Otto the Bugbear's page

No? Nothin'?

Recently, I've been working on ideas for feat changes in my game. One particular idea that intrigued me was to make feats dual purpose.

Previously, I had run a game where more benefits of feats were unlocked as the characters leveled up. This worked ok, but was a bit much. I toyed around with a few ideas, then decided to write up a few feats that gave a normal, always-on benefit, plus one special benefit limited in some way. The easiest limiter was once per encounter, of course influenced by Tome of Battle.

As I began writing them, the idea really started to gain momentum. Now, I find myself with 100+ feats. So, I thought to myself, 'why not share them on the Paizo board.' Even if it's too radical for Pathfinder, feedback is always appreciated.

I'm only going to post a few of them, and the link to the website I put them on for all the feats.

I also really disliked the phenomenon of needing multiple feats/minimum BAB/minimum ranks required on so many feats. I feel that for most cases, if a minimum character level is desired before taking the feat, just plain say it: Prerequisites: ECL 6+, or whatever. That's not to say I don't have feats with more prerequisites than just ECL, but the vast majority are either ECL minimum or ECL plus one feat.

What this does is still allow a lot of backward compatibility, while bringing the power level of feats up so they're closer to level-appropriate, instead of the vast majority of them being stuck as appropriate for low levels.

Anyway, here are the examples:

Weapon Focus
Benefit: Choose one weapon group you are proficient with. You gain a +1 attack bonus to hit with weapons from one chosen weapon group.
Special: Once per encounter, when you make an attack of opportunity with a weapon from the chosen weapon group, you may roll twice to hit and take the better of the two rolls.

Iron Will
Benefit: You gain a +2 save bonus to Will saving throws.
Special: Once per encounter, as a free action, you may re-roll any saving throw against an enchantment spell or effect which you failed the previous round.

Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
Prerequisites: ECL 12+, Dex 13+, Two-Weapon Fighting
Benefit: Whenever you make an attack of opportunity, you use both weapons to do so. Each attack is rolled separately, as is damage. Even though you attack with both weapons, it only counts as expending one of your attacks of opportunity when you do this.
Special: Once per encounter, when you make a full attack, you may make a 5 ft. step each time you hit with either your primary or secondary weapon.

Acrobatic Recovery
Prerequisites: ECL 9+
Benefit: If an effect causes you to fall prone, you may make a DC 20 Acrobatics check to remain standing.
Special: Once per encounter, when you use the normal benefit of this feat, you may also shift to any adjacent space.

Anyway, that's four examples. The remainder can be found by following the links found here.

Anyway, let me know the what you think. Especially problems with implementing this, even if it wouldn't work for Pathfinder.

(Note: There are references to some other changes which I haven't yet finalized. Skills and Hit Points are the two main areas referenced, but that doesn't really affect the overall scheme of these feats.)

Hey all,

One thing I noticed right away when reading through the Pathfinder PDF was the new skill system. It struck me that it really doesn't do two things that I thought this project was supposed to/rumored to accomplish.

1. Fix elements of 3.5 that were broken: IMO, skills were the furthest thing from broken in 3.5. While there are a few areas with holes big enough to throw a cat through, the underlying system really wasn't broken at either end of the spectrum, neither too powerful nor too weak.

2. Maintain backward compatibility: The new skill system fails at this an spades. It's already been pointed out how the new system basically just grants everyone an absurd skill increase across the board. That's only one worry though. Maintaining backward compatibility isn't just making sure the Pathfinder material that replaces core works ok. It also has to be backward compatible with the library of books that many people who are excited about this project certainly have. Even if someone just has Complete Warrior/Divine/Arcane/Adventurer, it becomes more problematic to switch to this pseudo SWSE system than just refine the existing system a little bit.

What I mean by that is really accomplished pretty easily. First, reduce the number of skills by combining some of them together. Second, get rid of the 2:1 cross-class skills purchase (but keep the cross-class maximum ranks).

Anyway, more details can be found here .

Cheers

Otto :)

Hey all.

I saw the thread over on the WotC message boards about the Pathfinder open playtesting. The whole idea interests me as my group isn't really ready to switch to 4ed. For more than a year, I've been using a massive set of house rules. I used to have almost all that stuff posted over on the WotC boards, but a little known rule over there is that, if it's on the WotC boards, they co-own it. (There are a few stories of material finding its way into books, and the original author being told to 'cease and desist' in questioning it, but I digress.) I guess, first things first, does Paizo do this as well [claim co-ownership of posted material]?

I downloaded the Pathfinder PDF and began looking through it. As with most everyone else, I've got opinions, both positive, negative and in between, about the material found within. This weekend, I'll be bringing it to the attention of my group to see what they think. I expect mostly positive reactions.

Anyway, the reason for this thread is mostly curiosity's sake. Hopefully, a few questions can get answered or explained.

As an open alpha test, how good is the back and forth between those giving ideas and the folks at Paizo?

When a suggestion is made, is it just a matter of hoping for feedback, or hoping that the fellow forum goers help hammer out the details?

I ask these two questions wondering how the community will know what ideas and aspects are being strongly considered or debated within Paizo. It would certainly help this community project if the community knew what ideas are an absolute no-go and which ones they consider to have enough merit for future considerations.

I guess that leads to the next question...

If an idea is chosen to be further used or expanded upon, how is credit going to be given? Obviously, everyone that's a member of a message board community will have input and impact on these changes. On one hand, it would hardly be fair to credit only the fine folks at Paizo. On another hand, it also wouldn't be fair to credit only the originator of the idea if many members helped forge it into a more polished form. On yet another hand, it seems impractical to list every single poster that has had any input on any subject that sees print in the final version. (I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to imply anything negative here. This is just outright curiosity speaking here.

Anyway, maybe I'll think of more, maybe not.

Otto