| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in my current campaign I toyed with the idea of handing out certain feats for free, namely Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
In related news, I got around to thinking of handing out "feat taxes" for free to characters of certain concepts. To that end, I made this house rule in progress. Tell me what you think!
Free Market Feats
In Pathfinder, there are a few feats which are nigh-essential to popular character concepts. Take Precise Shot, for example: it’s a feat which does not let you do a cool thing, but merely removes a penalty for doing something which will happen a lot in a typical campaign. Given that most PCs at low levels will have access to only a few feats at most, customization is limited because the game mechanics practically require these options.
Rules: At character creation, a PC may select up to four [Tax] feats as bonus feats. They do not need to meet the feats’ prerequisites in order to take them.
List of [Tax] feats:
Combat Expertise
Deadly Aim
Dodge
Exotic Weapon Proficiency [all]
Improved Bull Rush
Improved Dirty Trick
Improved Disarm
Improved Drag
Improved Feint
Improved Overrun
Improved Reposition
Improved Steal
Improved Sunder
Improved Trip
Improved Unarmed Strike
Martial Weapon Proficiency [all]
Mobility
Point Blank Shot
Power Attack
Precise Shot
Rapid Reload
Shot on the Run
Simple Weapon Proficiency [all]
Spring Attack
Two-Weapon Fighting
Weapon Finesse
How does the party wizard feel about it? Pretty much every non-martial character would pick up Dodge and maybe Mobility and not really care about any of the rest.
Edit: OK, a ray-based wizard might pick up the basic Shot feats. Still, it seems like every non-martial would pick the same feats, removing some of the customization attractiveness from the system.
I'd give them a set of related feats. Like the ranger can take a set of archery related feats (assuming he is an archer): Precise Shot, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Reload, Deadly Aim.
Either that or I'd just make things like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Precise Shot things that all characters can do provided they have a base attack bonus. These things are logical and don't require special training. Weapon Finesse is free to a character that wants it but you can't use power attack with a finesse weapon.
The others feel like things that should require training and experience especially two-weapon fighting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be simpler just to go with giving all characters Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Deadly Aim when they meet the BAB prereq. . . .
Considering I think feats should scale better, I agree with this. Some of the "basic" combat feats should be folded into the combat mechanic.
I also think that taking certain feat series and folding them all together to make an evolving feat would be cool. Consider if we folded all the weapon focus/specialization stuff together.
- At BAB 1+: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
- At BAB 4+: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.
- At BAB 8+: You gain an additional +1 bonus on attack rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus stacks with other bonuses on attack rolls.
- At BAB 12+: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus to damage stacks with other damage roll bonuses.
Of course, spending a lot of time making scaling feats out of feat chains is more effort than you want to get into for a single game.
I'd also consider give everybody magic item crafting feats when they qualify. Metamagic, on the other hand, is self scaling from getting higher level spell slots.
Another idea for the "Improved" feats you have listed, since they remove the provoking of AoO, consider just making those maneuvers provoke only if you miss. That will make some characters try out those maneuvers even without the feat. (I think I cribbed that idea from Evil Lincoln.)
Your idea is a good one, because it has the appeal of being simple.
Search Kirthfinder.
Kirth has done some fantastic work on this subject.
I'd also consider give everybody magic item crafting feats when they qualify.
This is something I did several years ago and it worked out quite well. I tied the feats to ranks in certain skills (knowledges arcana, religion, and nature; ranks in Spellcraft were required, as well) and a minimum caster level.
Additionally, I straight-jacked charms and herbalism items (basically really minor magic items) from Midnight d20, most of which were used for my Rom-equivalent culture, as well as druid-ranger-woodsy-types.
I'd also consider give everybody magic item crafting feats when they qualify.This is something I did several years ago and it worked out quite well. I tied the feats to ranks in certain skills (knowledges arcana, religion, and nature; ranks in Spellcraft were required, as well) and a minimum caster level.
Additionally, I straight-jacked charms and herbalism items (basically really minor magic items) from Midnight d20, most of which were used for my Rom-equivalent culture, as well as druid-ranger-woodsy-types.
Very cool. That makes sense. (I say that in response to the skill ranks and the additional items.)
Very cool. That makes sense. (I say that in response to the skill ranks and the additional items.)
It's worked out pretty well, I've also been tooling around with an idea regarding granting characters "bonus combat feats" based on the old Non-weapon Proficiency framework from AD&D 2e/weapon proficiencies from 3.x, ie fighters/monks get 4 maneuver proficiencies at 1st, all others get 2, and full spellcasters/summoners get 0. At every iterative attack gained, they gain a bonus combat maneuver proficiency.
The actual divide is more complex than that with complete class lists and categories based on an idea by Bardok not too long ago (pretty sure it was him). Hopefully, it'll work out, as it stands, combat maneuvers rarely (if ever) get used in our games. The requirements are just too high and turn you into a one-trick pony.
Combat Expertise
Deadly Aim
Dodge
Exotic Weapon Proficiency [all]
Improved Bull Rush
Improved Dirty Trick
Improved Disarm
Improved Drag
Improved Feint
Improved Overrun
Improved Reposition
Improved Steal
Improved Sunder
Improved Trip
Improved Unarmed Strike
Martial Weapon Proficiency [all]
Mobility
Point Blank Shot
Power Attack
Precise Shot
Rapid Reload
Shot on the Run
Simple Weapon Proficiency [all]
Spring Attack
Two-Weapon Fighting
Weapon Finesse
I disagree with most of these. Anyone can perform combat maneuvers, but the feats are obvious improvements. Exotic weapons are -supposed- to be superior to martial weapons in some way. Feats like Dodge and Mobility grant a bonus that can be exploited. Spring Attack is a unique ability. The archery feats represent special talents that not everyone can do. Archery does not need a boost. Everyone can fight with two weapons, but not everyone can do it as well without spending a feat on it. Simple weapon proficiency grant proficiency with a large number of weapons. Anyone can use an unarmed attack, but choosing a feat makes them deadly. Weapons Finesse is a feat tax in the sense of realism, but in the sense of game mechanics, being able to dump strength is a mechanical boon in many ways.
There are a few I agree with, such as Combat Expertise (in the sense that it does not relate to the feat it is a prereq for) and Martial Weapon Proficiency (in the sense that the feat is not worth one weapon). Feats like Deadly Aim and Power Attack I am undecided about.
I think this starts with very wrong assumptions.
Take Precise Shot, for example: it’s a feat which does not let you do a cool thing, but merely removes a penalty for doing something which will happen a lot in a typical campaign.
Translated, it means that it allows you to do something "cool". It makes viable something that otherwise wouldn't be, meaning it allows you to do something more/better than the average person, thus "cool".
Or are you telling me that the ability to shoot with precision is entirely ordinary?It's not like something isn't as good as something else just because it removes a minus rather than giving a plus (and note that, in truth, the two are the same thing).
Also, in the specific case, we're talking about ranged attacks, which have an inherent advantage over melee fighting (protection from being brutally mauled), which balances things out.
That said, even assuming that the right feats are included in the "tax" list, four is truly excessive. Free feats can easily break a game, unless other heavy modifications are made, so one would be already more than enough. In addition, for the game to stay balanced, monsters too must benefit from the same rule, and imagine what it'd be to add four feats to each creature...
This brings on the topic that if by adding such a rule for character you need to apply it to monsters too to keep things balanced, then it means the game is already balanced as is. And that, in turn, means the real purpose of all this is just to add more stuff to characters because you want more power, not because you need it for any reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exotic weapons are -supposed- to be superior to martial weapons in some way.
While I agree that they're supposed to be, I don't think most are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with most of these. Anyone can perform combat maneuvers, but the feats are obvious improvements. Exotic weapons are -supposed- to be superior to martial weapons in some way. Feats like Dodge and Mobility grant a bonus that can be exploited. Spring Attack is a unique ability. The archery feats represent special talents that not everyone can do. Archery does not need a boost. Everyone can fight with two weapons, but not everyone can do it as well without spending a feat on it. Simple weapon proficiency grant proficiency with a large number of weapons. Anyone can use an unarmed attack, but choosing a feat makes them deadly. Weapons Finesse is a feat tax in the sense of realism, but in the sense of game mechanics, being able to dump strength is a mechanical boon in many ways.
There are a few I agree with, such as Combat Expertise (in the sense that it does not relate to the feat it is a prereq for) and Martial Weapon Proficiency (in the sense that the feat is not worth one weapon). Feats like Deadly Aim and Power Attack I am undecided about.
I am going to have to disagree, though I respect your position.
Power attack, Combat Expertise, and Deadly Aim should be removed as feats and be part of a defensive, neutral, or offensive posture. If you go defensive, you could subtract from your base attack and add it as a dodge bonus. If you go offensive, you can subtract from base attack and add it to damage from pushing a little harder but losing that focus. (Yes, it makes less sense for archery, but its a mechanical consideration.)
You can attempt to perform any combat maneuver, but if they hit with the AoO, it doesn't take place no matter how well you hit. Since it always has the capacity to be interrupted, there is significantly less motivation to attempt it over a regular hit, which flies contrary to fun role play. Why not grapple the bad guys and subdue him if you are a hero... or use disarm or trip to show off... because again, it's just easier to straight up murder them than put yourself into a position to be heroic.
Martial weapon proficiency should be weapon groups.
Dodge is too limiting. A +1 to one opponent isn't worth a feat. Mobility is pretty good, but it is somewhat situational, though I imagine it's really popular on charging builds. Spring Attack is a trap.
Improved unarmed strike lets you use the smallest damaging melee weapon as a weapon.
Two weapon fighting should realistically be difficult. However, this is a fantasy game. Because of that, I don't think it should be so bad. You are spending feats to achieve mechanically what two handers get automatically (Strength and a half mod damage and less of a penalty to hit).
I haven't really looked at the numbers on archery, but I keep hearing that it's good. I don't think that many will be wrong (...with the exception of politics...) so I'll agree with you there.
I think this starts with very wrong assumptions.
Take Precise Shot, for example: it’s a feat which does not let you do a cool thing, but merely removes a penalty for doing something which will happen a lot in a typical campaign.
Translated, it means that it allows you to do something "cool". It makes viable something that otherwise wouldn't be, meaning it allows you to do something more/better than the average person, thus "cool".
Or are you telling me that the ability to shoot with precision is entirely ordinary?
It's not like something isn't as good as something else just because it removes a minus rather than giving a plus (and note that, in truth, the two are the same thing).
Also, in the specific case, we're talking about ranged attacks, which have an inherent advantage over melee fighting (protection from being brutally mauled), which balances things out.That said, even assuming that the right feats are included in the "tax" list, four is truly excessive. Free feats can easily break a game, unless other heavy modifications are made, so one would be already more than enough. In addition, for the game to stay balanced, monsters too must benefit from the same rule, and imagine what it'd be to add four feats to each creature...
This brings on the topic that if by adding such a rule for character you need to apply it to monsters too to keep things balanced, then it means the game is already balanced as is. And that, in turn, means the real purpose of all this is just to add more stuff to characters because you want more power, not because you need it for any reason.
I'd say the average human has all 10s. The average character has levels in an NPC class.
Yes, removing a penalty has the capacity to really increase to hit. But if the penalty is really big, players won't attempt it anyway unless they have no other option, and maybe not even then. Making some things more attractive options adds variety in game.
You don't necessarily have to add the extra feats to the monsters. You could just lower CRs across the board by one... or maybe even 1/2 depending on the creature. Or you could go ahead and give them some extra feats. I don't see it as too big of a deal. PCs and NPCs (both monsters and NPC classed people) labor under slightly different rules already.
Then again, that's just my impression and opinion. I could be wrong.
I think it would be simpler just to go with giving all characters Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Deadly Aim when they meet the BAB prereq.
I do this in my games, except they also have to meet the Dex, Str and Int prerequisites, works great and makes characters much more interesting
Just dump the function of feat prerequisites for feats altogether. It serves no purpose except to make martials less powerful to spellcasters (who don't really need to worry about feat prerequisites since most of the best feats for them don't have any and their power is in spells, not feats).
Dodge is too limiting. A +1 to one opponent isn't worth a feat.
Maybe it's time to re-read some of the feats in the CRB. ;)
Maybe it's time to re-read some of the feats in the CRB. ;)Dodge is too limiting. A +1 to one opponent isn't worth a feat.
... ! ...
Move along. Nothing to see here but embarrassment... :\
Don't worry, +1 AC to all opponents is still a weak feat.
In some cases, the feat tax comes with a stat tax as well; the most obvious is the Int 13 from Combat Expertise, but the Dex 15 for TWF kills some shield builds. So just giving them more feats won't help them. It also means that casters can do anything they like, because they're not going to waste feats on tree taxes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In some cases, the feat tax comes with a stat tax as well; the most obvious is the Int 13 from Combat Expertise, but the Dex 15 for TWF kills some shield builds. So just giving them more feats won't help them. It also means that casters can do anything they like, because they're not going to waste feats on tree taxes.
What's really bizarre about the Dex 15 for TWF is that deflect arrows is only Dex 13.
Apparently it's a lot more effort to wield those two weapons together efficiently (While not common, still can be found a fair amount in real life) than to knock arrows out of the sky (Something only seen in movies).
Two weapon fighting should realistically be difficult. However, this is a fantasy game. Because of that, I don't think it should be so bad. You are spending feats to achieve mechanically what two handers get automatically (Strength and a half mod damage and less of a penalty to hit).
Generally speaking, two weapons fighting irl was used where you would deflect an attack and create an opening with one weapon then attack with the other, not jabby-jabby 7 times a round; the only reason they had a weapon in each hand instead of a shield was so they could vary their attack pattern and not become too predictable. This should translate to the two weapon defense feat being on the list of taken without prerequisites, but only usable while two weapon fighting.
|
I will be dotting this for interest. Having feats that improve on their own as you progress without requiring you to get additional feat slots would be really useful. For instance, things like Two-Weapon fighting would automatically become Improved Two-Weapon fighting (and/or Ambidextrous) if your BAB or Character Level was high enough.