I think there's some interesting ideas with these combat feats, but I think it needs more work. I like the idea of chaining feats, and trying to set up a sequence of moves, but some things, like the Dodge - Mobility - Spring Attack progression don't necessarily make sense as presented in the alpha rules. It might be kind of cool to have several options at any given stage of a chain, but that would probably get way too complicated.
I think that if they are set on doing feat chains (ones that make sense rather than ones like Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack), that having multiple options at each level of the chain is paramount. Otherwise repetiveness sets in as you continually use the same 3 maneuvers every 3 rounds. Kinda like now with, "I Power Attack" over and over, without mant other combat options.
If you're going to have chains, those chains need options. The base ability should be something fundamental, such as Power Attack, that can be used every round and remain useful at all levels of play.
The feats building from the base should definitely be "better" without being circumstantial. Otherwise, the Combat feats will be more like Tactical feats, allowing mediocre to great effects that can be used only in certain situations. If I use Smack I want to know that I'll be able to use Power Slam or Backhand in the next round, and that it will be worth it. Some kind of garuntee has to be given.
One problem with this model, and I even think with the 3 feat chain model also, is the investment of feats. Perhaps they could be set up like Tactical feats. I take Smack. Next time I get a feat choice I take Power Slam, and the next time I take Dragon Tail Cut/Pain Hammer, which grant you the two seperate benefits. That costs you 3 feats rather than 4. Perhaps, if the feats were powerful enough to justify, the feat sink of 4 feats would be worth it...
Smack
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Power Slam Backhand
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
Dragon Tail Cut Pain Hammer BAM! B*tch Slap
Sorry for the stupid feat names...
[OK, didn't know the beautiful tree I created would collapse...imagine a wonderful, symetrical tree of feats...]
|
Combat feats were another thing we didn't care too much of when reading it, but that worked really well in actual play.
The limit of 1 combat feat per round, with the build-up of feat chains, made combat both longer (in rounds) and faster (in game time). Characters weren't using his "best" move every round, but building up different moves, making combat more varied. In fact, the new feat system gave the characters more options, as there was no obviuos choice to use every time.
That said, some of the feats could use some rewording. As someone has previously said, some feat chains could be more interesting if they were build as bonuses instead of restrictions. For example, the dodge/mobility one could be something like this:
Dodge (Combat)
Benefit: +1 to AC.
Mobility (Combat)
Benefit: You don't provoke AoOs when you move out an threatened space.
Build-up: If you used Dodge or Mobility last round, you get +10' to movement.
Spring Attack (combat)
Benefit: You can attack at any point during your movement.
Build-up: If you used Mobility or Spring Attack last round, you don't provoke AoOs during your movement.
Also, I'd like to see feat trees instead of chains wherever possible. That way, if you see someone use a particular feat during one round, you'd know he can use 2-3 different follow-ups the next one.
|
Okay, here are some specific suggestions on how to make the combat feats more useful. First, the restriction on using one combat feat a round has to go. I guess that you did this to prevent people from using the same attack over and over again, but there has got to be a better way to accomplish that. Many of these feats make more sense and are more useful if they are used in conjunction with one another instead of using one this round and another the next round. The feats that chain off of power attack should require you to either use power attack in the same round or just have power attack and any other prerequisites to use them. Liekwise, you could say you have to use dodge in the same round you use mobility or spring attack. Weapon swap doesn't make any sense to me. It's flashy, but it stretches believeability too far. It also doesn't make sense to require it to acquire two-weapon rend, since rending implies using two weapons to open up a big gash in the enemy not hitting him with one weapon, flipping it to the other hand and hitting him again.
Hmm, well it looks like I'm in the minority in liking the 1 per round part, which opens up these feats to be more powerful, but not liking the chaining part.
I do think some of the feats need to be beefed up to justify one per round, but honestly I just find the chaining to be unnecessarily complex. It's not something I want my players to have to think about.
|
|
I've read several times on this thread that the 3rd feat in a chain would never see the light of day because combat would be over then. I think the ones who think that way have to see the full picture.
I've played using the feat chain build-up as it's written, and one thing I've noticed is that combat tends to last more rounds, because there's no nuking on the 1st round.
The scenario this feat system (1 combat feat per round + feat chains) provides tend to be the following one:
1st-2nd rounds: combatants prepare and take positions.
3rd-4th rounds: combat get serious as opponents get hit and stronger attacks get used.
5th+ rounds: the big guns are out. Every round, *someone* does *something* big, as opposed to "everybody does a freakin' big move and combat ends". Everybody isn't awesome all the time, but there's always awesominess present on the table :)
Combat feats were another thing we didn't care too much of when reading it, but that worked really well in actual play.
The limit of 1 combat feat per round, with the build-up of feat chains, made combat both longer (in rounds) and faster (in game time). Characters weren't using his "best" move every round, but building up different moves, making combat more varied. In fact, the new feat system gave the characters more options, as there was no obviuos choice to use every time.
That said, some of the feats could use some rewording. As someone has previously said, some feat chains could be more interesting if they were build as bonuses instead of restrictions. For example, the dodge/mobility one could be something like this:
Dodge (Combat)
Benefit: +1 to AC.Mobility (Combat)
Benefit: You don't provoke AoOs when you move out an threatened space.
Build-up: If you used Dodge or Mobility last round, you get +10' to movement.Spring Attack (combat)
Benefit: You can attack at any point during your movement.
Build-up: If you used Mobility or Spring Attack last round, you don't provoke AoOs during your movement.Also, I'd like to see feat trees instead of chains wherever possible. That way, if you see someone use a particular feat during one round, you'd know he can use 2-3 different follow-ups the next one.
Nice Betote. I'm not a fan of the combat feats as written in the current alpha, but your take is good. In fact, of all the changes in the Pathfinder RPG, only the feats are bothering me. Changes along the lines of what you suggested would satisfy me.
|
I've read several times on this thread that the 3rd feat in a chain would never see the light of day because combat would be over then. I think the ones who think that way have to see the full picture.
I've played using the feat chain build-up as it's written, and one thing I've noticed is that combat tends to last more rounds, because there's no nuking on the 1st round.
The scenario this feat system (1 combat feat per round + feat chains) provides tend to be the following one:
1st-2nd rounds: combatants prepare and take positions.
3rd-4th rounds: combat get serious as opponents get hit and stronger attacks get used.
5th+ rounds: the big guns are out. Every round, *someone* does *something* big, as opposed to "everybody does a freakin' big move and combat ends". Everybody isn't awesome all the time, but there's always awesominess present on the table :)
Am I missing something? Have you had more time to play this out than the rest of us? I ask because you seem to have knowledge that some of us do not have.
How do you think this will play out over the long term? I can see longer combats being the case at early levels but I am unsure this would remain over higher levels. When wizards are throwing high end damage spells and rogues are consistently dishing out high end sneak attack damage how does the fighter twiddling this thumbs while trying to build up effective combos extend combat?
I see nothing in the rules that would insinuate combats with more rounds will consistently be the norm. But I might be missing something.
|
Contributor
|
My gut check on these was that I didn't like them, mainly because I have trouble seeing the in game rational for how they work. I understand that sometimes balance trumps realism, but these seem more like funky new rule trumps realism to me.
OTOH I like the general notion of a combat feat type that you can only use one at a time of. That way getting more of them gets you more options without going crazy on overpowering you.
And i like feats that build on each other.
So I was thinking about this. I envision the combat feats as being like 'stances,' so when you are in a certain stance, it gives you certain baseline benefits and also gives you some cool options.
Frex, you choose to power attack in a round. This is your stance, and it's an aggressive stance. Because of that aggressive stance, you can cleave. If you aren't power attacking, you can't cleave.
Next round you dodge, and you get +1 to armour class. While dodging, you can use your mobility or even spring attack. Although for consistency, I think that dodge should then work more like combat expertise. And even though you have cleave, you aren't power attacking while you spring attack (you can't), so you can't cleave if you take the guy out.
Then you could take a responsive stance and take advantage of combat reflexes, and a few feats could be built off of that. Personally, I'd throw most of the old combat expertise feats on here, so you get a bonus to tripping people who provoke attacks of opportunity or something like that.
That's how I would go about all this, in general. I'd need to work on the details more, but that's my gut response.
to respond to Jason-
1)chaining of feats not excatly the problem, as using an ability to set up a more powerful ability is appealing
2)common feats in chain is a problem, but only if they are kept as combat feats or the one per round applies to all combat feats
3)one combat feat per turn may be a problem- I haven't tried it yet so I'm not sure, but it seems to make long combats necessary for a character utilize his more advanced options (maybe one combat feat of a type per round? but that adds instead of smoothing)
4)Tweaking between the above rather than removing one of them would be better than dropping something we may find we'll miss later
|
|
Likes:
-I don't think the chain is bad, many of my PCs barely
use Power Attack so it'd be nice to require it to be
used to activate other modes of attack.
-I like the idea of more powerful moves being open to
the PCs as they acquire more and more feats.
-I hope all weapons would get chains to plug into,
similar to the 2-handed weapon chain.
Dislikes:
-As with others, in that I don't like only one ability
being active per round, I'd prefer they stack on each
other as the rounds go on.
-I also worry that at higher levels, the fighter would
be left behind as the other classes outdo him while he
waits to "power up."
-The reward for some of the 3rd-tier feats in the
chain should be a bit better for the wait.
-I'm not sure I like some of the standard stuff like
Dodge and Cleave being put in here.
Are combat feats a standard action to use? In other words, does the PC give up his iterative attacks to use them?
If not, then how does one combine combat feats with iterative attacks?
I would definately have a problem, especially at higher levels, giving up multiple rounds of iterative attacks in order to complete a chain of combat feats.
Otherwise, I like the concept.
|
Are combat feats a standard action to use? In other words, does the PC give up his iterative attacks to use them?
If not, then how does one combine combat feats with iterative attacks?
I would definately have a problem, especially at higher levels, giving up multiple rounds of iterative attacks in order to complete a chain of combat feats.
Otherwise, I like the concept.
Some are, some arn't.
The two handed chain as an example starts with a Full round action giving a single attack followed by an action that adds an extra attack to a full attack action and then proceeds to a standard action for a single heavy damage attack.
I don't particularly like this feature either. Only being able to use one feat in a round is incredibly restrictive.
Assume for example your playing a fighter with a fondness for archery. You have point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot and manyshot. As soon as your chosen target enters mellee with another character. Your best option will most likely be precise shot. Performing any other ranged combat feat forces you to take a -4 to hit for shooting into a mellee.
The idea of having combat options that are triggered or unlocked by events that occur in combat is nice. But the current implamentation needs to be scrapped.
Surkin
|
|
In Dark Ages of Camelot, there were a ton of weapon styles that only triggered off of something else. An attack you could only use after blocking an enemy's attack with your shield, representing taking advantage of the opening his own attack made, or an attack that required you to hit with another 'opener' attack.
It was an awesome idea for an online game (up until then, fighters in online games hit their autoattack key and then went to make a sammich, coming back 10 minutes later to find out if they'd won or lost).
But for D&D? No thanks. I want my Fighter to have something useful to do *every* round, not every two or three rounds. Entirely too many Feats, IMO, are meant to go together. One combat feat a round sounds entirely too limiting.
I've long wanted to see a Fighter that could do more than swing, sunder, disarm, charge or trip. A Fighter class that could *inherently* add or subtract from their attack, damage and / or defense bonus, similarly to how a Charging foe trades off defense for attack, or how a Power Attacking foe trades off attack for damage, or how a person Fighting Defensively, using Total Defense or using Combat Expertise trades off attack for defense.
IMO, a trained Fighter should be able to do the equivalent of Power Attack and 'Accurate Attack' (+atk, -dam) and 'All-Out Attack' (-def, +atk) and 'Defensive Attack' (Expertise, -atk, +def) without spending Feats. And the Fighter should be able to do more than one of these things. A Barbarian can Charge and Rage and Power Attack, all in the same round, trading off AC for atk with the charge, AC for atk and dam with the Rage and atk for dam with the Power Attack. A Fighter should similarly be able to 'stack' these sorts of trade-offs, choosing to make an 'All-Out Power Attack' (-def, +atk for the All-Out, -atk, +dam for the Power Attack, for a net result of subtracting points from his AC to add to his damage bonus).
Power Attack is already limited to the BAB of the Fighter, which creates a quibble that an All-Out, Defensive or Accurate Attack option wouldn't have a similar limiting factor. The solution, already proposed in other areas, would be for Fighters to have built in Dodge bonuses to AC based on level (used in Iron Heroes and the Wheel of Time RPG, IIRC) and built in bonuses to damage based on level. The Fighter's use of these various combat options could thus be limited to only allow the Fighter to trade off up to whatever amount of bonus he's gained. If a 4th level Fighter has a +4 BAB, +2 AC bonus and +2 damage bonus, he'd then be able to trade off up to 4 BAB for extra damage with a Power Attack, but only be able to trade off his +2 AC bonus for an Atk bonus with 'All-Out Attack.'
While meta-game-y, a Fighter should have some sort of skill at measuring the AC and BAB of his enemy as well. It could work similarly to the 'detect' spells. Round one he only knows if the adversary is significantly better or worse than he is. Round two, he's narrowing it down. Round three, if he makes the Sense Motive or whatever check, he's got it pegged. The foe could be clever and attempt free Bluff checks to 'hold back' and give a false sense of his abilities. "Ah, but I also have a secret! I am not left handed either!" If one combatant or the other rolls really well (or blow it spectacularly!), they might end up with a bonus (or penalty) to strike the other or avoid the others blows, making combat between two mid-level Fighters anywhere from a dance of deception to a punishing scene of brutality, depending on the combatants natures.
These sorts of options give the Fighter player a hell of a lot more to do than 'press autoattack and walk away.'
And that's without even getting into fancier maneuvers. The Fighter doesn't need to go all Book of Nine Swords and spin around in a flash of thunder and turn into Wonder Woman. Instead he can use mundane non-supernatural maneuvers, such as striking someone in such a way as to apply various Conditions and modifiers. A slice at the leg could lame or cripple someone at least as effectively as a Caltrop. A gash on the forehead could cause a temporary Dazzled or Blinded Condition. And a Hvy Mace to the family jewels could Sicken those who make their Fort save and Nauseate those who do not...
All mundane, all reasonable, all present in the game already. No anime-style swords catching on fire or slashing everyone in 30 ft. need apply.
I have a question for the crowd. Is it the actual chaining that is a problem? -OR- Is it that some of the more common used familiar feats got put in a chain? -OR- Is it that you can only use one combat feat per round
1. Chaining doesn't strike me as a problem in its own right--it's just that it doesn't seem to work well with these feats. The Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack sequence is a perfect example. But some series of feats that actually built upon the preceding feat in the sense that it isn't reasonable to do B if you haven't done A first might work well.
2. To me, it didn't seem like the common feats worked well in a chain. Maybe some could be tweaked.
3. I like the one combat feat per round. It streamlines the game by limiting the factors to consider and forces choices on the player.
|
|
By far the most troublesome part of these feats is the "one per round" limitation (imo). Also, players are going to want to use Dodge at the same time they use Spring Attack.
A player is denied the use of any other combat feats for the rest of the round for a small tactical or damage gain from -one- feat. Either the gains from tactical feats should be largely improved (which I believe would be unbalancing) or the 'one tactical feat per round' limitation should be reworded or removed.
edit: I'm going to agree with theprofessor also, and say that the chain feats, or combo attacks, offered do not all flow properly. In one example, a PC who has trained to shoot at enemies up close (Point Blank Shot) has no better chance to hit a close shadowy target than his friend when they both use Careful Targeting.
In another, Deft Shield requires Two-Weapon fighting, anticipating players who wish to shield bash as an off-hand attack. This usually is done during a full-attack. The feat that follows, Shield Bash, grants a bull rush with a shield attack. This means an off-hand triggered bull-rush would push the target away from the PC without the PC being able to follow, possibly denying him the rest of his full-attack and certainly making the final feat Shield Master fairly useless against a target that triggered the first two feats (unless it moves back into melee with the PC on its own turn).
You will have a fighter look at this and say, "I can't Power Attack with my Cleave/Overhand Attack/Spring Attack? Why not?"
As I understand it, Power Attack is not a combat feat so you could use it in conjunction with one combat feat each round...
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Overall the tweaking of some standard feats is good. Dodge providing a +1 bonus to AC against everyone, Toughness 3hp +1 per HD and 1 per HD thereafter... good stuff.
Chaining is a good idea, but only being able to use one combat feat around is limiting compared to base 3.5 play. I don't mind that Power Attack is a set amount (str mod) but if I can't use it AND another feat at the same time it kinda sucks. I want my Dodge ON while I move through enemies using Mobility. I agree with most that the chains need to stack abilities while powering up.
Sorry, I don't like the chained feats system. It's like playing Mortal Kombat and memorizing button combos.
Simplification should be the goal of any upgrade to an existing system, IMHO.
|
|
Sorry, I don't like the chained feats system. It's like playing Mortal Kombat and memorizing button combos.
Simplification should be the goal of any upgrade to an existing system, IMHO.
In one sense I agree with this. While I loved the chained / triggered attack options and combos in Dark Ages, one strength of D&D is that different classes appeal to different playstyles.
A Rogue is situational burst damage, with his Sneak Attack that might require work to set up, or not be available in some situations.
A Fighter has traditionally been steady assured damage, not as dramatic as the Rogue, but not nearly as 'spikey' or unreliable either. No situational requirements, no setting up, no worrying about who is standing where to set up flanking bonuses. A swing, and a hit!
I prefer that steadiness, rather than turning the Fighter into another type of Rogue that has to satisfy certain conditions to apply his abilities.
Turning every class into the same class, with different 'power sources,' is not a plus in my book. Some will have slow and steady all-night-long damage, and some will have brief, yet climactic bursts of damage.
That last sentence ended in a different place than it started...
As a DM, it sounds like these combos would be a nightmare to track during a fight.
"Orcs 3 and 5 just did a Dodge, Orc 2 and 4 are on Mobility, and the first priest did Arcane Strike but the second had to move last round (or was it the other way around?). Now was it Worg 1 or 3 that hit last round for his feat chain?"
It looks to me like these chains will just slow things down, add complication, and change the basic feel of the game without adding anything of particular value.
Let's fix the parts of the game that need improvement, and leave the other parts alone. I'm sure it's tempting to take this opportunity to put in all the kewl pet ideas that came up over lunch in the past few months, but its also important to stay true to the game. After all, if people want wacky new mechanics and a video game feel - Hasbro is all set to help them, and with a much larger budget.
As a DM, it sounds like these combos would be a nightmare to track during a fight.
I have to agree. I'm just now catching up to everybody else.. but Ki Ryn raises a worthwhile point.
Even if this system were tweaked for the players, each player only has their own combo sequence to keep track of.
This could put a strain on the GM who is trying adjudicate the whole scene and move multiple monsters.
I've got to say that the Combat Maneuver feats were my most disliked aspect of this alpha publishing. Clunky, confusing, and just a downright bad idea. As a DM I'd be pulling my hair out. It turns staple feats into big, long tactical feats. What a damn headache.
If this were in the final release, I'd scap it in an instant.
Tome of Battle had a good mechanic going for things of this nature; it just took the flavor in a potentially unsavory direction. I'd request that future attempts mimic the battle-skill oriented maneuvers from Tome of Battle (most of the Iron Heart maneuvers). I'll agree with the above that the magic bursts of flame maneuvers could be left out.
I'm torn on this.
Main concern is that it is too complex, leaving the gm behind as he must keep track of all the "chains" his NPC's are currently planning. Even players (especially mine) may end up forgetting there plan.
Second concern is frequence of use. If a feat requires 3 rounds to effectively unfold, and we assume it also requires a few external factors to gel (monsters not dying just before my fantastic Demonic Cleave attack forcing me to move instead), then - then you may end up thinking like another poster said - that you will never get to use this feat enough.
However, I like the one pr round restriction actually! It cuts down a little on the powerhouse combos people always seem to come up with. Even if such a combo does not exist with the current combat feats, there will surely be more to follow, and in the end no designer can predict the possibly overpowered combos resulting.
I think that combat-feats should be self-contained manouvers, or possibly with limited "chaining".
Was just visiting the WotC boards where some of this is being discussed. A poster there had a decent direction to try going with these feat chains:
Power attack tree:
Power attack - Add up to your str to damage again by taking the same bonus as a penalty to attack.
Cleave -add +1 to your max power attack modifier. If you drop someone with a power attack, immediately make another attack
Great Cleave -Your max power attack is now 2Xstr, if you drop someone with a power attack you may make your bonus attack after your next turns movement.Basically, some small improvement on a previous feat in the chain, alongside an extra circumstantial ability
Something of that nature would be alright.
In truth, though, I think you should leave the core feats alone (aside from those that need rewording or reworking due to other changes in the rules). Feel free to make other chains, but leave the basic ones that we've had for 8 years now alone.
As an aside about Power Attack, if the feat is seemingly too powerful, just change it back to how it was in 3.0 (no double damage with 2-handers). Then perhaps add in Improved Power Attack, which then works like 3.5 Power Attack for two-handed weapons. That's what I've intended to do with my own house rules for some time now.
|
Interesting thoughts everybody.
I have a question for the crowd. Is it the actual chaining that is a problem? -OR- Is it that some of the more common used familiar feats got put in a chain? -OR- Is it that you can only use one combat feat per round?
Or I guess, is it a combination of problems. If we removed one of the above, does the concept work better?
Let me know... I will share my specific thoughts later.
I like the chains.
I do not like the limit of one per round.Some of the feats in the chain that are one per round shouldn't be limited, like Dodge & Mobility.
I'll read the posts more and comment again later.
|
|
Please point me in the right direction here. I find nothing the rules at all that says you cannot use them at the same time.Page 34. Combat Feats, "Combat feats represent various maneuvers and tricks that characters can attempt to perform in combat. Although
these feats can be utilized any number of times per day,
you cannot utilize more than one combat feat in any
given round."Thanks, I completely missed that.
OK that is a universal SUCKS! No way, not in my game. Ain't happening. Period. If this rule makes it to the final version it will be houseruled out in less than a Plank Second!
Nope nope nope. This one HAS to go. Major bad juju!
*spits three times and spins in circles*
I'm inclined to agree with you, with one important caveat: the brand-new stuff. Limiting the amount of points you can put in combat expertise or power attack to a static value stinks, and having to set great cleave up by first power attacking on round 1, cleaving someone WITHOUT power attacking on round 2 and then, maybe getting to cleave down a few more opponents on round 3 (again without power attack) is objectively MUCH WORSE than the original feats, and I won't use it. However, the brand-new, totally-unique-to-the-Pathfinder-RPG-Stuff, like the 3-feat chain of arcane stuff? Fine by me. Feel free to put combos in, but please don't retrofit standby feats to do it.
|
|
Am I missing something? Have you had more time to play this out than the rest of us? I ask because you seem to have knowledge that some of us do not have.
Just one all-night session with my group and some combats played by myself (I am that excited with the open playtest thingy :D). Enough to notice the pattern.
How do you think this will play out over the long term? I can see longer combats being the case at early levels but I am unsure this would remain over higher levels. When wizards are throwing high end damage spells and rogues are consistently dishing out high end sneak attack damage how does the fighter twiddling this thumbs while trying to build up effective combos extend combat?
I see nothing in the rules that would insinuate combats with more rounds will consistently be the norm. But I might be missing something.
I have to confess that I haven't tested the rules above 10th level, so I can't say anything. But I definitely see the need of some high-level feats. Something like:
Killing Blow (Combat)
Prerrequisites: Power Attack, Str 17, Fighter level 14
Benefit: You can take a full action to make one melee attack. If you hit, deal damage as normal and the target must make a Fortitude Save (CD = damage dealt) or drop to -10 hp.
Build-up: If you used Power Attack last round, the save CD increases by 5.
Hmm...I have an odd idea...instead of putting a limitation on feats put turn, set them to required actions with the former feats being active.
For example with the Dodge chain(which I think really should be taken out of it.) Make...
Dodge a Free Action
Mobility a Move Action
Spring Attack an Attack Action(this could work differently)
That way, you can still control the use of things like the Overhand Chop combo(which actually looks at least somewhat balanced if done that way), but not be too restictive.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I really like the idea of feat chaining, but I just don't find it practical or functional. One of the biggest problems with the 3.5 ruleset is that combat slows to a crawl in the higher levels. Imagine, if you will, an 18th level Fighter with numerous feat chains available to him. The player (or DM) will need to keep track of which Combat feats he uses each round so that he knows what feats are available next round. As the fight drags out over 7- 8- 9+ turns, the bookkeeping on those feats could become maddening.
I really like the earlier sentiment about chaining attacks instead of actions. If you can resolve the entire chain in one round and reset to zero at the start of the next action, I'm all for it. Tracking these things over multiple rounds would be nothing but a headache, IMO.
Also, stuff like Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, etc. (the "maneuverability" feats) should be left alone. Those feats practically require each other (with the exception of Dodge) to work in unison in order to function optimally. Being able to Spring Attack without being able to Power Attack in the same round is a pretty serious problem, too, since they are both "Combat" feats. If nothing else, make a new sub-type of feats called "Maneuver" feats or something that CAN be used in conjunction with "Combat" feats.
My $0.02.
I like the ideal of chain attack to really do it all in one round that would work for me really i like that.
Broken.
Take the example of Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and Precise Shot.
1} If you play the chaining game, this means you can't fire into a melee situation more than 30ft away because you can't set it up with your PBS.
2} If you play the one-feat-per-turn game, this means you can Rapid Shot into melee and enjoy the same -4 as if you just didn't have Precise Shot. So you invest three feats to create a marksman build, and you lose the synergies between these feats?
And heaven forbid you ever try to do something INTERESTING tactically, such as use your Dodge and Mobility feats to (artist formally known as) Tumble past a foe then Point Blank Shot a nice Precise Shot into the monster that's grappling your wizard. Sorry. Pick one of your five feats.
Recommendation: move virtually all of what you're calling Combat Feats back into general feats, then build your own new chaining feats that ramp up ability as prior feats are used, but carefully design these such that the chain can be met frequently.
I've got to say, I already disliked chaining and I hadn't even thought about how bad it would be with multiple NPC fighters yet! Yikes...
One of the really serious problems I see with this chaining crap: while your fighter is hop-skipping around trying to set up his chain and get it moving, the sorcerer is napalming the whole frigging battlefield.
So I guess all these really nifty combat feat chains should just be fancy set-ups for coup de grace.
There's another implication to Combat Feats that doesn't necessarily jump right out at you.
Almost inevitably you're going to have some feat chains that are more effective then others.
To that end you run the risk of Players building their characters with the Feat Chains being the guiding principal, instead of just building their characters as role-playing constructs. That's a common symptom of many MMO's like World of Warcraft.
Before someone points it out, you see it now to a small degree with Power Attack and Cleave. I maintain that is fairly livable.. it's just one of the most common strategies.
What I fear happening is that in adding Feat Chains we'll actually see a reduction of diversity in character design instead of increasing it. Trying to counter this becomes a Pandora's Box, as the chains need to be both balanced and desireable- which sometimes takes a lot of revision and tinkering. Something easier done with a MMO, because you can hardwire the rules. That industry does a LOT of fiddling with balance and diversity of design in mind, and still after all that- you still often only see one 'tried and true' character design.
Interesting thoughts everybody.
I have a question for the crowd. Is it the actual chaining that is a problem? -OR- Is it that some of the more common used familiar feats got put in a chain? -OR- Is it that you can only use one combat feat per round?
Or I guess, is it a combination of problems. If we removed one of the above, does the concept work better?
Let me know... I will share my specific thoughts later.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
All of the above, really. Stringing out the final fantasy-ish build up to Megabomb Spirit Attack doesn't feel right for D&D. Feat chains are a flawed piece of design in the first place, chaining them again in actual combat feels like a kick in the vulnerables after being punched in the face.
Plus, anything that builds off dodge is automatically a bad thing.
|
|
My problem with these are:
1. Way too clunky to track as a DM.
2. If I am a non-fighter melee type, my feats are precious. I don't want to lose dodge and mobility every time I want to power attack. This leads into....
3. Way too clunky to track as a player, I PAed this round so my AC from dodge or mobility last round is gone.
4. Most of these feats would be a waste(like taking dodge if you ever want to fight in melee) to take and as a fighter I have 12 feats that I have to use one at a time. That sucks.
5. Some feats have a requirement that the target must be the same as the preceding feat in the chain(the many/rapid shots).....so I drop the dude with the second feat and have to start over building my 'Power Level'...too video gamey.
Now the Good.
I love the feats themselves. The slight change to cleave makes it a really nice feat (maybe too nice).
Some have a cool bit of difference to the norm that makes them seem to be more universally attractive. Dodge as a flat +1 AC is a houserule in all my Face to Face games. It makes it easy to figure in.
I love the improvised weapon feats, without the chaining. You could do a whole Jackie Chan/Big Brawl PC type. Cool.
|
|
My problem with these are:
1. Way too clunky to track as a DM.
2. If I am a non-fighter melee type, my feats are precious. I don't want to lose dodge and mobility every time I want to power attack. This leads into....
3. Way too clunky to track as a player, I PAed this round so my AC from dodge or mobility last round is gone.
4. Most of these feats would be a waste(like taking dodge if you ever want to fight in melee) to take and as a fighter I have 12 feats that I have to use one at a time. That sucks.
5. Some feats have a requirement that the target must be the same as the preceding feat in the chain(the many/rapid shots).....so I drop the dude with the second feat and have to start over building my 'Power Level'...too video gamey.
Now the Good.
I love the feats themselves. The slight change to cleave makes it a really nice feat (maybe too nice).
Some have a cool bit of difference to the norm that makes them seem to be more universally attractive. Dodge as a flat +1 AC is a houserule in all my Face to Face games. It makes it easy to figure in.
I love the improvised weapon feats, without the chaining. You could do a whole Jackie Chan/Big Brawl PC type. Cool.
|
|
I’m throwing my support behind the following option.
Make it so that the number of Combat feats a character can perform is limited to the number of attacks their BAB allows them on a full attack.
This way a Level 16 Barbarian using a Greatsword could use the two handed weapon chain in one round dealing a lot of damage to his or her foes, but prevents a lower level character from using these all together at once, and this should help on balance issues.
However, they only get to do this if they are standing still for a full round, if they move then they only get to use one Maneuver.
Now on the subject of chains, they are a great idea, but need some work. Perhaps make them work as bonuses? So that if you follow a chain, it provides bonuses on the action, but you don't HAVE to chain to use the feat. For example, lets take Rapid Shot and Manyshot, just for ease. As is, they are not too bad, but requiring you to have used Rapid Shot on the previous round to use Manyshot makes it a bit weaker than the current version of the feat. Perhaps changing chains to give a bonus if used after the first part of the chain would work better, so that in Manyshot's case, if you used Rapid Shot on the previous round, you get a bonus of some kind on Manyshot. Perhaps a +hit, or +damage. That makes it so that you are not required to do the chain, but there is a good reason to do so.
Changing some of the combat feats to work on "an attack" as opposed to per round, could be useful too, particularly for warriors. Imagine a warrior with multiple attacks using a full round action to set up a chain, such that the first attack uses one feat in the chain, the second attack uses another, and the 3rd attack is a "finisher". A bit video gamey perhaps, but it can also represent a fighting style or the kinds of fights you can see in some movies.
I really, really don't like the idea of some of these combat feat rules.
Using only one per round? I made it all the way to 13th level and you're telling me I can't do more things? Why the heck did I play all this time?
I have to use one feat before I can use another? And I lose the benefits of the one I just used? As already stated many times, the Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack tree is the perfect example of why I don't like this at all. Dodge should work all the time. I spent the feat to get it...I should not lose the benefits of it. Same with Mobility...and I even had to have Dodge to get it in the first place. And then, finally, I've worked long enough and triumphed enough to be able to get Spring Attack! Great, I love this feat. What? I can't just start using it after all the hard work I put in? I have to go back to Dodge and Mobility before I can use my "cool" new feat? And why does my Dodge bonus go away? Did I forget how to use it for a split second?
I would much rather see the feats changed around less, and more options put in. I like having the combat feats, but the limitations on them are a deal breaker for me and my group.
I like the ideas quoted above. Don't put limits on them...instead provide incentives for using them in conjunction with each other. Maybe they don't even need to be feats...but more Combat Maneuvers. I think that putting limitations on thing is bad. The game has always been about what you can do...not what you can't. Keep the feats basic and usable whenever you want, but add incentives for combining them. Don't make them something that can't be used. Players will hate having their abilities taken away.
Wow. I thought the whole feat chaining nonsense was an editing mistake. You know, some foreign intern misunderstood the word "prerequisite" and instead created feat chains, with hilariously disastrous consequences.
I didn't think it could actually be on purpose.
Combat Feats - also in the "don't like the 1/round" rule.
Maneuver chains are a nice idea, but a token pool mechanic like Iron Heroes gives players more flexibility.
Not a fan of tracking feats each round.
|
I have a question for the crowd. Is it the actual chaining that is a problem? -OR- Is it that some of the more common used familiar feats got put in a chain? -OR- Is it that you can only use one combat feat per round?
In my group it is the chaining of feats that is the problem. If my players took these feats the second or third round effects would never get used.
I really like quite a few of the combat feats, for example the changes to cleave are IMO an improvement.
Are iterative attacks going away? Pulease?
|
|
I have a question for the crowd. Is it the actual chaining that is a problem? -OR- Is it that some of the more common used familiar feats got put in a chain? -OR- Is it that you can only use one combat feat per round?
Hate to be this negative, but it's all of the above.
The chaining: Chaining feats sounds great from player's point of view. As a DM, not only would I have to keep track of what the players did to make sure they're allowed to use the next feat in the chain, I have to keep track of what each of my monsters did in the last few rounds. Imagine a party going against five orcs with power attack and cleave. Either it would be the slowest moving combat ever as I take notes round by round, or I'd wing it and drop most of the chains.
Changing the familiar: When I told my group about Pathfinder's proposed changes to grapple, they cheered. Here was a legitimate problem for our group and it's being dealt with. When I told them about the changes to feats, they very quickly lost their enthusiasm. We like 3.5 rules enough to not jump to 4th edition. If Pathfinder RPG adds 3.5 material while changing the problems we had, great. If it makes too many changes that feel more like Unearthed Arcana options, we will not buy it.
Chains that don't work: A lot of the chains don't work together. I just made a post about how illogical the dodge-mobility-spring attack chain is. People in this thread have brought up other scenarios they dislike. Just because it makes sense that one feat is a prerequisite for another doesn't mean it makes sense that they get used progressively in combat.
Once per round: The only chain I think lives up to the mechanics potential is Overhand Chop - Backswing - Devastating Blow. It's like a God of War series of attacks, where one maneuver leaves you in a perfection position for the next. But by making them once a round, the progression drags out too long. I can see players arguing "Don't hit my guy! I'm two rounds away from using Devastating Blow!"
As a brand new mechanic, it's got great potential. As is, it encourages players to either ignore their feats and just make full attacks each round, or ignore this new combat system and stick with 3.5.
I generally like the idea of chaining feats, I think the alpha rules just start the chain too soon. I think they should roll back some feats to general feats but require that they be active to start the chain feats.
as an example, make Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Careful Targeting general feats, but all three must be active to move to Exact Targeting and Pinpoint targeting.
Or, have Deft shield a general that must be active to move to Shield Slam or Shield master.
Or, Power attack and Overhand Chop as general and must be active to move to Backswing and Devastating Blow.
This shortens up the chain a bit but still gives the flavor of building to an impressive feat.
Wow, I am seriously thinking about staying with 3.5 with this, the skills, and the gimping of combat expertise and power attack.
I sure hope they fix this before the game comes out in 2009.
I dislike the chaining of the combat feats. If the next alpha release could provide a design rationale for the decision that would be great. At this point I don't 'get' it, the system feels cumbersome with way too much bookkeeping.
I do like the rework of power attack and expertise.