|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I like these gripey lists (they fill me with ideas for houserules for my games);
What are some feats that shouldn't be?
I'm looking for feats that should be baked in mechanics that are just available by default, feats that suck, feats that are a crappy taxed milestone in order to get to another feat (terrible feat prereqs), that sort of thing.
I'll start this off with:
Weapon Finesse: This should seriously just be a property on the weapons it applies to, period.
Antagonize: This feat strips away something characters should just be able to do.
Weapon Proficiency: My god are these things terrible feats. I could *MAYBE* see spending one skillpoint for proficiency in a new weapon. But a feat? Totally unreasonable for a feat to give you a single weapon proficiency. If you want to use a weapon you can't, your best bet is basically always to dip into another class. I don't think I know anyone who takes weapon feats. yuck.
Spell Focus (Conjuration)
I understand you can have use for this , but honestly , tons of times is just a feat you need to get for the augment summoning feat and people will even forget they even have this lols.
These are really low hanging fruit...
Combat Expertise Doubly bad for also enforcing an ability score requirement on using a lot of combat maneuvers.
Improved Unarmed Strike It shouldn't be a prerequisite for the grapple feats.
Point-blank Shot A ranged combat feat that only works when you're close to your target, but you have to pick up anyway to get the feats you want.
Power Attack and Deadly Aim These should really be baked in options.
Run Just useless...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just about every feat that offers some minor bonus to a die roll rather than a unique ability (Dodge, Weapon Focus, Alertness, etc.).
Just about every feat that allows you to do something that anyone should be able to attempt (Strike Back, Flagbearer, etc.).
Heck, Power Attack probably belongs on both lists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My most hated by a mile is Power Attack giving the +3 damage to two handed weapons, you already get the extra bonus to damage from strength, PA granting the same is double dipping and has straight obsoleted the sword and board fighter because of the unbalanced damage levels that two handed fighters can deal every round. Then it's required for a bunch of feat chains, so you have to take it, even if you just want to have a specialized attack that doesn't really require power attacking. If it needs to be in the game then it should be baked in as Vivianne noted, or just removed as mplindustries noted.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just about every feat that offers some minor bonus to a die roll rather than a unique ability (Dodge, Weapon Focus, Alertness, etc.).
Just about every feat that allows you to do something that anyone should be able to attempt (Strike Back, Flagbearer, etc.).
Heck, Power Attack probably belongs on both lists.
I agree with most of this.
Any feat that amounts to 'If you're a member of this class/race/whatever, you will take it or you're an idiot' should be baked into that element.
I'm also going to add 'any racial feat that does not explicitly interact with that race's mechanics'. There's absolutely zero reason that a non-elf can't learn to stab someone with an arrow in melee, or a non-dwarf can't learn how to brew poisons and alcohol better. Completely nonsensical. Applies to any other racially restricted game elements as well.
|
|
Just about every feat that offers some minor bonus to a die roll rather than a unique ability (Dodge, Weapon Focus, Alertness, etc.).
Just about every feat that allows you to do something that anyone should be able to attempt (Strike Back, Flagbearer, etc.).
Heck, Power Attack probably belongs on both lists.
Hmm. I don't disagree with any of those statements. I would like to see more specific examples though.
Spell Focus (Conjuration)
I understand you can have use for this , but honestly , tons of times is just a feat you need to get for the augment summoning feat and people will even forget they even have this lols.
I really think augment shouldn't have this as a prerequisite, clerics focused on undead fighting or pit spell specialists should have to take the feat to get the plus one to DC's
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hmmm too easy STRIKE BACK
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leadership!
The item creation feats, maybe.
Definitely Weapon Finesse.
Gonna reiterate Deadly Aim/Power Attack/Combat Expertise/Weapon Finesse.
Improved/Greater TWF, should just be part of TWF that scales on BAB.
dotting
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any feat which lets you trade x for y. Trading x for y should be a built in game mechanic, not a feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have nothing to add really except to say that I agree. Especially about:
Power Attack (if you wanna swing recklessly hard, swing recklessly hard)
Weapon Finesse (it's like a golf club - try to muscle it and you'll just look silly)
Combat Expertise (if you wanna fight more cautiously, fight more cautiously)
Deadly Aim (if you wanna target a more sensitive spot, fine, but it's gonna be a harder shot)
Leadership (if a single feat is the only thing stopping you from recruiting a cohort, then you don't really want one - cause that's cheap)
Lunge (seems like it should simply be a combat option?)
Mounted Combat (maybe just make it a Ride check to avoid the damage?)
Natural Spell (this falls into the "only an idiot wouldn't take it" category for druids)
Point-Blank Shot (if you're close, the shot is easier. done.)
Quick Draw (it only matters for one level for some classes)
Selective Channeling (I actually kind of like the RP situation of knowing you can heal your allies...but by healing your enemies, too, but since it IS an option, you are an idiot if your cleric doesn't take this)
Strike Back (plenty of good arguments already given)
I would be perfectly happy to get feats less often, but have them be bigger game changers. My 2 cp...if it's worth even that.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, Quick Draw is important for balancing thrown weapon users!
Selective Channeling (I actually kind of like the RP situation of knowing you can heal your allies...but by healing your enemies, too, but since it IS an option, you are an idiot if your cleric doesn't take this)
I disagree with this, generally speaking. For a channel-focused or healing-focused build with all the bells and whistles, sure, but for most clerics, who do their healing post-combat, it's not that useful.
I disagree with this, generally speaking. For a channel-focused or healing-focused build with all the bells and whistles, sure, but for most clerics, who do their healing post-combat, it's not that useful.
Selective Channeling (I actually kind of like the RP situation of knowing you can heal your allies...but by healing your enemies, too, but since it IS an option, you are an idiot if your cleric doesn't take this)
You're absolutely right, Zhayne. I didn't state my assumption that you'll actually be using those channels to heal in combat. Good catch. I agree that it's not an obvious choice for post-combat healers.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Extra Rogue Talent count? Because I can name a ton of rogue talents for this. Rumormonger is on the top of my list. That's right, for the cost of a feat equivalent you can spread rumors! But only if your an advanced rogue. Everyone knows spreading rumors is difficult, and only for those truly brave, daring, and superhuman who have made the proper investments!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to outright say that feat trees, in general, suck and should not be. If you don't want someone to have a feat before X level, just say that, or use a BAB limit if you must. Don't pile a bunch of useless stuff in front of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the feat taxes I can understand. Some are too powerful in spite of being generic, while others stagger character progression and prevent certain combos from appearing too early. Power Attack and Deadly Aim, while they are feat taxes, are powerful enough that they do need to be feats.
I dislike most metamagic feats. I don't have a problem with metamagic, or it being a feat. The problem is that most of the spell level adjustments are too high for the resulting effect, and it seems the feat only exists as a formality so the corresponding metamagic rod can appear in the "magic items" chapter.
Weapon Finesse: This should seriously just be a property on the weapons it applies to, period.
Totally in agreement; this is the houserule at my table. Dex-based melee combatants are already way behind strength-based ones by default, why should they have to pay a feat on top of this?
Antagonize: This feat strips away something characters should just be able to do.
This feat is just aweful. Even overlooking how woefully out-of-line it is for a feat or how it's totally inappropriate for a skill check, the DC is so outrageously low that in any realistic scenario the antagonizer should be able to take 1.
Run Just useless...
Run is a filler feat for a NPC. It's not a prerequisite for anything, it's not some stupid tax you need to take to be competent at your role, it's just a bad selection. I don't think there's an inherent problem with that; a player will never use it, and it will occasionally see use as part of a NPC's start block. I feel the same way about the skill-related feats.
Quick Draw (it only matters for one level for some classes)
The "draw a weapon as part of a move action" rule does take the oomph out of quickdraw, but it still has use beyond that. It's not so much a feat that shouldn't be as a feat that needs a little something more.
Weapon Finesse
Biggest, dumbest feat tax in the world and +1 BAB as a requirement when the classes who would like to pick it up don't have +1 BAB at first level has been insult to injury for over 10 years with Dungeons and Dragons.
Weapon Finesse no longer has a prerequisite in Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah. Playing a summoner cleric with Augmented Summoning, and let me tell you, getting a +1 bonus to the Will save DC that Undead have to beat when I hit them with cure light wounds is so powerful the rest of the party is starting to complain about me overshadowing them. Or will, if we actually meet any undead...
There's one like this for halflings that lets them pretend to be still tied.
Oh wow. That really is terrible. The double whammy of being so ridiculously situational that nobody would ever take it, and it falls afoul of the "why does this need to be a feat?" clause.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it must be comforting to jailers everywhere to know that gnomes are the ONLY ones to watch out for in such a situation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, gonna draw up a quick list of reasons why some feats are terrible.
1) This Should Not Require a Feat
The big issue with these feats is that they feel like they're providing a character ought to be able to do naturally. Things like taunting a villain or trying to trick a captor into loosening ropes are things that ought to just be uses of existing skills/abilities.
2) Prerequisite Problems
The prerequisites for a given feat end up feeling either arbitrary, unnecessary, or needlessly restrictive. "Racial" feats that don't have anything to do with the race in question, ability score requirements that don't make sense for the ability in question, or feats that just require jumping through half a dozen hoops to actually be takeable.
3) Feat Chains
Feat chains are in many cases a subset of problem two, if the prerequisite feats don't feel like have no logical link. However, there are also feat chains where it feels like the added investment in simply required to keep the initial feat relevant. Vital Strike and Two Weapon Fighting are good examples, as they require two additional feats just to help them (not really) keep pace with iterative attacks due to rising BAB. Feat investment isn't being done to make an ability better, but rather just to keep it relevant.
4) Lack of Usefulness
The bonuses and/or abilities offered by the feat are simply so minor or narrowly defined that there's no reason to ever take it. While there is some room for variance depending on the table/campaign, some of bonuses feats will provide are just so narrow it's hard to see them ever being use more than once or twice in a campaign without the GM stretching the bounds of credulity.
5) "Must Have" Feats
Feats that are so good, there's no reason not to take them. These lead to boring cookie-cutter builds, and end up indirectly cutting down on options if players don't want to sacrifice mechanical effectiveness for flavor. Archery especially suffers from this, having so many must-have feats that almost all archer builds for a given class are identical until all the must-haves are filled out.
1) This Should Not Require a Feat
The big issue with these feats is that they feel like they're providing a character ought to be able to do naturally. Things like taunting a villain or trying to trick a captor into loosening ropes are things that ought to just be uses of existing skills/abilities.
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on this one, though I do generally agree. The difference here is, if you don't take the feat, you're completely at the GM's mercy for how it works, or if it works. You taunt the bad guy? Great! He blows you off and keeps doing whatever it was he was doing before.
With the feat, you get an actual mechanical model, which tells you how it works, if it works, and what happens when it works. In theory, the GM will have the taunted NPC react as the feat dictates.
Hey, you can't bring up Helpless Prisoner without our good friend, Supernal Feast!.
There was a topic about awful feats that we could just addend to this one for feats like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So there's a feat to yell at someone, and make them kill you better? That... how!? WHY!?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
when talking about feats, Gnome of golarion is probably the worst book ever
Caustic Slur
You know exactly how to insult your favored enemies in order to make them lose their heads.Prerequisites: Bluff 1 rank, favored enemy class feature, gnome.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a Bluff check against one sort of favored enemy. Any creature of that type within 60 feet of you must make a Will saving throw or become angered. If an affected creature attacks you, it's treated as if it were using Power Attack (taking a penalty on attack rolls but gaining a bonus on damage rolls). If the creature already has the power attack feat, the attack penalty increases by 1 and the damage bonus increases by 2. These modifiers end when combat ends. This ability does not work on creatures that cannot understand you, though sometimes a simple gesture is sufficient for an intelligent opponent to catch your gist regardless of any language barrier.
So you spend a feat, and gain the ability to
-spend your turn to
-make an enemy roll a Will save which if they pass
-nothing, and if they fail
-they gain a feat to use against you if they choose to hit you, otherwise nothing.
I see.
I begin to understand why gnomes are not on the top of the food chain.
Gnomes also get Arcane School Spirit which is a little weird, Gnome weapon Focus which is weapon focus for one exotic weapon, and Tantrum, which allows you to feint while rage. They also have bewildering koan, because only gnomes think while meditating and tell you what they thought. Oh, and it cost ki... for some reason.
In general, most racial feats are hit or miss and could probably be opened up to everyone and it wouldn't harm a thing.
when talking about feats, Gnome of golarion is probably the worst book ever
I always imagine the planning discussion for that book went "Hey guys, we have the opportunity to make Gnomes into a non-joke race!" and then everyone else started laughing hysterically.
Bewildering Koan is pretty awesome though, especially considering the dev comments that "next action" means "next turn..." still shouldn't be Gnome only though.
Vital Strike. OK, so it's not completely useless (though strictly worse than full attacking in the great majority of cases), but very badly designed. It relies on having a big dice weapon (greatsword, T Rex bite, etc) to be any use whatsoever and so penalises TWFers and Sword&Boarders for no good reason. And it doesn't scale. And it's AWESOME for some animals who get high BAB and big teeth but no iteratives. I've replaced it with a flat +BAB to damage and ditched the Improved & Greater versions. And it can be used with a charge &/or cleave. And fighters get it for free at 8th level.
Furious Focus: why does this need 2 hands? Again with the 2H bias.
Furious Focus: why does this need 2 hands? Again with the 2H bias.
It also happens to have a followup feat, dreadful carnage. Dreadful carnage has nothing to do with power attacking or using 2 handed weapons. I even made a thread about it. Okay feat, just weird prereqs.
1) This Should Not Require a Feat
The big issue with these feats is that they feel like they're providing a character ought to be able to do naturally. Things like taunting a villain or trying to trick a captor into loosening ropes are things that ought to just be uses of existing skills/abilities.I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on this one, though I do generally agree. The difference here is, if you don't take the feat, you're completely at the GM's mercy for how it works, or if it works. You taunt the bad guy? Great! He blows you off and keeps doing whatever it was he was doing before.
With the feat, you get an actual mechanical model, which tells you how it works, if it works, and what happens when it works. In theory, the GM will have the taunted NPC react as the feat dictates.
True, but in that case there's no reason they couldn't just include mechanical guidelines for things like that in the Gamemastery Guide instead of charging a feat for it.
So, can we come to a consensus on a starting point for what to do with the feats? If you can, make a suggestion for concrete house rules to solve the above issues.
So, can we come to a consensus on a starting point for what to do with the feats? If you can, make a suggestion for concrete house rules to solve the above issues.
The racial feats problem is easy; unless a feat interacts with a race's inherent mechanics, then it's not racial.
So, can we come to a consensus on a starting point for what to do with the feats? If you can, make a suggestion for concrete house rules to solve the above issues.
my suggestions:
1) Eliminate gateway feats to allow more individuality, either by giving them to everyone or removing them from the game.
2) Open racial feats to everyone, and eliminate the ones that don't make sense.
3) Eliminate metamagic feats, period.
Intimidating Prowess shouldn't exist, and you should be able to use STR instead of CHA.
@Sissyl - good call. So, using Chengar Qordath's 5-point Feat-streamline disparity/obsolescence identification system, here are my very basic ideas.
1: Should not require a Feat:
True, but in that case there's no reason they couldn't just include mechanical guidelines for things like that in the Gamemastery Guide instead of charging a feat for it.1) This Should Not Require a Feat
The big issue with these feats is that they feel like they're providing a character ought to be able to do naturally. Things like taunting a villain or trying to trick a captor into loosening ropes are things that ought to just be uses of existing skills/abilities.I'm going to play Devil's Advocate on this one, though I do generally agree. The difference here is, if you don't take the feat, you're completely at the GM'os mercy for how it works, or if it works. You taunt the bad guy? Great! He blows you off and keeps doing whatever it was he was doing before.
With the feat, you get an actual mechanical model, which tells you how it works, if it works, and what happens when it works. In theory, the GM will have the taunted NPC react as the feat dictates.
Yep. These feats that "anyone should be able to do" should be rolled into the mechanics of the Core Rules. The feats should be eliminated and the rules associated with them moved and/or revised.
- The option to Power Attack should be in the Combat Section.- The mechanics for Weapon Finess should be in the Equipment/Weapons and/or Combat Section.
Etc etc.
2. Prereqs: Remove the unnecessary prereqs, especially the arbitrarily "racial" prereqs.
3. Feat Chains: Simplify the initial feat of feat chains where possible to scale by level/BAB/dependant ability and remove chain altogether for others. Especially if the emd of the feat chain is something "everybody should be able to do". ;)
4: Lack of Usefulness: Where absolutely necessary consign to Core Mechanic "example of play" sidebar. Otherwise elide.
5: "Must Have" Feats: Either roll them into the Core Mechanic or turn them into archetype power choices.