Jericho Graves |
.....Has anybody ever, in the history of PRPG, ever taken Catch Off Guard or Improvised Weapon Mastery?
Quite frequently. Yes. But our group GMs (myself included) usually run towns that have weapon laws and bar brawls become very difficult without improved unarmed or catch off guard. Throw Anything is very useful in a few situations for trap disabling in some of our dungeons. (if only to get rid of that pesky -4).
I will agree, however that Feat Prequisites sometimes don't make sense and don't get me started on the Spring Attack Line.
Ciaran Barnes |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of those feats have a niche IMO, but (obviosuly) some of them fail to deliver value on par with other feats.
Like it or not, some people very much like Sill Focus. Not many though. Endurance is a feat that would be great in the right kind of campaign with the right GM. However, that style of play isn't very popular and such hardships becomes less threatening as characters advance in level.
Precise Shot though, I have seen that one used many times over many years.
FelisNoctu |
Precise Shot, Combat Expertise, Skill Focus (Whatever), Mobility, and Endurance need to be dragged behind the woodshed and coup de graced, but you and I both know that's never gonna happen.
.....Has anybody ever, in the history of PRPG, ever taken Catch Off Guard or Improvised Weapon Mastery?
I uh... I had a gnoll barbarian focused in that sort of thing specifically. Combined with a few other things and some house rulings, she used full sized doors as shields, threw anything she could find at people, and used grappled enemies themselves as weapons against other enemies. Two-handed goblin hammer, anyone?
Combat Expertise is my annoyance. So many times I've stumbled across an interesting combination and then went "...oh. Nevermind then I guess."
Rynjin |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dodge and Mobility. And Spring Attack.
Really, just that whole line. Why do I need Mobility to Combat Patrol or Spring Attack to swing my sword in a bigass circle?
ESPECIALLY that last one. I wouldn't mind it being a Feta chain if the prerequisites made SENSE, but as-is it is a conglomeration of ALL of the worst Feat taxes for martials. You need Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, AND Combat Expertise. NONE of which synergize with the Feat.
What they were smoking when they made those prereqs I have no clue. Cleave already exists. Is this NOT the logical extension of Cleave?
Cleave: "Hit a dude next to a dude"
Great Cleave: "Hit a dude next to a dude who's near another dude"
Whirlwind Attack: "Hit all the dudes next to all the other dudes near me"
Snorb |
Adam B. 135 wrote:Power attack and combat expertise should have been normal combat functions I think. Not even feats.Combat Expertise is basically fighting defensively. But yes, Power Attack does not have a counterpart normal combat function.
Pretty much every version of Mutants & Masterminds and True20 have "Fighting aggressively" as a counterpart to fighting defensively. (You take a -4 AC penalty for +2 to hit. TOTES WORTH IT)
Inlaa |
Played in campaign where Power Attack, Weapon Finesse were not feats, just available for everyone to use, and Combat Expertise wasn't a prereq for all those tasty ones. Worked a treat.
I've seen this done with Weapon Finesse. It honestly works out pretty well - one less feat tax for the guys that usually are feat starved.
littlehewy |
Just to add, those were only a couple of a whole raft of changes made to feats and combat, including metamagic and other things. Here's the campaign info page, which lists and details the houserules. It ran without a hitch or noticeable imbalance in the early levels while the campaign lasted.
UnArcaneElection |
If I remember correctly, Mutants & Masterminds has feats of different cost. Pathfinder could use feats that cost different amounts. To avoid confusion, declare the current good feats to be single width and award half a feat per character level except a whole feat at 1st level (instead of a whole feat every odd level), and then declare the less useful feats (but that are still useful enough to be considered more than a non-feat) to be half feats (like traits), and let players take a half feat each level or save up for a whole feat (could even extend the concept for feats that are currently overpowered to one and a half or even two feats).
Examples:
Channel Smite (and Greater version): 0 (Non-Feat)
Additional Trait: 1/2 (awards 1 additional trait instead of 2)
Combat Expertise: 1/2
Endurance: 1/2
Exotic Weapon Proficiency: 1/2
Martial Weapon Proficiency: 1/2
Skill Focus: 1/2
Spell Focus: 1/2
Weapon Finesse: 1/2
Weapon Focus: 1/2
Weapon Specialization: 1/2
Feats that give you +2 to 2 skills, eventually scaling to +4 (Athletic, Persuasuve, etc.): 1
Extra {whatever}: 1
Greater {combat maneuver}: 1
Improved {combat maneuver}: 1
Power Attack: 1 (this feat scales in a useful way, so it is pretty good)
Angel Wings (and similar feats that give flight of unlimited duration): 1+1/2
Leadership: 2 (or 1 if you give it a prerequisite of a lesser version such as Torchbearer, instead of trading Torchbearer or whatever other lesser version for Leadership when you level up)
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
I once wrote a blog article about feat design.
Feat trees are rather stupid and contribute to the double standard that caused the disparity between martials and spellcasters. If a wizard doesn't need burning hands and scorching ray to learn fireball, then the fighter shouldn't need Dodge and Mobility to learn Spring Attack. If a feat is powerful or makes an already powerful build stronger, then balance it or give it a BAB requirement. For example, if they didn't want 3/4 or 1/2 BAB characters to pick up Precise Shot or Rapid Shot at 1st level, then make it require a +1 BAB instead of forcing martials to waste a bonus feat.
I don't like Weapon Finesse and item creation feats. In my campaign, Weapon Finesse is free and magic item creation is an inherent part of the Spellcraft skill. This also makes Deadly Agility very easy to pick up.
Duiker |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand how precise shot is even remotely worthless. I've never seen a ranged character who didn't have it after a level or two. It gives a tangible and significant benefit for a specialist, but isn't backbreaking for a non-specialist to skip in favor of other feats. I'd argue the opposite: precise shot is exactly in the sweet spot of where well-designed feats should be.
And I think I've taken at least one Skill Focus on every single character I've ever made. It's almost like the system has different options for different play styles, such that what's worthless to you, might be very valuable to others. Such a weird concept, I know.
Cyrad RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get the hate for Precise Shot, either. It's powerful and makes sense. While good, it's also not always an obvious choice. Precise Shot isn't worth it for switch-hitters, who should be engaging in melee when allies do.
The penalty makes sense and it's not a big deal for rays because touch attacks are more-or-less guaranteed to hit the target at mid to higher levels. The only thing I never liked about it was that allies STILL provide soft cover, and I think the penalty should be an AC bonus for the target, not an attack roll penalty. GMs, even ones in PFS, frequently forget that allies provide soft cover anyway.
Xexyz |
It isn't that precise shot is useless, it is that the penalty exists at all making the feat mandatory for all ranged builds (except maybe gunslingers since they target touch). The penalty also applies to rays and stuff as a mice screw you to wizards who want to focus that direction.
Considering archery has a much higher average full-attack uptime than melee, I don't mind it having that kind of penalty.
Set |
Power attack and combat expertise should have been normal combat functions I think. Not even feats.
Yes, indeedy. I was pushing for this back in Pathfinder Alpha, if not for everyone, at least for Fighters. (Giving them a damage bonus like the 1st edition Monk and an AC bonus / Class Defense Bonus based on level, as well as the ability to swap out numbers between their Fighter-class-based BAB, DMG and AC bonuses, to do a 'Power Attack' (-Atk, +Dam), or a 'Reckless Attack (-AC, +Atk), or a 'Defensive Attack' (-Atk, +AC) or a 'Precise Attack' (-Dam, +Atk) without any need for Feats like Power Attack or Combat Expertise.
Snorb |
Here's the hatred for Precise Shot: My best friend's psychic warrior character is about 6' tall. Our opponent... let's just say, oh, The Dragon of Athas, the ultimate badass in D&D, is (only!) 40' tall. (And yes, I did just Google search "the dragon of athas how big".)
I take a -4 penalty to any attack rolls I make with ranged weapons without having Precise Shot. Bows, crossbows, slings, thrown daggers, Scorching Ray blasts*, whatever it is I attack with at range, takes this penalty despite the fact that The Dragon is over six times taller than my friend.
Now, against a goblin or other human-sized creature, I can understand the penalty (but I don't condone it.) Against something much bigger than a human, like a giant or The Dragon of Athas, it makes zero sense.
*This is probably a REALLY bad idea considering his breath weapon does half Fire and half Abrasive damage.
Malag |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Snorb
Your hatred is unfounded.
If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
If your target is two size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with, this penalty is reduced to –2. There is no penalty for firing at a creature that is three size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with.
Precise Shot: If you have the Precise Shot feat, you don't take this penalty.
Puna'chong |
At the risk of this just turning into a Precise Shot thread, as an avid shooter gamer and someone who has won five Halo MLG tournaments, if you've ever played a game with friendly fire turned on and tried to shoot an enemy right next to an ally (without killing the ally), your aim has to be soooo much more deliberate. It's difficult to fire into a bunch of bodies moving around quickly and hit the one you want. That's what the penalty reflects, and I think it's perfectly reasonable.
SilvercatMoonpaw |
It's almost like the system has different options for different play styles, such that what's worthless to you, might be very valuable to others. Such a weird concept, I know.
But to those of us whose play style it doesn't fit we like to do to our players the same thing we'd like done to us and take out feats we find useless.
This thread is meant to collect what people don't like so that other people GMing and considering houserules can have better direction in considering what feats to take out.
Rynjin |
At the risk of this just turning into a Precise Shot thread, as an avid shooter gamer and someone who has won five Halo MLG tournaments, if you've ever played a game with friendly fire turned on and tried to shoot an enemy right next to an ally (without killing the ally), your aim has to be soooo much more deliberate. It's difficult to fire into a bunch of bodies moving around quickly and hit the one you want. That's what the penalty reflects, and I think it's perfectly reasonable.
To be fair, part of that is Halo's built-in aim assist being sadistic sometimes. If you have an enemy and an ally in your crosshairs it does its damnedest to hit the ally every time unless you very deliberately avoid it.
At least IME as a filthy casual. I even liked Reach!
Puna'chong |
Puna'chong wrote:At the risk of this just turning into a Precise Shot thread, as an avid shooter gamer and someone who has won five Halo MLG tournaments, if you've ever played a game with friendly fire turned on and tried to shoot an enemy right next to an ally (without killing the ally), your aim has to be soooo much more deliberate. It's difficult to fire into a bunch of bodies moving around quickly and hit the one you want. That's what the penalty reflects, and I think it's perfectly reasonable.To be fair, part of that is Halo's built-in aim assist being sadistic sometimes. If you have an enemy and an ally in your crosshairs it does its damnedest to hit the ally every time unless you very deliberately avoid it.
At least IME as a filthy casual. I even liked Reach!
Hey, Reach was great. It brought in a couple things that Halo was desperately missing and it had a fun progression system for people who wanted to look like "T3H SKULLZ0R". I actually had to turn off all aim-assist on consoles because it messed with me so much. Counterstrike and to a lesser degree Battlefield (Battlefield 2, mostly), can be really difficult to not teamkill when there's a cluster of enemies and allies in close quarters.
Really, it's just letting people who want to specialize in marksmanship look better and never worry. I think it also balances archery to a small extent, so it doesn't just take PBS and Rapid Shot to be showering people with arrows.
Coridan |
I'm not complaining about archer fighters or rangers having to take it, I am complaining about Wizards, Alchemists, Sorcerers, Ranged Investigators, Ranged Inquisitors, ranged bards. Feat starved classes who need to take two feats to be useful with their weapon of choice, nevermind effective (another feat for Deadly Aim is required).
Puna'chong |
I'm not complaining about archer fighters or rangers having to take it, I am complaining about Wizards, Alchemists, Sorcerers, Ranged Investigators, Ranged Inquisitors, ranged bards. Feat starved classes who need to take two feats to be useful with their weapon of choice, nevermind effective (another feat for Deadly Aim is required).
Wizards are far from feat-starved, and have the best spells in the game. Alchemists get extracts, inquisitors get spells, investigators get extracts, and bards get spells. I think it's fine that a full BAB martial class has a leg up in the martial department.
necromental |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the Precise Shot, I think that Point Blank Shot shouldn't be a prerequisite for archery chains (maybe for Snap Shot chain), but that Precise Shot should have that role. So a casual archer can only spend one feat instead of two.
On the others, I'm also in the camp for removing most of feat chains and ridiculous prerequisites (Combat Expertise, I'm looking at you). Only one I wouldn't remove is Spell Focus (conj) for Augment Summoning. We gave an alternate prerequisite for non wizard summoners (called it Summoning focus, adds extra round(s) to summon spell durations).