psyren]

I don't know how different you'd expect any two melee guys to be, but you're not going to find that much melee variety ever, likely in either system. Straight mundane combat isn't really the best or most interesting mechanic in this game. A guy with two swords compared with a guy with one sword is about as far as it goes, and that's true even if you are a different class.

Aside from feats and weapon choice, PF has two additional vectors in the form of archetypes and rage powers. And only after all that would you look at an exotic race, were you so inclined.

There's also crafting, which PF Barbarians can do (magic weapons, armor and wondrous items) to customize your character even further without any outside help.

[137beth]

Well, folks sometimes put knowledge devotion on builds, so I'd have to say that the answer is yes. I'm pretty sure that people take it regular style sometimes, as opposed to as a way to gain parity with full BAB classes on a melee build. You could probably do somewhat worse than +5/+5 and be fine. Weapon focus already isn't the absolute worst thing in the world. It's just really mediocre and numerical.

There're plenty of strictly numerical feats that people take on a regular basis without even thinking about it. For example, folks with access to it generally take multiattack, and an across the board +3 to attack would be strictly superior to that. Similarly, having proficiency in the weapon you're using is just a +4 to attack, and yet people take it for spiked chains. You might as well be taking hyper weapon focus (spiked chain) to some extent. Two weapon fighting can't be as easily expressed, particularly due to its nature as a prerequisite, but regular two weapon fighting is still purely numerical. There's an illusion that these feats are providing a character with options, but you're just adding on bigger numbers at the end of the day.
Indeed, +5 to hit and damage would be good, much like Improved Initiative (going first in rocket tag is good).

It is, however, incredibly boring. If I were to rewrite the feat system, I would either eliminate all or most number-boosting feats, or just add a lot more interesting feats.

Perhaps a new sort of combat maneuver (or a new way of using some maneuvers) could be opened up to people with weapon specialization...

Or, perhaps weapon specialization could allow you to use a combat maneuver in place of one or more attack during a full attack.

[Immabozo]

A werebear barbarian 20 is an epic character - and anyway, I was purely speaking about class, not race. (Though you can play a werebear/troll barbarian in PF too. Not sure what a "mushroom gnome" is.)

All I see there is "one uses a 2-hander, one dual-wields, one uses a spiked chain" which isn't stunning in terms of variation.

A wild mushroom gnome is something I made up on the spot. (his name is pronounced "fungus")

fine, minus LA/RHD. Still, they play entirely differently. One is small, crit build, another is a large, reach, mundane battle field controller, the third is a high str, 2HF "classic" barbarian, power attacking for large numbers, with a little mundane battlefield control. They are three entirely different characters

[eggynack]

Aside from feats and weapon choice, PF has two additional vectors in the form of archetypes and rage powers. And only after all that would you look at an exotic race, were you so inclined.
As I've mentioned, archetypes don't really qualify as an additional archetype, because 3.5's class surplus makes up for it to some extent. You can just say, "I'm a warbladearian," or, "I'm a bartotemarianist." Prestige classes also fill that hole to some extent. The rage powers are admittedly interesting, but barbarians aren't exactly the most modular class in 3.5. Making the comparison more warblade or psychic warrior and less barbarian makes 3.5 more interesting.

Edit: Also, ACF's get barbarians some modularity comparable to rage powers (if not better), particularly due to the fact that I'm not tying them into the archetype discussion. Barbarians get a pretty solid assortment of viable choices too.

[Dusk Eclipse]

To be fair you can also do the same in PF (selecting different races and specing the feats for combat style)

Beary would probably go Totem Rager and select the Beast Totem Rage powers.

Fungueis, would probably be an Urban Barbarian and select Rage powers like Surprise/Lethal accuracy or mighty swing.

Coup would probably like the Titan Mauler archetype and would get rage powers like quick reflexes, come and get met or unexpected strike.

True, you would need a way for rage-cycling, but most barbarians in PF want that.

It is true that 3.5 has a lot of custimization, but you can't deny that PF has a lot of it and it is steadily gaining ground by the simple fact it is still in print and with heavy 3rd party support.

[Psyren]

You can just say, "I'm a warbladearian," or, "I'm a bartotemarianist."

You certainly can, but it's inelegant and not all players/DMs consider that a desirable solution.

But even if you don't mind a frankenstein build, you can simply port those classes to PF (or use the very sweet 3rd-party, OGL conversions.)


To be fair you can also do the same in PF (selecting different races and specing the feats for combat style)

Beary would probably go Totem Rager and select the Beast Totem Rage powers.

Fungueis, would probably be an Urban Barbarian and select Rage powers like Surprise/Lethal accuracy or mighty swing.

Coup would probably like the Titan Mauler archetype and would get rage powers like quick reflexes, come and get met or unexpected strike.

True, you would need a way for rage-cycling, but most barbarians in PF want that.

It is true that 3.5 has a lot of custimization, but you can't deny that PF has a lot of it and it is steadily gaining ground by the simple fact it is still in print and with heavy 3rd party support.

+1, and rage-cycling is one item away (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/c-d/cord-of-stubborn-resolve) :smallsmile:

[Flickerdart]

In 3.5, 3 bards, 3 rogues or 3 barbarians will be largely the same unless you PrC out.
Barbarian 1: basic PHBarian uses axe and muscles to drop dudes.
Barbarian 2: Trapkiller, Crafty Hunter, Fox Spirit Totem Barbarian is a sneaky trap-disabling archer.
Barbarian 3: Mountain Rage, Wolf Totem + Spirit Bear Totem, Streetfighter Barbarian is a hulking brute that runs around the battlefield knocking men down like bowling pins or snatching them up with his beefy arms to break their puny necks.

Rogue 1: basic PHB rogue flanks mans and stabs them with short sword until dead.
Rogue 2: Rilkan Rogue, Disruptive Attack, Wilderness Rogue, Spell Reflection, Spell Sense, Friend's Evasion is a stealthy harrier that greatly aids his allies while being tough to pin down.
Rogue 3: Martial Rogue Mimic Antiquarian Vergadain rogue is a master infiltrator and capable scholar who knows many exotic fighting styles.

I don't want to to bards right now, mostly because they have tons of spells that define their roles, especially with Divine Bard and Wild Bard added in, not to mention all of the alternative songs. I will do them if you insist, but they're really the easiest to differentiate because they get a lot more stuff in general.

[eggynack]

You certainly can, but it's inelegant and not all players/DMs consider that a desirable solution.

But even if you don't mind a frankenstein build, you can simply port those classes to PF (or use the very sweet 3rd-party, OGL conversions.)
I didn't really mean a frankenstein dip heavy multiclass monstrosity, though that is also a viable option. I'm talking about just going with 20 levels of warblade, and calling it a barbarian archetype. Not everyone considers class a metagame construct (though it is), but that doesn't matter much. The point is, 3.5's classes+ACF's is at least equal to PF's classes+archetypes in terms of variety. 3.5 is weighted towards the classes, and PF is weighted towards the archetypes, but it doesn't make all that much difference, because you end up with the same amount of options, if not more. Just using the best of both worlds is obviously the best option, but that'd be true even if PF only had exactly one thing of interest.

[Immabozo]

I've never played PF, so I cant compare. But I happen to love D&D. Never had the chance to try PF

[Dusk Eclipse]

You certainly can, but it's inelegant and not all players/DMs consider that a desirable solution.

But even if you don't mind a frankenstein build, you can simply port those classes to PF (or use the very sweet 3rd-party, OGL conversions.)



+1, and rage-cycling is one item away (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/c-d/cord-of-stubborn-resolve) :smallsmile:

Eh, that is quite expensive and a dip into oracle (lame) gives you fatigue immunity by level 7 I believe, which is right when have enough rage rounds and powers that you want to Rage cycle, and it also opens the whole cleric list for wand/staff usage.

[Psyren]

Barbarian 1: basic PHBarian uses axe and muscles to drop dudes.
Barbarian 2: Trapkiller, Crafty Hunter, Fox Spirit Totem Barbarian is a sneaky trap-disabling archer.
Barbarian 3: Mountain Rage, Wolf Totem + Spirit Bear Totem, Streetfighter Barbarian is a hulking brute that runs around the battlefield knocking men down like bowling pins or snatching them up with his beefy arms to break their puny necks.

Barbarian 2 is a bit of a joke build - archery sucks in 3.5 (and you traded rage for it to boot), stealth is cross-class so Fox's help runs out fast, and trapkiller is useless against traps that actually matter, so we can safely dismiss him.

Barbarian 3 is race restricted due to mountain rage, plus I'm not sure what Wolf is doing in there since he seems to want to grapple rather than trip, and needs his hands empty to boot so he likely won't have reach. So that's RoS, UA, CC and Cityscape - 4 books to try and make a decent build.



Rogue 1: basic PHB rogue flanks mans and stabs them with short sword until dead.
Rogue 2: Rilkan Rogue, Disruptive Attack, Wilderness Rogue, Spell Reflection, Spell Sense, Friend's Evasion is a stealthy harrier that greatly aids his allies while being tough to pin down.
Rogue 3: Martial Rogue Mimic Antiquarian Vergadain rogue is a master infiltrator and capable scholar who knows many exotic fighting styles.

Rilkan Rogue is another race-locked choice, though I'll admit bardic knowledge for trap sense is a good trade. Friend's Evasion + Spell Reflection is an odd choice since everybody gets evasion but you, and only if they're riding your coattails, but anyway - for this frankenstein, we've got MoI, PHB2, UA, CM, and DotU for 5 books.

Rogue 3 is illegal as both Mimic and Antiquarian lose trapfinding, and in any event mimic sucks (just wear a hat.) For this one we've got UA, EoE, CC, and a setting-specific offering from FR (CoV?)

And of course the core builds for both suck, so it seems like these "niches" are developed more as examples of "here's a thing you could do" without regard to actual effectiveness.



I don't want to to bards right now, mostly because they have tons of spells that define their roles, especially with Divine Bard and Wild Bard added in, not to mention all of the alternative songs. I will do them if you insist, but they're really the easiest to differentiate because they get a lot more stuff in general.

I actually wouldn't mind this just for the novelty of seeing a bard build that doesn't end in Sublime Chord/Virtuoso.

Which leaves IC or DFI, I guess?

[3WhiteFox3]

Personally, many of the PF archetypes are either kind of boring, trade out good or useful abilities for mediocre ones or have very little impact on how the character plays beyond the fluff (which is mutable anyway). That said, there are really good archetypes, mediocre archetypes and bad ones. Admittedly it's mostly a matter of taste.

Also, I really don't like how archetypes force you to take the whole thing, and that if any part modifies a class feature it doesn't mix with other archetypes even if it doesn't really make sense for it to not work together (ex: the modifications are of the same feature, but in ways that aren't contradictory). I feel that they often lock you into one mechanical idea or fluff option (before re-fluffing at least).

@Psyren - Have you seen the Iron Chef Competitions? There are many very creative builds that are very distinctive from one another. Even among the same classes. I've seen bards, barbarians and rogues done in so many different ways that I don't think it's fair to say that 3.5 is less diverse than pathfinder.

[Dusk Eclipse]

The same can be said about some ACF, variants or even classes in 3.5.

I am not arguing that PF is superior, both of them have their strengths and while 3.5 primary strength is the versatility of it's character creation Pathfinder is no slouch either.

[eggynack]

Barbarian 2 is a bit of a joke build - archery sucks in 3.5 (and you traded rage for it to boot), stealth is cross-class so Fox's help runs out fast, and trapkiller is useless against traps that actually matter, so we can safely dismiss him.

Barbarian 3 is race restricted due to mountain rage, plus I'm not sure what Wolf is doing in there since he seems to want to grapple rather than trip, and needs his hands empty to boot so he likely won't have reach. So that's RoS, UA, CC and Cityscape - 4 books to try and make a decent build.



Rilkan Rogue is another race-locked choice, though I'll admit bardic knowledge for trap sense is a good trade. Friend's Evasion + Spell Reflection is an odd choice since everybody gets evasion but you, and only if they're riding your coattails, but anyway - for this frankenstein, we've got MoI, PHB2, UA, CM, and DotU for 5 books.

Rogue 3 is illegal as both Mimic and Antiquarian lose trapfinding, and in any event mimic sucks (just wear a hat.) For this one we've got UA, EoE, CC, and a setting-specific offering from FR (CoV?)

And of course the core builds for both suck, so it seems like these "niches" are developed more as examples of "here's a thing you could do" without regard to actual effectiveness.

Being entirely core is the furthest thing from a requirement there is. It's 3.5's large quantity of stuff spread across a number of books that gives 3.5 an edge. If we're just comparing online components, PF probably has more stuff that's purely online. We're comparing total systemic variety here though, and you use as much material as possible if it's variety you're seeking. It's also not exactly like every archetype is a gem studded chunklett of wonderment. These are game supported archetypes, even if the end result character isn't all that powerful. If power level is the primary concern here, then we might as well just throw out most classes related to melee combat at all, because they're not viable compared to full casters.

That barbarian is going to be a pretty decent archer/stealth guy, even if those archetypes are as butts. Also, the second build has wolf totem because wolf totem is really cheap, and it has synergy with the size bonus from mountain rage. Wolf totem has been viable on builds with far less reason to take it than that, just because it's a really efficient ACF.

[3WhiteFox3]

The same can be said about some ACF, variants or even classes in 3.5.

I am not arguing that PF is superior, both of them have their strengths and while 3.5 primary strength is the versatility of it's character creation Pathfinder is no slouch either.

But if you want to pick and choose things, you have an easier time of it in 3.5 than pathfinder. Also, there are less arbitrarily-designed restrictions.

I'm also not trying to knock Pathfinder, I really enjoy Pathfinder, but I personally don't like how archetypes are implemented even if I do like some of them.

[Psyren]

Also, I really don't like how archetypes force you to take the whole thing, and that if any part modifies a class feature it doesn't mix with other archetypes even if it doesn't really make sense for it to not work together (ex: the modifications are of the same feature, but in ways that aren't contradictory). I feel that they often lock you into one mechanical idea or fluff option (before re-fluffing at least).

This I feel was a conscious decision - it stops problems at the table before they start, because if there is a combination that would really work from a flavor standpoint without breaking the game, the DM can approve it individually (one of my favorite examples of this is Master Summoner + First-Worlder for a fey-themed summoner), but not be forced to analyze every other archetype for potentially abusive combinations during the character-planning phase. It's almost always better for the DM to say "the rules don't let you do this, but I'll allow it" than for them to say "the rules do let you do this but I'm going to ban it." The player feels like he got a bonus instead of getting cheated out of something.


@Psyren - Have you seen the Iron Chef Competitions? There are many very creative builds that are very distinctive from one another. Even among the same classes. I've seen bards, barbarians and rogues done in so many different ways that I don't think it's fair to say that 3.5 is less diverse than pathfinder.

I have but those often involve multiclassing/PrCing, which isn't what I was discussing. It's the similarity of base classes that concerns me because I consider dip-heavy builds and more than 3 sourcebooks per character to be inelegant.


Being entirely core is the furthest thing from a requirement there is. It's 3.5's large quantity of stuff spread across a number of books that gives 3.5 an edge.

That's not an edge everyone finds appealing.

Looking at Flickerdart's builds for example - most folks I see coming on here for build advice say "Core + Completes." Maybe if we're lucky we get races books allowed, and PHB2 is on the border of reasonableness too. But the rest? Exemplars of Evil is aimed more at DMs than players, as are DotU, Cityscape and Dungeonscape. Setting-specific is a problem with sources like CoV. And I'm pretty versed in 3.5 - imagine a DM who wasn't as familiar with this stuff who got presented with builds like that to okay before a game, and now has to conduct an audit to make sure everything was reasonable and working together legally. (Which, in the case of Rogue 3, it turns out was against the rules.) Having all those options is great, but having them dispersed as much as they are is not. And if someone as versed as Flickerdart can mess up, how much more difficult would it be for someone newer?

[eggynack]

That's not an edge everyone finds appealing.

Looking at Flickerdart's builds for example - most folks I see coming on here for build advice say "Core + Completes." Maybe if we're lucky we get races books allowed, and PHB2 is on the border of reasonableness too. But the rest? Exemplars of Evil is aimed more at DMs than players, as are DotU, Cityscape and Dungeonscape. Setting-specific is a problem with sources like CoV. And I'm pretty versed in 3.5 - imagine a DM who wasn't as familiar with this stuff who got presented with builds like that to okay before a game, and now has to conduct an audit to make sure everything was reasonable and working together legally. (Which, in the case of Rogue 3, it turns out was against the rules.) Having all those options is great, but having them dispersed as much as they are is not. And if someone as versed as Flickerdart can mess up, how much more difficult would it be for someone newer?
This is a factor, certainly, but it's really not a factor for this particular thing. This is a study of modularity, not of accessibility. As a game in total, 3.5 is incredibly modular. If you start hacking off books, it's obviously going to become less so.

Edit: Also, if a DM starts banning books, then he's doing so because he thinks the game has too many options. For folks who want there to be fewer options, having too few options obviously isn't a problem.

[137beth]

But if you want to pick and choose things, you have an easier time of it in 3.5 than pathfinder. Also, there are less arbitrarily-designed restrictions.

I'm also not trying to knock Pathfinder, I really enjoy Pathfinder, but I personally don't like how archetypes are implemented even if I do like some of them.

The odd thing is, most archetypes could work as alternate class features and be about as balanced as they are now.
Very few of them involve trading one class feature for several, or a "good" trade at one level balanced by a "bad" trade at another level. SKR explained why before last year's RPG Superstar (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p9hm?Seans-advice-for-the-archetype-round)--basically the reason was that it makes dipping too good...

but that in turn means that most archetypes are going to end up working fine as a series of alternate class features. That's what I do for my games most of the time, and it's what I think should have been the default assumption.
Overall, I like the way archetypes can give you a stronger theme/flavor than a single ACF. But I would prefer a group of thematically-related ACFs that you can pick and choose between. Fortunately it's easy to get that from archetypes, but unfortunately Paizo decided not to do it themselves. Which is ultimately just another reason I would hate to run a PFS game.

So in summary, yes, we need more feats.

[3WhiteFox3]

This I feel was a conscious decision - it stops problems at the table before they start, because if there is a combination that would really work from a flavor standpoint without breaking the game, the DM can approve it individually (one of my favorite examples of this is Master Summoner + First-Worlder for a fey-themed summoner), but not be forced to analyze every other archetype for potentially abusive combinations during the character-planning phase. It's almost always better for the DM to say "the rules don't let you do this, but I'll allow it" than for them to say "the rules do let you do this but I'm going to ban it." The player feels like he got a bonus instead of getting cheated out of something.

I realize there is a reason for it, I just think it's arbitrary that I can't mix Spell Dancer and Bladebound Magus simply because they technically both modify the Arcane Pool, despite one changing what you can spend it on and the other affecting how large the pool is.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I really don't like asking the DM for too many concessions that aren't allowed in the rules. I'm just not comfortable going outside of the rules for stuff, it makes me feel like I'm trying to cheat somehow.

It also means that often times I want to do several different things for a particular character, so when I ask for concession after concession, well, it just doesn't look good. I'd personally rather just have the options be open and recognize that while balance is important, fun is too. I find the restrictions to be less fun. My complaint is that if you don't have a GM willing to go outside of the rules, or don't want to have to constantly ask questions about things that are clearly not what the designers intended, you're just out of luck.

Your Mileage May Vary, but I don't feel cheated when a GM says no. But if I have to ask to get a yes, that puts strain on me to make sure that I'm not just doing it for some advantage. Besides, most GM's I've played with are pretty leery about those sorts of things.

[Psyren]

This is a factor, certainly, but it's really not a factor for this particular thing. This is a study of modularity, not of accessibility. As a game in total, 3.5 is incredibly modular. If you start hacking off books, it's obviously going to become less so.

Edit: Also, if a DM starts banning books, then he's doing so because he thinks the game has too many options. For folks who want there to be fewer options, having too few options obviously isn't a problem.

My point is that Pathfinder can become far more modular than 3.5 for folks who want high levels of that (backwards compatible). For those who'd rather have a minimal amount, you can customize even without multiclass/ACF modularity thanks to features like Rage Powers, Rogue Talents and Bloodlines. And for folks who want to be somewhere in between these two, you can get a metric ton of options out of just 2-4 books.

And best of all, the nature of archetypes means there is little auditing to do. You don't have to check one book for Rilkan Rogue then loop back to another for Mimic and a third for Friendly Evasion etc. It's all laid out there for you in one place, 2 at most.



I'm probably in the minority here, but I really don't like asking the DM for too many concessions that aren't allowed in the rules. I'm just not comfortable going outside of the rules for stuff, it makes me feel like I'm trying to cheat somehow.

That's precisely what they were going for. Even if you have a good chance of getting what you were after, it makes you less likely to ask since you're basically asking for a favor. And even if the DM grants it, it makes things easier for them as now they have something they can point to, to show how lenient they are. This again prevents ill will at the table before it can start.

And it gives less-experienced DMs a chance to get their feet under them before going "off-script" as it were.

[eggynack]

My point is that Pathfinder can become far more modular than 3.5 for folks who want high levels of that (backwards compatible). For those who'd rather have a minimal amount, you can customize even without multiclass/ACF modularity thanks to features like Rage Powers, Rogue Talents and Bloodlines. And for folks who want to be somewhere in between these two, you can get a metric ton of options out of just 2-4 books.

And best of all, the nature of archetypes means there is little auditing to do. You don't have to check one book for Rilkan Rogue then loop back to another for Mimic and a third for Friendly Evasion etc. It's all laid out there for you in one place, 2 at most.
And my point is that you might be right for limited book numbers, or if you're just using both in tandem, but if we're just comparing all of 3.5 alone with all of PF alone, I think that you're wrong. There might be some sort of accessibility issue, but if you know what you're doing, 3.5 just has a crazy number of options. Archetypes might change the characters more than ACF's (Though sometimes they might not. Shifter druid substitution levels are crazy), but different classes are more different than archetypes. You can talk all you want about rage powers, and rogue talents, you're not really going to get more variety moving from one barbarian to a different barbarian than I will moving from a barbarian to a totemist. Archetypes that really change their class are, at their essence, basically just different classes. 3.5 has a hell of a lot of classes.

[3WhiteFox3]

That's precisely what they were going for. Even if you have a good chance of getting what you were after, it makes you less likely to ask since you're basically asking for a favor. And even if the DM grants it, it makes things easier for them as now they have something they can point to, to show how lenient they are. This again prevents ill will at the table before it can start.

And it gives less-experienced DMs a chance to get their feet under them before going "off-script" as it were.

I really don't understand how that's a good thing. It stifles creativity, it encourages GMs to look at players as munchkins or cheaters who just want change an arbitrary rule. Which probably isn't going to prevent ill will.

Also, why are they suddenly so worried about balance? It's an unnecessary distinction when there are no combos (that I am aware of) between archetypes that break the game. Is it really that terrible a thing for a few good combos to go through?

[Vaz]

I actually wouldn't mind this just for the novelty of seeing a bard build that doesn't end in Sublime Chord/Virtuoso.

Which leaves IC or DFI, I guess?

Parsifal the Fool (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13633110&postcount=140)?

Yes, it's not a "Bard" Bard, but isn't this one of the beauties of 3.5, in that you can start with nearly any class, and due to a combination of feats end up with something like? Other notable mentions in this category include Captain Wyrmbeard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13788207&postcount=99); a Dragonfire Adept that's fairly unique in its execution. Another couple of builds introduced in this round have actually hit my favourites; another Bard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16084344&postcount=270), oddly enough, and a Hexblade that doesn't play like a Hexblade (if you ignore that a Hexblade isn't usually taken past getting a Dark Companion); Babalon (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16084425&postcount=274).

They can all play like their base classes, but the inclusion of the PrC's modifies that into giving them entirely new mechanics, and indeed optimizing them makes them more powerful. Conversely, despite the multitude of options available to a Cleric, or Wizard, they only have their spellcasting options, and their mechanics are pretty much the same.

Obviously, the last two focused on Save debuffing; Fear Aura's and Stench means that getting even higher bonuses to allow the powerful Spell-Like meant that Doomspeak and the Dark Companion means that they both fulfil a similar role (a Bard can doomspeak if it wishes with just the feat, and a Hexblade is already an effective debuffer), but they play completely differently to their typical base classes; a Bard focussing on DFI or Snowflake Wardance isn't too useful up close. A Hexblade isn't an effective Necromancer, while the Bard, can effectively buff his raised minions through the DFI. Combined with a SR-less save debuffed Death Touch, it's an extremely effective front-liner; who cares about the ubercharger barbarian throwing out 4653635243636342342 damage? It's old hat, and optimizing it any more is just world record; it's meaningless numbers; it's a case of someones either immune to it (Ethereal, Ironguard, etc) or they're dead.

The opposite applies to the two Bards or Hexblade, or the Dragonfire Adept; they have so many "shticks" that it just renders them capable of participating at all levels, that there's not much that they cannot be aid the party in at least something at all levels.

[Psyren]

You can talk all you want about rage powers, and rogue talents, you're not really going to get more variety moving from one barbarian to a different barbarian than I will moving from a barbarian to a totemist. Archetypes that really change their class are, at their essence, basically just different classes.

I couldn't disagree more. A Magician is still a Bard. An Arcane Duelist is still a Bard. A Dervish Dancer is still a Bard. They play very differently but they still feel like Bards, can still fill those same roles with their spells and bardic knowledge etc.

A Totemist is not a Barbarian. They have some thematic similarities (primitive warrior), but there are too many differences. Even if you go from the "totem animals" angle, Totemists actually totemize magical beasts, which Barbarians don't. You don't see any Barbarian tribes striving to emulate a displacer beast or a sphinx or a lammasu. And Totemists are capable of a hell of a lot more finesse and subtlety than Barbarians are known for. They are truly different classes.


I really don't understand how that's a good thing. It stifles creativity, it encourages GMs to look at players as munchkins or cheaters who just want change an arbitrary rule. Which probably isn't going to prevent ill will.

Look at it from the DM's perspective. If they're experienced then this change is trivial - but the system has to cater more to the ones who aren't experienced, otherwise they will feel daunted/frustrated and quit the game before getting invested.

Those who aren't experienced can simply say "I'm going to stick with the rules as written for now. We can talk about this later in the campaign (or even in the next campaign.)" Which is a perfectly reasonable request. And the player went in already with the expectation that his request was something that would require a concession and therefore stood a nonzero chance of getting denied. So if he gets it, great! And if he didn't, he's no worse off than if he hadn't asked.



Also, why are they suddenly so worried about balance? It's an unnecessary distinction when there are no combos (that I am aware of) between archetypes that break the game. Is it really that terrible a thing for a few good combos to go through?

No archetype combo can match a well-played wizard, if that's what you mean. But several can render other classes completely obsolete without trying. A simple example would be if you were allowed to combine Crypt Breaker Alchemist with Vivisectionist - you'd have a strictly better rogue.

[danzibr]

You're clearly not familiar with very many builds, OP. There are many frequently used classes you're missing, and you don't seem to realize how many feats repeat across builds. Melee? You're either stacking up Power Attack and Shock Trooper trees, or going with Improved Trip and the lot. Cleric? You're probably looking at a DMM setup. Bard? Words of Creation, Song of the White Raven, Song of the Heart, Snowflake Wardance, DFI...I could go on.

The thing about feats is, you get three times fewer feats than classes, and most of the good ones have prerequisites. So during your character's career, you might have the time to get two feat chains completed, or possibly even three if you really wring out some DCFS nonsense. Meanwhile, you get 20 character levels to play with just for showing up.

Feats support what your character does by letting you qualify for stuff and tweaking your options, but they are not what defines characters.
I have to agree. While it looks like there are tons of options, if you want to make a competent character you get limited to must-haves, which doesn't leave many over.

[3WhiteFox3]

Look at it from the DM's perspective. If they're experienced then this change is trivial - but the system has to cater more to the ones who aren't experienced, otherwise they will feel daunted/frustrated and quit the game before getting invested.

Those who aren't experienced can simply say "I'm going to stick with the rules as written for now. We can talk about this later in the campaign (or even in the next campaign.)" Which is a perfectly reasonable request. And the player went in already with the expectation that his request was something that would require a concession and therefore stood a nonzero chance of getting denied. So if he gets it, great! And if he didn't, he's no worse off than if he hadn't asked.

No archetype combo can match a well-played wizard, if that's what you mean. But several can render other classes completely obsolete without trying. A simple example would be if you were allowed to combine Crypt Breaker Alchemist with Vivisectionist - you'd have a strictly better rogue.

Being a strictly better rogue is easy (bards are easily made to both out-damage and out-skillmonkey the rogue with or without archetypes; alchemists do the job pretty well even without archetypes) balance is already terrible; now I like balance, but I want it by good writing and by taking the extra time to balance things individually (maybe Paizo shouldn't give out rogue class features like candy regardless of whether or not you can combo archetypes). Not by making a lazy over-arching rule and not looking at the individual combos.

Also the argument that it's easier for GM's doesn't hold water, the archetype stacking rules are confusing and it's not clear just what counts as a modification for those purposes. If it's really intended to be easier for new GM's then at least the language should be clearer and the individual class features should be spelled out.

Archetype stacking is one of the things in PF that I have found that almost every GM I've talked to isn't quite sure how it works. You could do away with the unnecessarily complicated rules and just let people do as they wish.

If a player really wants to make a GM's day bad via optimization it's easy without archetypes (it's funny you mention alchemist seeing as how a mad bomber or B. Hyde can easily be built in a way that will make most new GMs tear their hair out). I've been that new GM, so I can understand the sentiment, but in actuality, I just don't see how this is really that necessary, I'd rather focus on making the highest-quality game and letting balance be a result of that high-quality.

[Psyren]

Bards, even if you make them damage machines, still don't have sneak attack and therefore still feel different. Furthermore, a lot of their damage comes from Performance of some kind (Su) and thus can be shut down in an AMF. So no, they aren't the same at all.



Also the argument that it's easier for GM's doesn't hold water, the archetype stacking rules are confusing and it's not clear just what counts as a modification for those purposes. If it's really intended to be easier for new GM's then at least the language should be clearer and the individual class features should be spelled out.

We'll just have to disagree here.



If a player really wants to make a GM's day bad via optimization it's easy without archetypes (it's funny you mention alchemist seeing as how a mad bomber or B. Hyde can easily be built in a way that will make most new GMs tear their hair out). I've been that new GM, so I can understand the sentiment, but in actuality, I just don't see how this is really that necessary, I'd rather focus on making the highest-quality game and letting balance be a result of that high-quality.

If you know what you're doing then great, be that guy that allows conflicting archetypes to mix. The CRB tells you flat out that's your right to do so. The rule on combining isn't there for you.

[eggynack]

I couldn't disagree more. A Magician is still a Bard. An Arcane Duelist is still a Bard. A Dervish Dancer is still a Bard. They play very differently but they still feel like Bards, can still fill those same roles with their spells and bardic knowledge etc.

A Totemist is not a Barbarian. They have some thematic similarities (primitive warrior), but there are too many differences. Even if you go from the "totem animals" angle, Totemists actually totemize magical beasts, which Barbarians don't. You don't see any Barbarian tribes striving to emulate a displacer beast or a sphinx or a lammasu. And Totemists are capable of a hell of a lot more finesse and subtlety than Barbarians are known for. They are truly different classes.

You just made my argument sound way better, actually. I was mostly just thinking about it from a "More than one way to skin this savage man archetype" perspective, but having the totemist be a barbarian who totemizes magical beasts instead of regular animals sounds like a pretty cool archetypish thing. The regular barbarian already has the thing where he worships totems of various animals. We don't need another thing that's exactly the same. In any case, my point was the first thing. 3.5 offers multiple completely different ways to approach the same archetype. In the same way, you can say, "I want to be a skillful guy with arcane power," and come away with a bard, a factotum, or a beguiler. That's pretty cool.

[Psyren]

You just made my argument sound way better, actually. I was mostly just thinking about it from a "More than one way to skin this savage man archetype" perspective, but having the totemist be a barbarian who totemizes magical beasts instead of regular animals sounds like a pretty cool archetypish thing.

It's certainly cool but it's not really a "barbarian." Magical Beasts are typically too intelligent to be archetypical of barbarians. I can't picture barbarians patterning their tribe after Lammasus, or Pegasi, or Displacer Beasts for instance. (They actually can't with a Lammasu - they are always lawful.)

This one can come down to taste but it doesn't work for me at all. Even if it did though and you do consider a Totemist to be a Barbarian archetype, just bring it in as one.

[Immabozo]

It's certainly cool but it's not really a "barbarian." Magical Beasts are typically too intelligent to be archetypical of barbarians. I can't picture barbarians patterning their tribe after Lammasus, or Pegasi, or Displacer Beasts for instance. (They actually can't with a Lammasu - they are always lawful.)

This one can come down to taste but it doesn't work for me at all. Even if it did though and you do consider a Totemist to be a Barbarian archetype, just bring it in as one.

A wizard and a sorcerer are two archetypes of the same thing. So are the bagilions of PrC for them. Cleric has so many different features and ACFs and spells and PrC that the "archetype" is however you want to build the class, the examples go on and on. I disagree, unless build very basic and crappy, no two of any except the worst classes, should be, or "feel" the same.

[Psyren]

A wizard and a sorcerer are two archetypes of the same thing. So are the bagilions of PrC for them.

They aren't just mechanically different (the need to prepare in advance and the on-the-fly flexibility have very divergent dynamics), they're very thematically different too.. And so too do Totemists and Barbarians play and feel very differently.



Cleric has so many different features and ACFs and spells and PrC that the "archetype" is however you want to build the class, the examples go on and on. I disagree, unless build very basic and crappy, no two of any except the worst classes, should be, or "feel" the same.

Cleric domains are, IIRC, where Paizo got the idea for rage powers and the like; a menu that allows two members of the same class to feel different. Even in 3.5, a Fire cleric, Healing cleric and Shadow cleric all felt different.

Granted, with just one domain slot per level it only went so far, but that's where domain powers could come in.

[Immabozo]

They aren't just mechanically different (the need to prepare in advance and the on-the-fly flexibility have very divergent dynamics), they're very thematically different too.. And so too do Totemists and Barbarians play and feel very differently.

Yes, there are some large difference, but it is still two "archetypes" of one class: a character that gets his bidding done via spells. One is "naturally gifted" while the other studies very hard to get his magic. The two differences change how they play and the mechanics, but isn't that the argument here?


Cleric domains are, IIRC, where Paizo got the idea for rage powers and the like; a menu that allows two members of the same class to feel different. Even in 3.5, a Fire cleric, Healing cleric and Shadow cleric all felt different.

Granted, with just one domain slot per level it only went so far, but that's where domain powers could come in.

Yes, domains create wildly different Clerics. Evil vs Good does too, or the ACF to spontaneously cast domain spells. I'm not entirely sure what we are arguing about on this particular point.

[Psyren]

Yes, there are some large difference, but it is still two "archetypes" of one class: a character that gets his bidding done via spells. One is "naturally gifted" while the other studies very hard to get his magic. The two differences change how they play and the mechanics, but isn't that the argument here?

No, because the theme is different too, not just the mechanics. Wizards are the educated spellcaster that knows a lot about a wide variety of topics (Int-based) but tend to be socially inept without their magic. Sorcerers meanwhile tend to know a lot about magic, but not much else, and are very sociable. Whereas an Arcane Duelist and Magician Bard may play differently but both occupy the "buff the party, be the face and know random facts" role of the bard.

Similarly, Totemists can occupy a very different thematic niche than a Barbarian, particularly since they can be lawful and Barbs can't. Different theme + different mechanics = different class, it makes sense.

[eggynack]

I think you're missing the point of the whole archetype=class thing. I'm not saying that these things are literally archetypes. I'm saying that these things fill the role that archetypes do in terms of build versatility. A wizard and a sorcerer aren't both wizards, but it gives you two separate ways to accomplish one goal. You say, "My goal is to beat someone up without weapons," and I can name a really large pile of ways to accomplish that. You're using different themes to get to the same basic result. That's more variety, not less. I mean, it would kinda suck if the actual only way to build a naturalistic fighter required that you go chaotic and rage out at things.

[Immabozo]

No, because the theme is different too, not just the mechanics. Wizards are the educated spellcaster that knows a lot about a wide variety of topics (Int-based) but tend to be socially inept without their magic. Sorcerers meanwhile tend to know a lot about magic, but not much else, and are very sociable. Whereas an Arcane Duelist and Magician Bard may play differently but both occupy the "buff the party, be the face and know random facts" role of the bard.

Similarly, Totemists can occupy a very different thematic niche than a Barbarian, particularly since they can be lawful and Barbs can't. Different theme + different mechanics = different class, it makes sense.


I think you're missing the point of the whole archetype=class thing. I'm not saying that these things are literally archetypes. I'm saying that these things fill the role that archetypes do in terms of build versatility. A wizard and a sorcerer aren't both wizards, but it gives you two separate ways to accomplish one goal. You say, "My goal is to beat someone up without weapons," and I can name a really large pile of ways to accomplish that. You're using different themes to get to the same basic result. That's more variety, not less. I mean, it would kinda suck if the actual only way to build a naturalistic fighter required that you go chaotic and rage out at things.

Psyren my friend, while I see your point, my arguement was made for me. Although perhaps I am boiling it down too far?