| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After seeing the phrase " that's the kinda thing you need a feat for" come up in several threads I have to wonder if somethings that aren't defined in the would be better off as rules not feats, some feats included.
See the difference while subtle at first is actually very big. A rule applies to everyone while a feat applies to just those that have it. Right now in the rules for instance there is nothing covering using a grappled target as a shield for more than the standard soft cover. It's one of those things you have to house rule. Now if the devs decide to put in something to change that they can either add rules for making a check to do it or make a feat. Making it a feat actually becomes prohibitive since you now lock out anyone who can't spare a feat.
An actual example I can think of is the feat that lets you shine light off of your weapon to blind someone. This is really the kind of thing dirty trick already covers but now you need something else besides dirty trick to blind a guy with shiny light.
A copper for your thoughts.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish more people would remember the two basic rules of DnD: Say yes to things and Rule 0. The game isn't going to break if you let players be creative.
I agree wholeheartedly. I hope in the future when considering the release if a new feat we can stop and ask if it's something you really need special training for, or is it something that really anyone should have a shot at.
I think that idea works when you have GM's that know what they are doing. Personally I can often see the long term affects of allowing certain things and/or setting a certain precedent. I also think that not every houserule works for every game. In a game like mine where the monster's can do everything the PC's can do, I have to careful about setting precedents with the "rule of cool". In a game where the GM is more partial to the players this is less of an issue.
Saying something won't break the game is a very broad statement also. I think it is better to say it won't always break the game, and who the runner of the game, will also be a factor.
Say yes is also not a basic rule, and Rule 0 does not agree with the players. It is just a way for a GM to be empowered to make decisions.
Many things should be feats though. Those Paizo guys get paid to test things that I don't have time to test, and something from a player often sets a bad mood. I think that is why GM's are careful to not just say yes. For those of you with players who can understand if you say "I made a mistake. I can't allow X anymore.", it is easier to give something out first. Not all of us have the luxury of having such players. With that said the players are going to have to realize that "takebacks" might be needed if they want the GM to be more open to things.
Just to be clear I'm not talking about house rules I'm talking about both feats that limit existing rules and the fact that some things the devs might consider adding in the future would be better off as rules and new feats.
ok, I got it. I completely misunderstood you. In that case power attack should have been a rule, not a feat. The game does push system resource management so I guess they have to decide what should require training, and what should everyone be able to do. Taking a hit for an adjacent ally should probably be doable though, without a feat.
As for the grapple and shield example, grappling someone, and having enough control to position them are two different things. The person may be on the verge of reversing the grapple or escaping. Now if you have someone pinned I think it would be more likely to make sense, without a feat.
It was a quick example I think the blinding blade example gets my point across better. If the feat had just opened it up to a ranged blind sure but now I can't even do it without the feat. And blinding someone with a flash of light from your blade should be something you use dirty trick for.
You can, you just have to be in melee range.
YMMV some gms are going to run it as not possible because there is another feat covering it.
After seeing the phrase " that's the kinda thing you need a feat for" come up in several threads I have to wonder if somethings that aren't defined in the would be better off as rules not feats, some feats included.
Yup! I disliked Antagonize for this as much as for being horribly broken. Forget the horrible feat mechanics, what is even sillier is the idea that taunting or goading someone in combat requires specialist feat training.
There's a couple issues at work here. First there is the idea that you want everyone to do X. This edition of the game basically focuses on personal character building and the larger the menu of options (as opposed to universal abilities), the more you've got to build from to differentiate yourself. Good or bad, that's how it is.
Secondly and more importantly, there's a publishing reality. If Paizo put out a book full of "more rules that are legal for everyone", many, many DMs would ban it. They'd have to memorize the whole book and think about how everything in it might interact with their campaign plans. On the other hand a book of nothing but feats would sell very well because a DM knows their players have to document which ones they take, reducing the studying required. Again, good or bad, that's how it is.
Regarding the trick of blinding, should it be given for free? Probably not, as the blind condition gives a huge advantage.
In a game I'm playing, my Red Mantis Assassin wanted to do this. There is a sheild enahancement which allows you to attempt a blind a few times per day. Since my Mantis isn't using a sheild, my GM allowed me to enhance one of my swords with this ability (at the cost of a sheild enhancement), provided I took 2 weapon defense (so my sword is being used as a sheild). This gave a cost to the ability which seemed in balance, and still felt like it was withing the spirit of the rules.
However, having played 3.5 toward the end, I appreciate the fact that Paizo is very careful about power creep. More rules = more power, and the game becomes less challenging... and to Anguish's point above, a bigger headache for GMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be a pedant, there is a feat for using a grappled target for soft cover. Which, uh, I guess helps prove your point.
<redacted>
I'll definitely work with my players if they're trying to do something creative. If there's already a feat for what they're trying to do, however, then I try and make sure that the relevant DC is harder than it would be if they had the feat.
I think this is a good approach. If there's a feat for doing X, think of that feat as IMPROVED X, and then think of how someone without the feat does the same thing. Perhaps they take a penalty or perhaps they provoke where someone with the feat wouldn't.
Example: Anyone can use the trip maneuver despite the existance of Improved Trip, you're just a lot better at it.
So if a feat for "Swing from Chandelier" is published, don't suddenly decide that no one can swing from chandeliers without it. Steal the mechanic from the feat, but insure that those with the feat get a feat's worth of improvement when they have it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
YMMV some gms are going to run it as not possible because there is another feat covering it.
There is no feat required to use the Dirty Trick maneuver, you just provoke an AoO. You can come up with any explanation you want for how you give your opponent the Blind condition. Having the feat just lets you do it without provoking.
|
I think this is a good approach. If there's a feat for doing X, think of that feat as IMPROVED X, and then think of how someone without the feat does the same thing. Perhaps they take a penalty or perhaps they provoke where someone with the feat wouldn't.
I agree. What I liked about Dirty Trick was that it gave a general guideline for that sort of clever in-combat move and let players take a feat to do it better, but didn't prevent others from trying it. Feats are supposed to give players options, not take them away.
This is something I always worry when I see a new book coming out, that devs may create feats that actually limit options rather than expand them.
That's why I don't like feats that give you skill tricks, because those tricks should be usable by anyone.
That's why I don't like Body Shield, Blundgeoner or Blinding Blade, and one of the reasons I don't like Intimidate-based Antagonize.
That's also the reason I defend that Power Attack (and it's clones) and Combat Expertise shouldn't be feats, but combat options. Right now, they're little more than feat taxes (well, at least PA is useful).
The issue Lemmy is that many of us play by the book, and if it is not in the book then it is not legal other than by GM-Fiat. I do agree that some things should not require feats, but they had to keep the game backwards compatible, and within a certain size range in order to keep the price down.
I understand that, wraithstrike. I'm merely voicing an opinion. Who knows, maybe in PF 2.0, the devs decide to give us more options, rather than locking them in way-too-long feat chains.
Honestly, Power Attack being a "Combat Option" is about the same as giving martials an extra feat. 90% of the builds take it. It could be substitued by Furious Focus.
And Combat Expertise is so freaking useless it didn't even need the Int 13 requirement to suck. Even the name of this feat is wrong, if anything, it should be callerd "Improved Defensive Stance" or some such.
Of course, if a feat exists for something, then at a minimum a character who lacks that feat should not be as good at what the feat does as someone who has the feat. If this guideline is forgotten, a player who takes a feat could feel that he wasted a feat slot when there is too little difference between what he can do with the feat vs. what others can do without the feat.
The various improved combat maneuver feats handle this aspect fairly well -- they generally let you do the maneuver in question without provoking opportunity attacks and with some other bonus or benefit as well.
One thing I think Pathfinder did wrong was increase the frequency at which characters gained feats. This prompted them to fill up books with 'new' feats, some of which (Prone Shooter, I'm looking at you) are completely worthless. Most are not worth the price of a single feat.
But, yeah. There are WAY too many bad feats out there. And far too many things that should just be options for everyone that are being made into feats.
MA
And Combat Expertise is so freaking useless it didn't even need the Int 13 requirement to suck. Even the name of this feat is wrong, if anything, it should be callerd "Improved Defensive Stance" or some such.
+1
Regarding the trick of blinding, should it be given for free? Probably not, as the blind condition gives a huge advantage.
You already can attempt to blind somebody for free with the Dirty Trick Combat Maneuver (scroll down a little to find it). There's a feat that makes it easier and safer to do, yeah, but you can still attempt it for free.
Of course, if a feat exists for something, then at a minimum a character who lacks that feat should not be as good at what the feat does as someone who has the feat. If this guideline is forgotten, a player who takes a feat could feel that he wasted a feat slot when there is too little difference between what he can do with the feat vs. what others can do without the feat.
The various improved combat maneuver feats handle this aspect fairly well -- they generally let you do the maneuver in question without provoking opportunity attacks and with some other bonus or benefit as well.
I agree with all you said, David, but that's not what I'm ranting about.
The following situation is an example of what I mean:
Suppose in next "Ultimate" book they publish a feat named "Jump". This feat allows you to, well, jump.
But wait! Couldn't I do that before? Now, out of nowhere I need a feat to jump? Why?
It effectively removed an option from the game instead of adding a new one. IMO, this is what Blundgeoner, Bliding Blade and Body Shield do. Oh, and Bullseye Shot, by Odin, how I hate that this is a feat! "Look guys, you can pay a feat for the wonderful benefit of wasting your full attack where you can shoot 4~6 arrows in order to get a +4 to a single attack!"
Really, is there no aiming mechanic? Couldn't they add that to UC? Isn't that the point of the book?
YMMV some gms are going to run it as not possible because there is another feat covering it.There is no feat required to use the Dirty Trick maneuver, you just provoke an AoO. You can come up with any explanation you want for how you give your opponent the Blind condition. Having the feat just lets you do it without provoking.
The problem is that there is now a second feat for blinding by use of light reflected by weapon.
It's similar to the discussion on sundae ring an arrow in flight. By raw you can sunder an arrow. By raw you can ready a sunder attempt. But you won't believe how many people will leap into a rage at the thought of your sundering an arrow in flight because we already have feats that cover stopping arrows in flight. Even though none of those feats allow you to stop that arrow from hitting the king if your his bodyguard none of them allow you to use a weapon in your attempt and those methods all are auto success even when your sunder isnt.
The way I deal with players wanting to do something that costs a feat when they haven't taken the feat is simple: unless it seems like it would be impossible without specialized training, I let them try, but make it harder for them somehow. If the feat can be used as an immediate action, I might make it require a readied action. If the feat requires a check, I might give them a penalty of at least -4 or raise the DC by at least +4. I think it's a pretty happy medium and rewards players for their creativity without making feat choice meaningless.
I'm sorry, you can't become famous and/or benefit from fame.
You don't have the celebrity or demagogue archetype.
This reminds me of a joke thread I posted in a long time ago:
How many Pathfinder characters does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Only one, but it must be of the electrician class with the light fixtures archetype.
The way I deal with players wanting to do something that costs a feat when they haven't taken the feat is simple: unless it seems like it would be impossible without specialized training, I let them try, but make it harder for them somehow. If the feat can be used as an immediate action, I might make it require a readied action. If the feat requires a check, I might give them a penalty of at least -4 or raise the DC by at least +4. I think it's a pretty happy medium and rewards players for their creativity without making feat choice meaningless.
What if it's a new feat that "allows" you to do something you are already capable of doing? Like the hypothetical "Jump" feat I mentioned?
Does jumping suddenly become inexplicably harder for everyone who doesn't have the feat? Must all characters suffer and be restrained just so a feat feels justified?
I'm sorry, you can't become famous and/or benefit from fame.You don't have the celebrity or demagogue archetype.
This reminds me of a joke thread I posted in a long time ago:
How many Pathfinder characters does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Only one, but it must be of the electrician class with the light fixtures archetype.
And it must have the Lightbulb-Screwing feat chain, Screw In Lightbulbs, which allows you to screw bulbs without provoking AoOs, Improved Screw In Lightbulbs, which gives you a +2 and lets you use a stepladder to reach the bulb, and last, but not least, Greater Screw In Lightbulb, which lets you screw lightbulbs without losing your Dex bonus to AC.
This is something I always worry when I see a new book coming out, that devs may create feats that actually limit options rather than expand them.
That's why I don't like feats that give you skill tricks, because those tricks should be usable by anyone.
It's the nature of a game this style. Abilities/options tend to be exclusive.
If you want to make a large explosion that does fire damage to everyone inside, you need to have the spell Fireball. If you want to use a CM without drawing the AoO, you need the feat to do it. The term I try to use is "inherently exclusive". There's a base set of things, but without the right Skill, Feat or Spell, you can't do it, not just attempt and fail, but quite often it's impossible.
So, because the game is inherently exclusive, you get books with more feats and spells. In 3.0/3.5 we got prestige classes, now we get archetypes. These add cool new things to the game, but they reinforce how the game excludes you from doing things you aren't listed as being able to do.
There are other much more open ended games, and often times you'll see very few splat books for those. For one, they just don't sell as many of the base game to warrant more than a couple authors or even a staff at all, but the splat books wouldn't be as useful either.
An example would be FATE. You don't see add-on books to FATE systems, you see new settings and modifications that are exclusive to that setting (basic changes to the rules to modify how the game feels to reinforce a genre). The system is more inclusive and open to interpretation.