I Hate Feats


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

That's how I understood it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that any point system for feats any person derived would be almost completely different from one that any other person made up. Paizo, for example, still feels that "uses per day" balances an "I win" button, and that a minor situational bonus that you can otherwise use at will (on the off-chance that situation comes up) is incredibly valuable.

Sovereign Court

kyrt-ryder wrote:

You missed Kirth's point.

The theory is that the really good feats are behind feat chains [or other similarly challenging prerequisites] whilst the crap feats are all roughly equal and accessible.

Unfortunately it's nowhere near accurate.

Yes - I actually like feat trees in theory, but in practice many of them are far too long for their benefit.

Some of them are solid options though. Probably my personal favorite long feat tree (though only for somewhat niche builds) is getting up to Moonlight Stalker tree.

Several of them would be far too good for a single feat, and all of them (except Combat Expertise) are beneficial in their own right. However, they can easily eat your entire build, so the cost is substantial and not an easy choice either.

Basically, I think that it's a good thing to have in the designers' toolbox, they just don't always use it well.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The problem is that any point system for feats any person derived would be almost completely different from one that any other person made up. Paizo, for example, still feels that "uses per day" balances an "I win" button, and that a minor situational bonus that you can otherwise use at will (on the off-chance that situation comes up) is incredibly valuable.

I would wager that points to a disparity between how the gave devs view fundamental balance versus the community at large. I would wager they are correct more than they're not, and it comes to a couple different perception based biases that make us go "no, that one sucks." Reason being, essentially, the gradual stacking effects of those more small bonuses makes a certain outcome much more achievable than loud, flashy effects which might fail or have usage caps. Regardless of personal preference, the statistically likely outcome will tend to favor the consistent result.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Reason being, essentially, the gradual stacking effects of those more small bonuses makes a certain outcome much more achievable than loud, flashy effects which might fail or have usage caps.

Compare small, stacking Climb and Swim bonuses with overland flight and get back to me, when we need to cross a monster-infested river at the bottom of a ravine and then climb up the other side.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
Reason being, essentially, the gradual stacking effects of those more small bonuses makes a certain outcome much more achievable than loud, flashy effects which might fail or have usage caps.
Compare small, stacking Climb and Swim bonuses with overland flight and get back to me, when we need to cross a monster-infested river at the bottom of a ravine and then climb up the other side.

This is a non sequitur. Besides, this thread is about feat bloat and not caster/martial disparity. Please, keep it on topic. If you want to talk about feats that help jump across monster infested rivers at the bottom of a ravine, that's a different reply.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
this thread is about feat bloat

Really? I thought it was about how feats were poor in the strength department, not about the number.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
this thread is about feat bloat
Really? I thought it was about how feats were poor in the strength department, not about the number.

That still doesn't make the logical response to start comparing feats to spells. It's an apples and oranges comparison. As I said, if you want to look at feats to accomplish the same task, regardless of its method, then that's a different response.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
this thread is about feat bloat
Really? I thought it was about how feats were poor in the strength department, not about the number.
That still doesn't make the logical response to start comparing feats to spells. It's an apples and oranges comparison. As I said, if you want to look at feats to accomplish the same task, regardless of its method, then that's a different response.

with what else can one compare them?

I can only think of 3 things:

1.Class abilities

2.Skills

3.Spells
a.SLA's

2. & 3. both fall under 1., so unless Skills are the comparison Spells are a perfectly applicable thing to compare.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Several of them would be far too good for a single feat

Examples please? The primary examples that come to mind immediately are Vital Strike and Two Weapon Fighting and Spring Attack, none of which would be overpowering as part of the core rules rather than feats entirely.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:


Examples please?

In that post he directly mentioned the moonlight stalker chain.


M1k31 wrote:
with what else can one compare them?

Other feats? They're really quite varied. Lots of threads around here have identified redundant, objectively useless feats, and comparing their merits. If this thread is about feat strength, then this would be another one of those threads. Plus, if you can identify an area that is wholly lacking in the feat space, that's much more clear feedback for Paizo than simply ranting how feats suck.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The problem is that any point system for feats any person derived would be almost completely different from one that any other person made up. Paizo, for example, still feels that "uses per day" balances an "I win" button, and that a minor situational bonus that you can otherwise use at will (on the off-chance that situation comes up) is incredibly valuable.

Balance is always a personal question what feels fair to one and another.

It does not need to be perfect, just good.

Paizo has all the power in the world to print small weak feats all they want. But I don't want them for the same price tag each feat has. So change the price tag then.

Sovereign Court

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Several of them would be far too good for a single feat
Examples please? The primary examples that come to mind immediately are Vital Strike and Two Weapon Fighting and Spring Attack, none of which would be overpowering as part of the core rules rather than feats entirely.

Did you even read my post? I meant that specifically in the context of Moonlight Stalker tree. Please don't quote me out of context.

Moonlight Stalker Feint would be very OP as a single feat. Everyone with Bluff & SA would take it even if they could only use it occasionally.

Moonlight Stalker itself would be taken by every ninja who optimized at all.

And what makes a feat too good for a single feat is how it stacks up to other feats, not if it would destroy the entire system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Several of them would be far too good for a single feat
Examples please? The primary examples that come to mind immediately are Vital Strike and Two Weapon Fighting and Spring Attack, none of which would be overpowering as part of the core rules rather than feats entirely.
Did you even read my post? I meant that specifically in the context of Moonlight Stalker tree. Please don't quote me out of context.

I quoted you out of context because I wasn't familiar with that single specific feat chain example and was hoping you could provide additional examples to strengthen your position. Since you decided to hang your hat on this feat chain though, let's discuss it a bit shall we?

Quote:
Moonlight Stalker Feint would be very OP as a single feat. Everyone with Bluff & SA would take it even if they could only use it occasionally.

A swift action to bluff? That's supposedly OverPowered as a single feat? Nay I say this just about fits right into the power level a feat should have. Without a mile of prerequisites.

Quote:
Moonlight Stalker itself would be taken by every ninja who optimized at all.

Maybe. Against the rest of the current system certainly, but that's about where feats like Weapon Focus should be. Somewhat situational, but very good.

Quote:
And what makes a feat too good for a single feat is how it stacks up to other feats, not if it would destroy the entire system.

No, a feat's effect on the system as a whole is far more important than in comparison to another feat. Far and wide if Paizo started publishing massively more powerful Combat Feats and Skill-Based General Feats [and Rogue Talents] then we'd have far fewer debates on these boards.

Sovereign Court

kyrt-ryder wrote:


No, a feat's effect on the system as a whole is far more important than in comparison to another feat. Far and wide if Paizo started publishing massively more powerful Combat Feats and Skill-Based General Feats [and Rogue Talents] then we'd have far fewer debates on these boards.

That's an entirely different argument. What you seem to want is basically an entirely new rules system where feats are all far more potent. That's entirely unrelated as to whether or not feat chains are valuable design tools.

In that new system, you could easily use feat chains for feats are more valuable than that new baseline.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
The theory is that the really good feats are behind feat chains [or other similarly challenging prerequisites] whilst the crap feats are all roughly equal and accessible.

*cough* Power Attack


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
this thread is about feat bloat
Really? I thought it was about how feats were poor in the strength department, not about the number.

To me, those are basically the same problem...

i.e.:

- Having 200 good feats is ok.

- Having 200 feats, 170 of which are complete garbage that will never see the light of day and were published as nothing more than filler, just so Paizo could add "200 new feats for your character!" to the back cover of the book... THAT is bloat.


Lemmy wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
this thread is about feat bloat
Really? I thought it was about how feats were poor in the strength department, not about the number.

To me, those are basically the same problem...

i.e.:

- Having 200 good feats is ok.

- Having 200 feats, 170 of which are complete garbage that will never see the light of day and were published as nothing more than filler, just so Paizo could add "200 new feats for your character!" to the back cover of the book... THAT is bloat.

Ironically I've actually playtested this line of logic on a single character with a Fighter hotfix [that plays fairly well but creates a LOT more homework for the player and isn't really worth using for that reason] that grants two bonus combat feats per level [instead of one every two levels] and the class just about performs its job, what with 30 feats [in addition to weapon and armor proficiencies] by level 20.

Granted I also allowed free access to 3.5 and 3.0 feats, many of which are more powerful especially martial options.


Snowlilly wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
The theory is that the really good feats are behind feat chains [or other similarly challenging prerequisites] whilst the crap feats are all roughly equal and accessible.
*cough* Power Attack

I really wonder why power attack/deadly aim/piranha strike are even feats. They are basically a requirement for any martial, so you might as well turn them into a core mechanic.

Sovereign Court

Threeshades wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
The theory is that the really good feats are behind feat chains [or other similarly challenging prerequisites] whilst the crap feats are all roughly equal and accessible.
*cough* Power Attack
I really wonder why power attack/deadly aim/piranha strike are even feats. They are basically a requirement for any martial, so you might as well turn them into a core mechanic.

Only for two-handed combat. For TWF they're not very good, and piranha strike isn't good at all.


Threeshades wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
The theory is that the really good feats are behind feat chains [or other similarly challenging prerequisites] whilst the crap feats are all roughly equal and accessible.
*cough* Power Attack
I really wonder why power attack/deadly aim/piranha strike are even feats. They are basically a requirement for any martial, so you might as well turn them into a core mechanic.

I don't think they're required for a functioning martial, or more accurately they don't have to be. The problem is the only other feat for reliably increasing damage is weapon specialization, and power attack grants a much higher bonus. Were there other feats for increasing damage (say a way to add scaling precision damage to all attacks), power attack stops being a "must buy".


Buri Reborn wrote:
I would wager that points to a disparity between how the gave devs view fundamental balance versus the community at large. I would wager they are correct more than they're not...

Do PFS characters have to register their build with Paizo? You would think that Paizo would benefit from collecting that sort of data to see which feats, skills, and other options are actually being used, and they could adjust their design accordingly.


I really typed out "gave dev"? holy s+~!...

Andostre wrote:
Do PFS characters have to register their build with Paizo? You would think that Paizo would benefit from collecting that sort of data to see which feats, skills, and other options are actually being used, and they could adjust their design accordingly.

You have to register the character to get a number to record on chronicle sheets. You can go through the effort of copying stats over and what not, but it's not required, per se, as far as I know.

Thing is, even if that system was perfect, you don't really get a feel for a build until you play it a few times in a few different situations. I don't think you could easily get a feel for it from just looking at the stats. It'd be easy to point out maximal and minimal statistics, but to evaluate combinations intelligently would probably require some software or actual play.

I say software because the "old hats" that could actually glance and know what's up have been promoted and have generally better things to do. That kind of task would probably be a lowbie's job, if you're talking about consistent tracking and not one-off efforts.


Buri Reborn wrote:
I really typed out "gave dev"? holy s!#%...

One demerit!

Quote:
Andostre wrote:
Do PFS characters have to register their build with Paizo? You would think that Paizo would benefit from collecting that sort of data to see which feats, skills, and other options are actually being used, and they could adjust their design accordingly.

You have to register the character to get a number to record on chronicle sheets. You can go through the effort of copying stats over and what not, but it's not required, per se, as far as I know.

Thing is, even if that system was perfect, you don't really get a feel for a build until you play it a few times in a few different situations. I don't think you could easily get a feel for it from just looking at the stats. It'd be easy to point out maximal and minimal statistics, but to evaluate combinations intelligently would probably require some software or actual play.

I say software because the "old hats" that could actually glance and know what's up have been promoted and have generally better things to do. That kind of task would probably be a lowbie's job, if you're talking about consistent tracking and not one-off efforts.

I agree with you that an individual player would have to play a character to gauge how valuable a feat or other ability is, but I do think that looking at a large number of characters and examining trends would be useful. Yes, some people who didn't have experience with a particular less-useful feat would select it, but over time, the feat would be used less and less in favor of other feats as the community learned the pitfalls of certain builds.

If a feat that they thought would be popular turns out to be hardly used, Paizo could research it. Perhaps the feat has too many requirements? Perhaps the feat was made useless by a later introduced ability. Perhaps a feat suddenly gained in popularity when someone discovered a build that could exploit it.

Yes, Paizo can already research a feat, but being able to see the trends in feats used could direct their research, which could only be to Pathfinder's benefit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's actually something I'm already doing with my house rules, albeit with a much smaller sample size and less statistical rigor. One of my long-term goals is to collapse the number of feats by paring and/or combining unused ones.


Also the ability to purchase feats with "Gold" in your houserules is nice. It makes crappy and or situational feats not as bad as they can be picked up for a much much lower opportunity cost (although i'll admit there are cases where it's too good or cheap for certain feats but I digress).

I don't really think Paizo has an incentive to go back and do a mass re-work of feats of existing feats though. Given that they're a business they might/have and do release feats which are straight upgrades from old ones, Dirty fighting is my poster child for this. So in a sense they do revise feats but not in a strictly retroactive fashion.


Kirth's system is not perfect, but I hear less moans and groans since I added facets. Scaling feats works well in theory and somewhat in practice. I like personally prefer 'complementary' feats that use Kirth's philosophy of scaling up individually, but combine with others for greater effect.

A friend's game uses the number of particular types of feats possessed to effect outcomes, requiring more of a commitment to a 'theme', etc., like Elf feats, Crafting feats, Metamagic feats. E.G.: The feat 'Elven Dodge' is Elf only and scales on how many 'Elf' feats you have. It imitates Improved Evasion after 5 or 6 'Elf' feats.

I play a Eberron Changeling Transmuter that only has a few (3?) Changeling feats (familiar and two dealing with magic), meaning I can alter self 3 + 3 times a day. Next level It becomes 3 + 4 as I take another step in Alter Spell (energy), allowing me to shift a spell's energy once a day for every Changeling feat I have, though at -1 damage per die.

SKR, Kirth and several others have repeatedly pounded home the imperative need to go back and check the balance and complications of your work. It is beyond almost any other consideration. I cheat and give it to my most rules abusing player to test drive.


Overarching Feat Groups are an interesting concept. I know Paizo has done it at least once with the Damnation Feats, I wouldn't mind if they did so again.

The only "problem" i can see with that approach is it creates a very large incentive to have very arch-typical and homogeneous characters with no reason to branch out or rather branching out being very sub optimal/not appealing as you're punished for picking options outside of your designated set.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bwang wrote:
I cheat and give it to my most rules abusing player to test drive.

Destructive playtesting is absolutely the kind that's most valuable.


Firewarrior44 wrote:
but I digress

Spoiler:
You've helped me find some (and I've altered the current draft docs at home accordingly) -- thank you! If there are more, I'd welcome the discussion over on the appropriate thread.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What we really need is a great feat of strength.
Ah, but what we have is a great strength of feet.


Snowlilly wrote:
Perhaps you would be happier with a more narrative game system, like Feng Shui. You describe what your character is attempting to do and the GM assigns modifiers. The rule of cool applies, so get creative.

I see no reason that can't be done in Pathfinder.

Another gripe for me is all the combat feats that pretty much serve to say "don't bother trying to do anything more interesting in a fight that sword the enemy in their hitpoints." Lock blades and get in a suckerpunch? NOPE. Suck an attack-of-opportunity for trying, doofus. Pull the old sand-in-the-eyes trick? NOPE. Try to get a guy in a headlock? NOPE. Try to jump on the huge monster's back? NOPE. And conversely, if you DID spend the feats to be competent at non-hitpoint-removing tactics, you can spam them endlessly without your enemies ever being able to counteract them more effectively.

Or, what this guy said:

Mr.Lute wrote:

There are multiple feats that really, really need to be fixed.

For instance, Two Weapon Fighting being a chain.

Why. Just why. Make it one and done.

Or combat expertise tree-and in general, all of the various "you don't take attacks of opportunity while doing X" feats. They severely limit how and when people do anything actually interesting in combat, without a clear reason for them existing. Tons of monsters cheat and aren't subject to them, multiple classes cheat and aren't subject to them, why doesen't everyone with serious martial training cheat and not be subject to them? Why do you need eight feats to effectively utilize tripping, bull rushing, etc.?

Feat taxes were always a terrible idea, and this merely exaggerates it.

Power attack is also a problem. As is Weapon finesse. Required feats for most builds or useless.

In fact, I have problems with every single feat chain for martial fighting. Fighters get 20 feats! But, if they do anything more interesting than swing a sword, four or five of those are locked into making their fighting style work to begin with. It's fake, stupid, and exaggerates the disparity between martial classes and casters. Casters generally get interesting tricks online with every single feat, rather than enabling their casting at all.

Imagine if a wizard had to prepare Burning Hands as a prerequisite to take Scorching Ray, which they needed to work their way up to Fireball. Now the casters can feel the fighters' pain.


Ranishe wrote:
This is why many people have no issue with mundane / martial characters being less influencial than casters. The question is really what should be considered an inferior option that should be at a disadvantage?

Not playing a spellcaster.

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / I Hate Feats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion