Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Cutting down on feat bloat.


Advice


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This might actually be more appropriate in the homebrew section, I wasn't sure which it should go in. I was thinking about taking a weed whacker to the feat system the next time I DM'd a pathfinder campaign and I was looking for some advice on whether or not my ideas are sound or might lead to catastrophic results as far as power level goes. I've always hated having a bunch of filler feats required to get to really cool stuff, it basically means only the fighter gets to play with a lot of them. On top of that I've never accepted the idea that the fighter's exclusive feats were somehow vital to the integrity to the class, they just take away from options other classes should have access to, fighters are always going to be terrible, feat exclusivity won't change that.

Below are the changes I was thinking about, let me know if you think I've torn a hole in the space time continuum somehow or opened pandora's munchkin box of game ruining. Or if you like the idea and think I've missed something else bloaty, let me know.

~~~~~

Fighter level requirements become BAB requirements

Power Attack/Deadly Aim/Piranha Strike, Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat and Two-Weapon Fighting: become basic combat mechanics.

Point Blank Shot: rolled into precise shot, feats that required point blank shot no longer do.

Critical Focus: removed for being terrible

Mobility: removed for being terrible.

Dodge & Combat Reflexes: dodge is rolled into combat reflexes, any feat that required dodge requires combat reflexes instead. I wanted to make combat reflexes a basic game mechanic originally, but I thought that might change the combat dynamic too much if everyone could possibly have 2 or more opportunity attacks each round.

Endurance & Diehard: rolled into Toughness for being kinda boring

Spell Focus: no longer a requirement for any feats. While spell focus was thematically appropriate for most feats, mechanically speaking it didn't make much sense for those schools who didn't rely on bumping spell DCs.

+2 to two skills and +2 to a save feats: removed as prerequisites for being pure unadulterated bloaty garbage, with the exception of the improved +2 saves feats.

~~~~~


Looks good! This is pretty much what I recommend and roll with as well. One suggestion (if you weren't already going to do this) is to still require the ability score prerequisites to do the feats that have become combat mechanics. So you would still need 13 Str to Power Attack, or 15 Dex to use TWF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I never saw why ITWF and GTWF had those insane dex prereqs. Keeping that to 15 seems very reasonable to me.


Pahlok wrote:
Looks good! This is pretty much what I recommend and roll with as well. One suggestion (if you weren't already going to do this) is to still require the ability score prerequisites to do the feats that have become combat mechanics. So you would still need 13 Str to Power Attack, or 15 Dex to use TWF.

I was most likely going to keep those going, it makes sense to do so.

Ierox wrote:
Honestly I never saw why ITWF and GTWF had those insane dex prereqs. Keeping that to 15 seems very reasonable to me.

yeah, especially when twf builds are almost exclusively STR to damage, they dont have too many options for other stats with how many feats they already need.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Adding Endurance to Toughness seems good. Adding Die Hard as well seems a little too good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
Adding Endurance to Toughness seems good. Adding Die Hard as well seems a little too good.

my reasoning basically came down to asking myself when was the last time anyone was happy about taking any of toughness, endurance or diehard. The answer to that question was honestly just about never. I fully admit that all three feats give you very useful things, but they aren't things you WANT to need. They're feats that only benefit you when you're already in a losing situation, and the best way to mitigate those situations is to not get placed in them to start with.

Burning a feat slot of those three feats has always been akin to ripping off a bandaid for me because there are so many better uses for that feat slot that once you decide you need one, you just pull the trigger and block all the other options out of your mind. Even mashed together, I still think there are far better uses for a feat slot than getting all three benefits at once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't want to derail your thread or anything, so feel free not to reply, but out of curiosity what's wrong with Mobility (relatively new player/GM)?


doting for later


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LucyG92 wrote:
I don't want to derail your thread or anything, so feel free not to reply, but out of curiosity what's wrong with Mobility (relatively new player/GM)?

two reasons, the first is that it pretty much gets thrown at everything movement related as a prerequisite. The second is that it's a feat that from a balance perspective, is insanely strong at doing the one thing it's designed to do, and in all other situations it does literally nothing. When such a feat is used as a gateway to other feats that are actually useful in a variety of ways without being too strong at any one thing, it becomes "bloat". It's a passive feat you don't really care about, it doesn't really add anything to your build, it's just there because you needed to take it to get to something better. Sure it's nice when it's relevant, but it's not interesting or game changing which is what a good feat should be.


Have you considered making some of the Feats scale up with levels instead of needing Improved/Greater versions?

Also, the "need" for some feats is more a result of the game mechanics.


LucyG92 wrote:
I don't want to derail your thread or anything, so feel free not to reply, but out of curiosity what's wrong with Mobility (relatively new player/GM)?

it provides next to no benifits but is a prerequisit for so many other things its just a feat tax you need to get to get some other more usefulthings there has only been one verry specific build were i viewed mobility as any kind of useful and that was with my monk build that could move about 2500 feet in a run action so they had arround 500 ish move speed to just run arround and soak up all the enemies AoOs but it was like the stupidest build i have ever come up with


Guy St-Amant wrote:

Have you considered making some of the Feats scale up with levels instead of needing Improved/Greater versions?

Also, the "need" for some feats is more a result of the game mechanics.

scaling was definitely a thought, although trickier to implement from a balance perspective as some improved and greater versions of feats are insanely powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Fighter level requirements become BAB requirements

Agreed; with the Weapon Master Handbook now existing the Fighter has plenty of exclusive goodies and no longer needs exclusive feats.

Quote:
Power Attack/Deadly Aim/Piranha Strike, Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat and Two-Weapon Fighting: become basic combat mechanics.

Agree on this list, but Weapon Finesse should be added to it.

Quote:
Point Blank Shot: rolled into precise shot, feats that required point blank shot no longer do.

Lots of ways to handle this one, since Point Blank Shot on its own is a decent (if boring) effect. This approach looks fine, although it does make Precise Shot a ridiculous good feat.

Quote:
Mobility: removed for being terrible.

Personally I'd roll it in with another feat, but it's bad enough that it probably won't be missed anyways.

Quote:
Dodge & Combat Reflexes: dodge is rolled into combat reflexes, any feat that required dodge requires combat reflexes instead. I wanted to make combat reflexes a basic game mechanic originally, but I thought that might change the combat dynamic too much if everyone could possibly have 2 or more opportunity attacks each round.

Combat Reflexes is really good, but not so good as to be necessary on every build in the same way that Power Attack and Deadly Aim are for full BAB characters. I personally would leave it alone and roll Dodge in with something else.

Quote:
Endurance & Diehard: rolled into Toughness for being kinda boring

Toughness looks incredibly attractive with this change, right up there with Improved Initiative in terms of general-purpose feats you pick up after covering all your bases.

Quote:
Spell Focus: no longer a requirement for any feats. While spell focus was thematically appropriate for most feats, mechanically speaking it didn't make much sense for those schools who didn't rely on bumping spell DCs.

This also lets non-humans take Spell Specialization at 1st level, which is pretty much necessary to get a blaster working at 1st level.

Quote:
+2 to two skills and +2 to a save feats: removed as prerequisites for being pure unadulterated bloaty garbage, with the exception of the improved +2 saves feats.

I'd leave these alone. The skill feats are generally NPC material, and I use them frequently on NPC builds who need to be low-level but meet high skill DC's. Not everything needs to be PC material. The save feats are genuinely useful for shoring up a character with a weak save and I'd definitely leave them alone or fold them in with their greater variant.

Other suggestions off the top of my head:

* Weapon Finesse should be a standard game mechanic, or possibly fold it in with a general dex-to-damage effect.
* Improved Counterspell should be a standard game mechanic
* Combine the Vital Strike feat chain into a single feat (automatically progressing with BAB)
* Combine Craft Staff and Craft Rod (even combined it's still the worst crafting feat in the game)


Frogsplosion wrote:


my reasoning basically came down to asking myself when was the last time anyone was happy about taking any of toughness, endurance or diehard.

Toughness? Wizards, sorcerers, rogues, and anyone else with d6 hit dice and no major Con dependency. I agree that adding Die Hard is a little too good. Other than that I really, really like what you propose. A lot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Diehard is pretty good IMO. The reason you don't see more of it is because of the Endurance feat (which is gawdawful) being a prerequisite.

It would probably be fair to include Endurance in Toughness and have that as the prereq for Diehard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i dont see a problem with the diehard merging its both a boon and a curse as ive seen far more pcs die because of it than live


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:

Quote:
Power Attack/Deadly Aim/Piranha Strike, Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat and Two-Weapon Fighting: become basic combat mechanics.

Agree on this list, but Weapon Finesse should be added to it.

yeah, I was considering that. I also intended to combine the existing Dex to Damage feats into a single one that isn't unnecessarily complicated or restrictive.

Quote:


Quote:
Point Blank Shot: rolled into precise shot, feats that required point blank shot no longer do.

Lots of ways to handle this one, since Point Blank Shot on its own is a decent (if boring) effect. This approach looks fine, although it does make Precise Shot a ridiculous good feat.

having played an archer cleric from levels 13 to 18 now, I've found myself having to really put myself in harms way to activate PBS, honestly I just avoid it most of the time. At low levels it's far less risky since you don't need to worry about large reach weapon wielding demons one-shotting you.

Quote:


Quote:
Mobility: removed for being terrible.

Personally I'd roll it in with another feat, but it's bad enough that it probably won't be missed anyways.

I thought about rolling it into dodge, but I figured it would make AoOs worthless.

Quote:


Quote:
Dodge & Combat Reflexes: dodge is rolled into combat reflexes, any feat that required dodge requires combat reflexes instead. I wanted to make combat reflexes a basic game mechanic originally, but I thought that might change the combat dynamic too much if everyone could possibly have 2 or more opportunity attacks each round.

Combat Reflexes is really good, but not so good as to be necessary on every build in the same way that Power Attack and Deadly Aim are for full BAB characters. I personally would leave it alone and roll Dodge in with something else.

hmm. I was also considering just ditching dodge as a requirement for feats, I've never liked feats that boil down to "+1 to a thing".

Quote:


Quote:
Endurance & Diehard: rolled into Toughness for being kinda boring

Toughness looks incredibly attractive with this change, right up there with Improved Initiative in terms of general-purpose feats you pick up after covering all your bases.

That was kind of the intent. I might decide to go back and just roll endurance in and leave diehard alone, but I still feel like no one's ever felt good about picking up diehard...

Quote:


I'd leave these alone. The skill feats are generally NPC material, and I use them frequently on NPC builds who need to be low-level but meet high skill DC's. Not everything needs to be PC material. The save feats are genuinely useful for shoring up a character with a weak save and I'd definitely leave them alone or fold them in with their greater variant.

I wouldn't straight up remove them, I just figured they shouldn't be a roadblock for PCs who want to take an interesting skill based feat, or something like Ready for Action, other feats or having ranks should be enough.

Quote:


Other suggestions off the top of my head:

* Weapon Finesse should be a standard game mechanic, or possibly fold it in with a general dex-to-damage effect.
* Improved Counterspell should be a standard game mechanic
* Combine the Vital Strike feat chain into a single feat (automatically progressing with BAB)
* Combine Craft Staff and Craft Rod (even combined it's still the worst crafting feat in the game)

I'm beginning to agree with finesse, and WOW I never realized how jank improved counterspell is, that's definitely getting added. I'm still considering feat scaling so doing that to vital strike is an option, but speaking from experience, vital strike can be bloody terrifying. Honestly, I almost feel like all magical item crafting should be one feat, because either your DM is going to allow it, or they may as well not exist.

I was also thinking about combining Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec into one feat that gives +1 Attack and Damage instead of +1 and +2 respectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

so I've been thinking on the scaling, it seems like a good idea but I'm not quite sure how to word it.

I was thinking something like: If a feat you possess has an improved or greater version, you gain that feat when you meet it's prerequisites unless it's only prerequisite is the base feat.

Would that work, or are there feats out there that would break such a simple fix? My biggest concern with most of these ideas is ending up having to rewrite a bunch of feats on a case by case basis because of the changes, but I can't think of any issues off the top of my head.

I included the last bit because spell focus and spell penetration both have prereqs of simply having the base feat, so it made sense to exclude those cases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frogsplosion wrote:
I was thinking something like: If a feat you possess has an improved or greater version, you gain that feat when you meet it's prerequisites unless it's only prerequisite is the base feat.

This idea has been brought up many times before. The approach I've seen most often is to just eliminate the "Greater" version of the feat and adjust the wording of the regular feat to indicate that the bonus or effect increases at a certain level.

For example, Weapon Specialization would look like this:

Weapon Specialization wrote:

You are skilled at dealing damage with one weapon. Choose one type of weapon (including unarmed strike or grapple) for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You deal extra damage when using this weapon.

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, fighter level 4th.
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus increases to +4 at Level 12.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm going to go against what some feel and suggest leaving Die Hard in with Endurance and Toughness - this is not, though, for any balance reason, and pretty much exclusively for the same reason you give - it's not an attractive feat (useful as it is), and almost every player I've ever had (~24 or so?) has passed on these three feats as boring and frustrating.

Bear in mind, though, you might want to supply Rangers with something if you're just eliminating Endurance; giving them this new Toughness is actually a pretty hardy power upgrade.

As far as Mobility, if I might: why not put it into Combat Reflexes? The actual name, "Combat Reflexes" reflects the Dodge feat, the Mobility feat, and the actual AoO benefit the feat normally gets; plus it makes it feel similar to several of your other feat groups, so...? That said, if you do drop a feat from that, I'd drop Dodge. Though it's pretty swank for being a straight +1, it's also super-powerful.

The various save and skill boost feats are actually pretty solid, though, and I'd not shed them.

That said, this is all my own opinion, and doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of the games you play, so take advice that's good for you, and drop the rest! :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, you can combine feats, but be aware of the consequences:

1) If you combine some feats but leave others alone, the others will become relatively weaker. To the point where previously solid feats (e.g. Ironhide) suddenly become mostly irrelevant - something you actually want to fight.

2) Classes with bonus feats will profit more than others. Yes, there are only so many really fitting feats for a concept, but stockpiling more on top of it might show surprising synergy.

3) Monsters will profit too, adding unexpected power - and bookkeeping.

4) To a lesser extent, the additional bookkeeping also affects the players. Endurance comes to my mind - noting and remembering all these very situational +4 bonuses is more chore than fun. As a player, I'd probably ask to just get the original Toughness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the skill boost feats.

  • Persuasive and Skill Focus (Intimidate) for a Dazzling Display build is fantastic.
  • Prodigy for a Bard (with Versatile Performance) is similarly awesome
  • (skill improvement feat) for a (skill exploitation build choice) is good stuff


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:
Well, you can combine feats, but be aware of the consequences:

Yes to all. But, the point is to allow characters to invest in a broader range of feats rather than force them invest so heavily in feat chains, and to give them access to feats that are desirable but impractical because of their prerequisite chains.

The hard work is going through every monster and NPC and updating their published stat blocks to fill the feat slots that they gain as a result of this consolidation. That is a massive pile of work, even broken out on a module-by-module basis.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm not a fan of the basic combat changes. Make them perks of the fighter class or any full Bab classes instead. A character without power attack swings harder by rolling high on the damage die or criting and none of the other freebees make sense to hand out unless your motive is to ban the fighter.


Frogsplosion wrote:
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
Adding Endurance to Toughness seems good. Adding Die Hard as well seems a little too good.

my reasoning basically came down to asking myself when was the last time anyone was happy about taking any of toughness, endurance or diehard. The answer to that question was honestly just about never. I fully admit that all three feats give you very useful things, but they aren't things you WANT to need. They're feats that only benefit you when you're already in a losing situation, and the best way to mitigate those situations is to not get placed in them to start with.

Burning a feat slot of those three feats has always been akin to ripping off a bandaid for me because there are so many better uses for that feat slot that once you decide you need one, you just pull the trigger and block all the other options out of your mind. Even mashed together, I still think there are far better uses for a feat slot than getting all three benefits at once.

Toughness Giving Endurance and Diehard is too good. My Fast Healer Bloodrager builds would have a hard on for these rules.

What I did with Mobility is I roll it into Dodge. Making Dodge much more appealing and also making the Spring Attack and other Mobility feats a little easier to obtain.

I do not give archers anything. I just do not want to give them an easier time.

Only free feats I give are Power attack, Weapon Finesse (As a weapon Property) and Combat Expertise. The PC needs a +1 BaB and that is it (no score requirements). Which lets me remove Piranha Strike so they can't 2x PA damage.

I do make my players Take TWF BUT I merge GTWF with ITWF. Once the PC reaches +11 BaB they can take the 3rd attack like GTWF. This shortens the chain and I feel GTWF is a trap feat anyways which hardly ever hits so I just give it away.

I do not give mounted combat away because I do want them to have to work up to Spirited Charge when they already are getting Power attack for free. I know chargers very well and Giving them Spirited charge + PA level 1-3 is just going to make you cry. They will be 1 shotting everything for quiet a while. And with free PA they will be great off the mount too. Free PA is enough of a freebie.

I also have a handful of other rules. I use Background skills so I do not just hand out +2 Skill points to everyone. As for Saves I give Unrogues the choice of Bard or Ranger saves at Level 1, Then the Swashbuckler gets the Ranger's Saves. Which Saves have always been a major complaint of those classes having only Reflex saves but needing to be in the front lines.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malignor wrote:
I like the skill boost feats.
  • Persuasive and Skill Focus (Intimidate) for a Dazzling Display build is fantastic.
  • Prodigy for a Bard (with Versatile Performance) is similarly awesome
  • (skill improvement feat) for a (skill exploitation build choice) is good stuff
SheepishEidolon wrote:

1) If you combine some feats but leave others alone, the others will become relatively weaker. To the point where previously solid feats (e.g. Ironhide) suddenly become mostly irrelevant - something you actually want to fight.

I don't really want to remove options, but I also want to make sure that there aren't a bunch of feats that just give flat bonuses roadblocking other feat chains. What I'm thinking might be best is just to take Dodge, Mobility, Critical Focus, and the +2 to two skills feats and +2 to a save feats away only as prerequisites for feat chains but allow my players to still take them if they want them.

This way the balance and integrity of "small bonus" feats stay relatively the same, but they aren't serving as gatekeepers for cooler, more interactive feats.

Quote:


2) Classes with bonus feats will profit more than others. Yes, there are only so many really fitting feats for a concept, but stockpiling more on top of it might show surprising synergy.

3) Monsters will profit too, adding unexpected power - and bookkeeping.

4) To a lesser extent, the additional bookkeeping also affects the players. Endurance comes to my mind - noting and remembering all these very situational +4 bonuses is more chore than fun. As a player, I'd probably ask to just get the original Toughness.

I'm willing to experiment with the bonus feat classes to see how dumb it can get, but honestly I'm not sure anything will make me like martials more than spellcasters in pathfinder. Straight martials are usually only good for doing damage, and if that changes, I'm cool with it. If it makes the situation worse, I'll have to look at the reasons why, but I won't be able to find those reasons without playtesting anyway.

the monster part is on my end, and I'll probably just edit them during prep time and ignore the ones I don't use. For actual pathfinder adaptation, yeah it would be a ridiculous amount of work.

As far as the player part goes I've never had book-keeping be an issue when it comes to feats, so that's another thing I'll have to play with to see the extent of. If my players come back reporting issues keeping track of things, I can always switch stuff around.


Frogsplosion wrote:
Fighter level requirements become BAB requirements

Right now, fighter level requirements identify the feats that stand in for fighter class features. You wouldn't allow a rogue to take rage powers in place of their rogue talents, why is this appropriate?

Frogsplosion wrote:
Power Attack/Deadly Aim/Piranha Strike, Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat and Two-Weapon Fighting: become basic combat mechanics.

Power Attack and friends are dramatic increases in damage per round. Doing this will make combat more swingy, especially because a bunch of monsters that used to not have them will now be doing insane damage. Two Weapon Fighting chain should probably be reduced to just one feat, but should still need that feat to be selected. Combat Expertise should probably just be removed (it overlaps in purpose with fighting defensively) and mounted combat can be rolled in with another feat.

Frogsplosion wrote:
Point Blank Shot: rolled into precise shot, feats that required point blank shot no longer do.

I'd remove point blank shot entirely rather than making precise shot insanely good. Ranged attacking builds could use a bit of reining in, and this is an elegant way to both make the combat style easier to get into while also slightly lowering the power level.

Frogsplosion wrote:
Critical Focus: removed for being terrible

TBH its not that bad. Many feats worse than this one.

Frogsplosion wrote:
Mobility: removed for being terrible.

I'd roll it into Dodge rather than rolling dodge and combat reflexes together. Mobility is not totally useless, just very circumstantial. Dodge is a little on the weaker side, so having a circumstantial extra bonus to it matches well. This pairing also plays well with existing feat pre-reqs (which often require you to get both dodge and mobility).

Frogsplosion wrote:
Dodge & Combat Reflexes: dodge is rolled into combat reflexes, any feat that required dodge requires combat reflexes instead...

Combat Reflexes is very powerful for builds that want it. You don't need it to get even better.

Frogsplosion wrote:
Endurance & Diehard: rolled into Toughness for being kinda boring.

Toughness plays a real role and is relevant for some types of characters at low levels. I would roll Endurance and Diehard together though. Its another marginal feat + decent feat pairing.

Frogsplosion wrote:
Spell Focus: no longer a requirement for any feats. While spell focus was thematically appropriate for most feats, mechanically speaking it didn't make much sense for those schools...

Makes sense.

The biggest problem here is (as SheepishEidolon mentioned) the fact that combining feats and making many key combat feats baseline tends to skyrocket the DPR of monsters. Many monsters are balanced around NOT having power attack or deadly aim as options. Additionally, the amount of work you'll need to do to update bestiary and Adventure Path creatures will be very significant if you make the changes you suggest.

These changes give a lot of essentially free combat power. Your players will be putting out higher numbers without any investment or tradeoffs. With the free feats savvy players will switch to taking the next most effective combat feats and will be doing a lot more damage than the game mechanics expect them to be able to. I suspect you'll find low-mid level combat to be swingier, with both sides going down in fewer hits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GeneticDrift wrote:

I'm not a fan of the basic combat changes. Make them perks of the fighter class or any full Bab classes instead. A character without power attack swings harder by rolling high on the damage die or criting and none of the other freebees make sense to hand out unless your motive is to ban the fighter.

restricting basic things like PA to full bab classes would just screw over 3/4s classes, which is not what I want. The fighter's purpose in 3.X systems has pretty much always been as a 2 level dip anyway. The only thing pathfinder changes about that is that some fighter archetypes, like Two Handed Fighter, actually give you good abilities that are a REAL reason to stick with the class as opposed to forced feat exclusivity that isn't necessary.

Louise Bishop wrote:

Toughness Giving Endurance and Diehard is too good. My Fast Healer Bloodrager builds would have a hard on for these rules.

What I did with Mobility is I roll it into Dodge. Making Dodge much more appealing and also making the Spring Attack and other Mobility feats a little easier to obtain.

Hit points aren't the only player resource I can attack, specialize in one thing too hard and the DM always finds a chink in the armor. I'm still on the fence about this one though.

I thought about dodge rolling into mobility, but I was hesitant to make a single feat basically invalidate low level opportunity attacks.

Quote:


I do not give archers anything. I just do not want to give them an easier time.

archers do a lot of damage, sure, but if they're spending all their feats on archery, do they really get room to do anything else? We're back to my main issue with martials, it's all or nothing, build for max damage or be garbage with them.

Quote:


Only free feats I give are Power attack, Weapon Finesse (As a weapon Property) and Combat Expertise. The PC needs a +1 BaB and that is it (no score requirements). Which lets me remove Piranha Strike so they can't 2x PA damage.

I wouldn't let them stack obviously, I'd just make -1 for +2 (increasing with BAB as PA) a rule across the board for all weapons, then throw in the 50% for two-handed.

Quote:


I do make my players Take TWF BUT I merge GTWF with ITWF. Once the PC reaches +11 BaB they can take the 3rd attack like GTWF. This shortens the chain and I feel GTWF is a trap feat anyways which hardly ever hits so I just give it away.

works either way then, makes sense.

Quote:


I do not give mounted combat away because I do want them to have to work up to Spirited Charge when they already are getting Power attack for free. I know...

really? our rise of the runelords campaign has a small cavalier riding a wolf, and even then he hasn't charged once in an entire dungeon because the spacing is just too restrictive. Sure if you want to fight a mounted lance charger in an open field you're going to get wrecked, but if you're dumb enough to do so, you kinda deserve to die at that point.


Frogsplosion wrote:
Fighter level requirements become BAB requirements

So a Slayer gets their Studied Target bonus and can also pick up Greater Weapon Focus and (Greater) Weapon Specialization?


Quote:


Right now, fighter level requirements identify the feats that stand in for fighter class features. You wouldn't allow a rogue to take rage powers in place of their rogue talents, why is this appropriate?

feats that require fighter level are some of the most generic feats in the game. They do things any other martial should absolutely be capable of. I've hated fighter feats from the beginning and I don't see that changing for me.

Quote:


So a Slayer gets their Studied Target bonus and can also pick up Greater Weapon Focus and (Greater) Weapon Specialization?

Power Attack and friends are dramatic increases in damage per round. Doing this will make combat more swingy, especially because a bunch of monsters that used to not have them will now be doing insane damage. Two Weapon Fighting chain should probably be reduced to just one feat, but should still need that feat to be selected.

I'd remove point blank shot entirely rather than making precise shot insanely good. Ranged attacking builds could use a bit of reining in, and this is an elegant way to both make the combat style easier to get into while also slightly lowering the power level.

After having played 5th edition, I'm beginning to see this as an issue with pathfinder as a whole. The massive number of small bonuses the game allows become an exponential snowball of death. This is a separate issue that I think might need an entirely different fix. When Dodge, Power Attack or Point Blank Shot are valued far higher over a feat that makes a huge difference in combat style or completely changes how you use a skill, that's a serious problem.


This site here recommends giving 2 feats, changes some prerequisites, and consolidates some feats (e.g. Dodge + Mobility)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eaY-yXn8-dc3WlngVpq51RVE8zOl__9sAA_fmrF 2XIY/edit?pref=2&pli=1#heading=h.2envycexmts1

Overall, those make for some nice power-ups.

In the area outside of feats, it contains some nerfs. Bucklers occupy a hand unless you forego the defense bonus; and I think the Pseudo-Pounce is nerfing PC/NPC pounce, though Spring Attack/Shot-on-the-Run get a power up.


For the record, here's my current list of House Rules (still somewhat new to Pathfinder, probably will add more later):

1. Maximum HP on level up
2. Maximized healing spells out of combat.
3. Dual-wielders can attack once with each weapon as a standard action/AoO/Haste extra attack.
4. Two-Weapon Fighting improves at the appropriate levels to get the rest of the chain (Improved, Greater)
5. Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers are given for free to everyone.
6. Weapon Focus and similar feats apply to weapon groups instead of a specific weapon. In addition, any reasonable dual-wielding combination gains this benefit as well (such as a Longsword and Short Sword).

7. No Leadership or crafting feats
8. Only innate ability scores allow you to qualify for feats/new spell levels
9. Coup de grace is a one round action instead of a full round action.
10. Barbarian Rage and other Constitution increases give temporary hit points
11. No Gunslingers/Summoners

The bolded stuff is aimed at reducing some of the feat costs.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Cutting down on feat bloat. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.