Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Give your opinion: Things That Should Not Be Feats


Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew

101 to 125 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sczarni

For all the people saying Finesse should be a weapon property, that only works for whips and rapiers. Remember, the feat applies to ALL light weapons. Sure, a rapier isn't great as a brute-force weapon, but a fighter should still be able to pick up a light pick or hammer and swing it hard.

My vote for "should not be a feat" is Endurance. The feat on its own is worthless except as a prerequisite. Diehard is cute, but it's not worth two feats-- especially since half-orcs now get "die slightly harder".

All the feats that give you a bonus to two different skills are generally pretty worthless as well. I've never seen anybody spend a feat on them-- general consensus among every playgroup I've ever been in is that they're a joke-- only there for NPCs or as a holdover from the days of cross-class feats.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Making Finesse a weapon quality only inherently means that you can use Dex to hit with it, not necessarily that you *must*. I did suggest it might be made to require it with weapon-specific exceptions, but on further consideration, I'd reverse that if anything--certain specific Finesse weapons, mainly the Rapier, could not be used via Strength, but most Finesse weapons could be.

Liberty's Edge

Drejk wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Ringtail wrote:
You take ACP to everything physical. Attacks, skills...everything. For every skill point you have in armor proficiency you lessen the ACP by one. That's the only way I could see it making sense- although that would take a lot of tweaking (skills points alloted, ACP of armors, and so forth). Probably more trouble than it is worth.
Might be. I am intensely skeptical of using skills for mechanics that don't involve rolling or DCs. In fact... that's one of my criteria for what makes something a good feat, as opposed to a skill. :) On-Topic!

I agree on this with the Evil Wearer Of Badass Beard.

But this reminded me one more thing that should not be feat: Light Armor Proficiency. Seriously, things that qualify as light armors do not require special training to wear efficiently. Even if you spent 20 years of your life burried in books you can wear them without serious drawbacks (as long as your strength is enough to wear them at least, but it is another matter than proficiency).

While I agree with your point about capability with light armor, I think you should go look up the penalties for non-proficiency against. The penalty is taking armor check to your attack rolls and all skills involving movement. The ACP of the lower half of light armors is 0, so you can effectively use them as though proficient. Studded Leather and Chain Shirt would take more work, but those I'm okay with being a proficiency.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:

The thread premise was left deliberately vague. What I had in mind was things that ought to be generic mechanics rather than feats. Beyond that, some things just make very poor, imbalanced, or silly feats.

This being a matter of opinion, I hardly expect consensus on all points... but Leadership seems to me to be the best example of something that is a feat but really shouldn't be. It is way overpowered for a single feat, it lends itself to abuse, it isn't as fully explained as it ought to be, and it encompasses a concept that could be handled with the Diplomacy skill and a shrewd investment of coin.

But it's a feat. It was made so when the game was young, and the notion of feats was still being explored. I think it was sort of a failed experiment then, and it boggles my mind to think it made the leap from the DMG to the CRB as a no-strings-attached, fully available basic feat.

I think the idea was to make the cohort actually cost something besides effort. While it may be overpowered for a feat, implementing Leadership in the mechanics you propose would result in gaining the benefits without an implicit cost save that of coin.


In earlier editions, leadership was a class feature, not a feat. Fighters got it at 9th level, IIRC, and got whole armies from it. Wizards got it at maybe 11th level, and got one lousy apprentice. The disparity in leadership was one of the balancing factors between the classes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doskious Steele wrote:

@Darkholme: Thanks very much for re-posting that, it's quite useful for me. I do see the improvements to the curvature of damage entailed in your progressions.

Heymitch wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Similarly if a caster should chose between craft wands and craft weapons and armors he will often chose the former as it is more useful for him and a prerequisite for some higher level feat/discovery.

I would actually take Craft Magic Arms and Armor over Craft Wand, myself, since you can ignore most prerequisites with Magic Arms and Armor, but not with Wands. This is especially true if I'm playing a Sorcerer, with fewer spells known (and thus less flexibility in creating Wands)..

BTW, some great suggestions in this thread.

Craft Wand can be nice if you have good ties to an NPC cleric to obtain healing wands. On the whole, though, I agree, Magic Arms & Armor are easier to craft as well as more reliably worth their investment cost.

I admit to curiosity, what feat(s) or discovery(-ies) is Craft Wand a prerequisite for? I'm not familiar with it/them. ^_^;

I was thinking of Staff-Like Wand (UM), but I was wrong, it require craft staff.

I remembered a feat allowing a character to wield a wand in each hand, but apparently I have dreamed it or it is on some supplement not present in the PRD as I can't find it.

So you can delete that comment.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Doskious Steele wrote:

@Darkholme: Thanks very much for re-posting that, it's quite useful for me. I do see the improvements to the curvature of damage entailed in your progressions.

Heymitch wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Similarly if a caster should chose between craft wands and craft weapons and armors he will often chose the former as it is more useful for him and a prerequisite for some higher level feat/discovery.

I would actually take Craft Magic Arms and Armor over Craft Wand, myself, since you can ignore most prerequisites with Magic Arms and Armor, but not with Wands. This is especially true if I'm playing a Sorcerer, with fewer spells known (and thus less flexibility in creating Wands)..

BTW, some great suggestions in this thread.

Craft Wand can be nice if you have good ties to an NPC cleric to obtain healing wands. On the whole, though, I agree, Magic Arms & Armor are easier to craft as well as more reliably worth their investment cost.

I admit to curiosity, what feat(s) or discovery(-ies) is Craft Wand a prerequisite for? I'm not familiar with it/them. ^_^;

I was thinking of Staff-Like Wand (UM), but I was wrong, it require craft staff.

I remembered a feat allowing a character to wield a wand in each hand, but apparently I have dreamed it or it is on some supplement not present in the PRD as I can't find it.

So you can delete that comment.

I know that the Eberron setting for 3.5 had a few feats that chained off of crafting feats; I think that one was for wielding 2 wands, now that you mention it.

<shrug>


Darkholme wrote:

I'll re-post it, but first I'll explain the process behind it.

** spoiler omitted **

Right. Here we go. Below are all the options, you can build your own table by picking which rolling method for the number you like most. If you use dice programs instead of real dice, a d24 poses no problems... for the rest of us, here are some alternatives. It's worth noting, if you have one person using d24s instead of d20+d4, lows and highs become more likely for the app user. I'm okay with this, but you might want everyone to us an app, or have everyone use the method that is easily replicated by...

Might I make a simpler, yet more boring, suggestion? Use the weapon charts in the CRB as is. When you increase or decrease the size of the weapon, add or subtract one from the damage output.

Silent Saturn wrote:
All the feats that give you a bonus to two different skills are generally pretty worthless as well. I've never seen anybody spend a feat on them-- general consensus among every playgroup I've ever been in is that they're a joke-- only there for NPCs or as a holdover from the days of cross-class feats.

For the most part, yes, but I've taken these plenty of times, though. Anytime I overspecialize in a skill, I start with Skill Focus and then usually follow up with the Feat that grants the skill as a pair. That's usually as high as you can boost with feats.

Diego Rossi wrote:
I remembered a feat allowing a character to wield a wand in each hand, but apparently I have dreamed it or it is on some supplement not present in the PRD as I can't find it.

Dual-wand Wielder from D&D 3.5, most likely.

Sczarni

I'd like to add Stunning Fist and Arcane Strike to the list.

Stunning Fist even specifically states that it works four times better for monks than non-monks, so why give it to non-monks at all? What non-monk character wants to spend a feat on Stunning Fist? Especially now that Pathfinder has removed the multiclass restrictions on monks, any character that feels the need to stun enemies with an unarmed strike can just dip a level in monk instead of spending a feat for it-- Stunning Fist should just be a class ability of the monk.

Arcane Strike is in a similar position-- it looks cool, but really only bards want it. The only other classes that meet the prereq, in Core or the APG, have no interest in hitting with a melee weapon. If this is something they want bards to be able to do, just make it a feature of the class. Heck, the Arcane Duelist archetype pretty must did just that. What does making it a feat accomplish exactly? Now, a Divine Strike feat might make a little more sense, since both Paladins and Rangers would want it, and certain builds of Cleric and Druid would want it, but not all of them.

This could in theory extend to any feat that calls out a specific class in its prerequisites-- with the exception of Fighter, since choice of feats are a fighter's main avenue of specialization (and I suspect most of the combat feats really only exist in the first place for the sake of fighters anyway)

Dark Archive

Can'tFindthePath wrote:
And, I just have to say; they don't "throw out" the pattern above medium. The pattern is based on each size doing 1.5 times as much damage as the one below it. They use this throughout, rounded to the nearest dice combo that works. It's just that you can only do so much with dice. I'm sure if the game used flat 'damage values', it would be x 1.5 round down. ;)

o_o... That IS the pattern from medium to large... I almost always see the patterns in these tables. and this seemed to be something where the pattern wasn't there. but the pattern from medium to small is the pattern I mentioned, which added to my confusion when trying to figure out the bigger pattern.

I think if you're to allow large creatures as a playable option at any point you could use my suggestion. It would make the pattern more reasonable in the hands of player characters.

If I decide to use the pattern you just mentioned, I'd feel a compulsive need to nerf the damage on small creatures to match it. In some cases the weapon die wouldnt change d8>d6, but you'd get d10>d7.5 (d6+1?) instead of d10>d8, because I'd round down instead of up, or d12>d8+1...

Since you have seen a pattern I missed in the progressions tables, could you help me with one other?

What's the pattern for WBL?

Dark Archive

Silent Saturn wrote:

Arcane Strike is in a similar position-- it looks cool, but really only bards want it. The only other classes that meet the prereq, in Core or the APG, have no interest in hitting with a melee weapon. If this is something they want bards to be able to do, just make it a feature of the class. Heck, the Arcane Duelist archetype pretty must did just that. What does making it a feat accomplish exactly? Now, a Divine Strike feat might make a little more sense, since both Paladins and Rangers would want it, and certain builds of Cleric and Druid would want it, but not all of them.

This could in theory extend to any feat that calls out a specific class in its prerequisites-- with the exception of Fighter, since choice of feats are a fighter's main avenue of specialization (and I suspect most of the combat feats really only exist in the first place for the sake of fighters anyway)

magus, eldritch knight, arcane archer, red mantis assassin all have good uses for arcane strike. spell sniper wizard archetype too

also any weapon, melee or ranged, works with arcane strike. not sure why you called out melee.


Darkholme wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
And, I just have to say; they don't "throw out" the pattern above medium. The pattern is based on each size doing 1.5 times as much damage as the one below it. They use this throughout, rounded to the nearest dice combo that works. It's just that you can only do so much with dice. I'm sure if the game used flat 'damage values', it would be x 1.5 round down. ;)

o_o... That IS the pattern from medium to large... I almost always see the patterns in these tables. and this seemed to be something where the pattern wasn't there. but the pattern from medium to small is the pattern I mentioned, which added to my confusion when trying to figure out the bigger pattern.

I think if you're to allow large creatures as a playable option at any point you could use my suggestion. It would make the pattern more reasonable in the hands of player characters.

If I decide to use the pattern you just mentioned, I'd feel a compulsive need to nerf the damage on small creatures to match it. In some cases the weapon die wouldnt change d8>d6, but you'd get d10>d7.5 (d6+1?) instead of d10>d8, because I'd round down instead of up, or d12>d8+1...

Since you have seen a pattern I missed in the progressions tables, could you help me with one other?

What's the pattern for WBL?

Well, that's a tough one. Looking at the treasure per encounter table, I'm using the 'fast' xp progression as that is equivalent to 3.x and thus is most likely the base math of the wealth by level table.

It appears, with liberal rounding (especially at the higher levels) to be a 1/4 share of the treasure per encounter, multiplied by 10. Even tough there are 13 encounters per level on the 'fast' track, remember that some treasure is lost in expenses as well as the selling of items for half value; and they say as much in the text on placing treasure. They seem to have accounted for this with a 23% tax on WBL (i.e *10 instead of *13)

So 10 * 1/4 share, added to the level below = WBL

The slower xp tracks simply divide the treasure per encounter by the multiple of encounters per level, so it all comes out the same in the end.

Whew.

-Cheers Darkholme

Dark Archive

Frogboy wrote:
Might I make a simpler, yet more boring, suggestion? Use the weapon charts in the CRB as is. When you increase or decrease the size of the weapon, add or subtract one from the damage output.

Yep. thats a possibility. That'll give you the same average damage. But you're losing 1 damage off the maximum for every size above medium., and after large, you're also increasing the minimum for every step as well. It would give you a pinched middle view of the total damage spread.

Btw: While I see the 1.5x damage as the pattern, As I pointed out, my pattern seems to emulate small/medium differences better (player sizes). That makes me want to use my table for larger sizes as well. it allows for players with ridiculously oversized weapons (I dont have to feel bad if I allow monkey grip), I dont mind letting the fighter pick up a minotaur greatsword and swinging at -2 without the feat, and it opens up the possibility of me allowing large creatures as player choices, which I normally wouldn't do (except for the centaur - maybe, which uses medium weapons and lacks reach. You can rebalance the move speed bonus by making it just when running, and overland travel, as a horse can't maneuver as fast or turn as fast).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just thought I'd class up the joint and suggest the word "algorithm" as a replacement for "pattern" in the case.

Part of me wishes that game designers would simply include the algorithm for complex tables alongside the table in question.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Silent Saturn wrote:


Arcane Strike is in a similar position-- it looks cool, but really only bards want it. The only other classes that meet the prereq, in Core or the APG, have no interest in hitting with a melee weapon.

Melee focused sorcerers, Magi, come to mind as candidates for this feat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Doskious Steele wrote:
I know that the Eberron setting for 3.5 had a few feats that chained off of crafting feats; I think that one was for wielding 2 wands, now that you mention it.

Another was Extra Rings that allowed you to wear a total of 4 rings. It required the Forge Ring feat as a pre-req and was a bonus feat option for Artificers.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Even tough there are 13 encounters per level on the 'fast' track, remember that some treasure is lost in expenses as well as the selling of items for half value; and they say as much in the text on placing treasure. They seem to have accounted for this with a 23% tax on WBL (i.e *10 instead of *13)

I'm guessing the "23% tax" has something to do with the fact that every level-appropriate encounter is supposed to use up one-quarter of your resources.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Umbral Reaver wrote:

Example:

Celebrity bard walks into town and is famous and gains bonuses just for having the class ability.

A fighter walks into town, does a lot of good work and builds up a reputation, but is not famous because he doesn't have the class ability. It has locked down fame as a mechanical thing that only certain classes can benefit from.

Second example:

Celebrity bard walks into a town and is famous and gains bonuses just for having the class ability.

The aforementioned fighter walks into town and does all the awesome stuff and is granted fame bonuses to checks with the townsfolk thanks to his actions. What was the point of the celebrity feature if it can be accomplished using roleplaying?

The ability has no place in the game.

That's good.

It also sums up one of my main objections to the Leadership mechanics.


Epic Meepo wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Even tough there are 13 encounters per level on the 'fast' track, remember that some treasure is lost in expenses as well as the selling of items for half value; and they say as much in the text on placing treasure. They seem to have accounted for this with a 23% tax on WBL (i.e *10 instead of *13)
I'm guessing the "23% tax" has something to do with the fact that every level-appropriate encounter is supposed to use up one-quarter of your resources.

The 'resources' you refer to are explained as mostly hit points, spells slots, AND some expendables. Whereas, they say plainly that some treasure is assumed to be spent on such expendables, normal supplies, and selling items at half value. I think they just eyeballed it and decided that 10x was close enough, and easy, and smooth. It just happens to work out to about 23%.

Dark Archive

Selective Channeling.

Dark Archive

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Just thought I'd class up the joint and suggest the word "algorithm" as a replacement for "pattern" in the case.

Part of me wishes that game designers would simply include the algorithm for complex tables alongside the table in question.

Heh. for me? forget the tables, give me the algorithm, let me make the table myself if need be. Include the table for convenience if you will, but make it clear the algorithm trumps the table.

It would fix alot of irritating spastic progressions that I've seen players build around to capitalize on, or seen them be screwed because the forumla was rounded too many times. (rogue 1 cleric 1 bard 1 -> see BAB. it should be 2 byt the algorithm, instead its 0, due to rounding separately for each class.

Or people stacking +2 bonuses on favored class saves, or what have you.

I say: Give me the algorithm. I can plug in some numbers and spit out a table by myself. It would save me the trouble of telling my players: "I don't care what it says on the table, the table is wrong due to X (usually rounding errors, or double stacking things that should not stack)".


Darkholme wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Just thought I'd class up the joint and suggest the word "algorithm" as a replacement for "pattern" in the case.

Part of me wishes that game designers would simply include the algorithm for complex tables alongside the table in question.

Heh. for me? forget the tables, give me the algorithm, let me make the table myself if need be. Include the table for convenience if you will, but make it clear the algorithm trumps the table.

It would fix alot of irritating spastic progressions that I've seen players build around to capitalize on, or seen them be screwed because the forumla was rounded too many times. (rogue 1 cleric 1 bard 1 -> see BAB. it should be 2 byt the algorithm, instead its 0, due to rounding separately for each class.

Or people stacking +2 bonuses on favored class saves, or what have you.

I say: Give me the algorithm. I can plug in some numbers and spit out a table by myself. It would save me the trouble of telling my players: "I don't care what it says on the table, the table is wrong due to X (usually rounding errors, or double stacking things that should not stack)".

Aren't you even going to comment on my (awesome)breakdown of the WBL table.....if I do say so myself.

Dark Archive

Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Aren't you even going to comment on my (awesome)breakdown of the WBL table.....if I do say so myself.

I totally missed it.

That is actually pretty impressive. :) I will definitely be making use of it in the future to track stuff.

Thinking about it though.. that makes sense

4 members in a party.
1/4 share each.
13(10) encounters/level.

I have to say; you sir, are a clever puzzle guy.


Darkholme wrote:
Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Aren't you even going to comment on my (awesome)breakdown of the WBL table.....if I do say so myself.

I totally missed it.

That is actually pretty impressive. :) I will definitely be making use of it in the future to track stuff.

Thinking about it though.. that makes sense

4 members in a party.
1/4 share each.
13(10) encounters/level.

I have to say; you sir, are a clever puzzle guy.

Yeah, I figured you must have missed it; I posted within a few minutes of your request. Surprised myself that I broke it down so fast, and even more so that I hadn't seen the pattern in 11 YEARS of 3.x (well, I didn't look closely).

Anyway, I'm only clever some of the time.

Dark Archive

Heighten Spell
Eschew Materials

These should already be in the mechanics, and not feat-required. I always rule that players start the game with these feats.

Also, I keep seeing 'feats are a valuable resource' and I was surprised for a moment, because I forgot that my group has been playing with a feat at every level for over 5 years now! I never found it game breaking, and even when I feel the players are having too much of an easy time, I just give every challenge a +2 to it's relative number. (DC, Attack Bonus, HP, whatever)

Whoops! A bit off topic.

101 to 125 of 125 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew / Give your opinion: Things That Should Not Be Feats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.