• bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Pathfinder also uses feats in a very different way from D&D. Having lots of options is good. And it basically forces you to take some mediocre feats to help round out your character and make it hard to minmax perfectly

    • Linuto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes, I agree. It does seem a little off base to leverage the ratio of good to bad feats as an advantage of the system though, when they both have good and bad feats in what seems like similar proportions.

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I disagree. It’s not the ratio that’s important, but the absolute number of good feats. The bad feats can be safely ignored, and then it becomes a question of how many good feats you have to choose from. Like in BG3, every time I look at the list of feats, unless I’m playing a character that wants SS or GWM, I’m thinking I’d be better off taking ASI. In Pathfinder, the feat selection always feels like an interesting choice, even if there are some bad options I am discounting, there are still plenty of interesting choices for me to make.

        • Shalakushka@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          This is 3rd edition thinking, trap options are awful and make the game worse for everyone not following a charop guide

          • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s not the same as third edition because PF2e has more horizontal scaling than vertical scaling.