Wow... I was really liking this alpha up until this point. There are so many problems with this. Most of them have been covered, but I will reiterate briefly.
1) What is this system supposed to be "fixing"? I fail to see any need to change Feats this way. This really, REALLY makes a mess of backwards compatibility. For this reason alone, I would axe the entire system from the game for my sessions.
2) One Feat per Round limitation. This really restricts a players options when responding to the ever-changing battlefied. Many examples have been given, and I've seen numerous others in my regular 3.5 sessions. I usually award players that find creative ways to string Feats together to do something surprising, spectacular or especially fitting of their character or the situation. Taking options away is never a good thing in my opinion. The limitation of 1 per round combined with Chaining kind of "forces" them into a Feat "routine" without it feeling especially rewarding (beyond the first couple of times it's done).
3) Complexity. This is going to make things MORE difficult to keep track of, especially on my side of the DM screen. I don't see the need for doing this, particularly when you combine this with #1.
4) The chaining is very limiting. If it was presented as a bonus to the existing Feat instead of a requirement to use it, things might have been better. But even with that change, I would not want to use this system. And as pointed out, some of the chains just don't make sense (archery and mobility).
While I'm willing to try this in-game, like others here, my players don't really seem to want to. If the system gets revised, I'd consider it again, but item #1 is of huge concern here to me.
|
I think many of us agree that the combat feat idea is good, but restructuring old feats is bad. My impressions:
1. Combat feats should be completely new options and should almost always represent an attack. Chained feats should be usable in the same combat round with iterative attacks. (Backswing, Overhand Strike, and Arcane Strike are a step in the right direction here.)
2. Movement feats and combat bonus feats (Mobility, P.B. Shot) should not be chained. I would make some exceptions to this if the movement feat thematically required momentum (say, a bull rush followed by a concussive blow, but not Mobility into Spring Attack.)
3. Weapon Swap is a neat trick; however it doesn't seem necessary to perform a Two-Weapon Rend. The Rend should probably activate the bonus damage whenever both weapons strike in the same round, regardless of what other feats you used/are using. By my reasoning, this is not an 'attack' in and of itself and probably shouldn't be a combat feat.
|
|
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
I think it's all just not working.
Loads of tracking - let's simplify the combat, please.
Everybody houserules that the dodge +1 is permanent anyway (because tracking is a pain, see above) so you've made dodge worse.
Dazzling Display (full round action) is worse than simply taking the Intimidate skill(full-round action, rather than standard action) - so it's just a delay to a feat chain.
When my player was building a flashy fighter she honed in on this feat, but when we saw how it works (worse than initimidate, requires qualifying feat, blah, blah) she just opted for the intimidate skill and went looking for a feat that might actually be useful.
Having 12 feats but only being able to use one of them in a round is a joke. If you've already limited the knockout feats to characters that are high level and have invested in the relevant feat chain then they should get to pull some stunts. My wizard doesn't have to cast magic misile on the first round, then scorching ray on the second before he can cast his fireball.
If I get mobbed and I have options to skip out of trouble (mobility) or go on the offensive (whirlwind attack) I don't want to stand still and be clobbered for a bit before I fight back. Most of my feats will no longer allow me to adapt to circumstances, instead they will suggest that I plow on regardless.
Or how about Great Cleave - Imagine trying to sell that to a player; "Once your fighter has reached level 4 he'll be able to hit every opponent in reach in rounds 3, 6, 9, 12 etc of combat. So if you're regularly mobbed by 3 or more opponents who can take plenty of damage, and your character lacks the sense to get out of a bad situation like that, then this is a great feat for you, well it actually costs three feats, oh, and you can't use any other options if you want even this benefit..."
Requirements are fine, but chaining is rubbish (it's ponderous, deeply frustrating and it chucks in more tracking), and if you want to make them one feat per round than that one feat has to better than the alternative (3 or 4 feats combined). At first glance I thought this was a recognition that fighters are underpowered - but no, it's an attempt to weaken fighters.
This section requires massive revision, or just dropping completely.
Heh, I'm going to disagree with most of the posters here and say that I actually like the new combat feats, the once per round rule, and the chaining mechanics. I can see why people might hate it (added complexity, drastically changing feats and confusing people, having to wait rounds to use a much-loved feat, ruining the fun of powergamers [sorry, had to be said] and much more) but I still like it. It makes combat feats more like spell-casting and also makes for some interesting visual moments. It's also not that complex really.
Of course, it could just be the fact that one the player's in my group uses Spring Attack all the time coupled with Power Attack to deal 50 points of damage, then jumps back unharmed with a smug look on his face. With these rules that would be impossible. :)
Perhaps some of the chaining feats could be cumulative? In other words, the feats must still be used in the correct order, but when you activate a feat you get to keep its use in the following round when you activate the next feat. Therefore, as soon as you started dodging you would continue to dodge if you took a feat for which Dodge is a prerequisite. It might not work for all chaining feats, but could be particularly effective for defensive feats (Dodge, Combat Expertise) or basic offensive feats (Precise Shot, Power Attack).
For example, as soon as you use Arcane Strike your weapon retains its +1 bonus until the encounter ends or you used a feat or power other than Arcane Strike, Conduit Spell or Arcane Buildup. In other words, once Arcane Strike was activate it stayed active until you did something to end its effect.
As I said, it might not work for every feat, but I think there is enough potential in chaining feats to save them from the scrapheap.
|
|
Heh, I'm going to disagree with most of the posters here and say that I actually like the new combat feats, the once per round rule, and the chaining mechanics. I can see why people might hate it (added complexity, drastically changing feats and confusing people, having to wait rounds to use a much-loved feat, ruining the fun of powergamers [sorry, had to be said] and much more) but I still like it. It makes combat feats more like spell-casting and also makes for some interesting visual moments. It's also not that complex really.
Of course, it could just be the fact that one the player's in my group uses Spring Attack all the time coupled with Power Attack to deal 50 points of damage, then jumps back unharmed with a smug look on his face. With these rules that would be impossible. :)
I'm definitely not a power-gamer, I'm a storyteller, and I don't like them.
I think power-gamers will probably find a way to get an advantage out of this whilst the rest of us just shrug and avoid them. Power-gamers tend to exploit complexity.
Presumably your 50 point attacker is using some deranged class/feat/equipment combo at high levels. I was hoping these feats might make a pure fighter a balanced option - sadly not (actually the opposite).
I think the biggest problem at table will be; "Damn! if only i'd started my chain one round later/one round earlier/etc then I would have had a really cool option when that beastie clobbered me." It'll be a source of epic frustration.
Add me as another voice for not liking the combat chain feats at all. They seem like additional complexity for no benefit I can see.
I don't like having to use a combat feat in the round preceding the use of another combat feat (e.g. power attack before cleave). At all.
First off, power attack has been nerfed enough as it is.
I actually agree with nerfing power attack--this may hinder the PCs, but also benefits them (esp at high levels--high str+high BAB+power attack+crit=death). Also, it makes more sense to tie it to Strength instead of BAB.
I do agree that combat feats are an unneccessary pain. IHR'd Dodge in 3.5 to allow an all-around +1 dodge bonus to AC. "Declaring" it was silly, as is making it last for one turn. A +1 AC bonus will no more imbalance the game than will the +1 attack bonus from Weapon Focus.
As for other combat feats, Weapon Swap seems pointless, other than as a set-up for Two-Weapon Rend. The later requires 3 feats (2 if you drop Weapon Swap), a high dex, & a +11 BAB as prereqs, so just drop the Weapon Swapping anyway. Besides, once you've swapped weapons, unless your off-hand weapon is light, you're gonna have a -4/-4 on your attacks. Weapon Swap needs to go--reduce the damage for 2-Weapon Rend if you feel it's necessary.
Other combat feats are equally unecessary or complicated to use (Shield Master, I'm thinking you). Drop them altogether, or improve the benefits of the final feat in the chain.
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
Some worked for me and some didn't. I didn't mind having to use cleave before great cleave, with the new uses the feats have, but I don't think that you should have to use power attack before them, for example. I think the "gateway" feat shouldn't always be a prerequisite for the chain.
Also, some of the chains just get impossibly long and convoluted. The arcane strike, arcane buildup, etc. chain just seem to be a bunch of things that are similar on in that a fighter/mage might take them. The payoff isn't in using similar effects that get better round after round, but different effects that do tangentially related things.
So cleave and great cleave in a chain work for me, and so do the whole overhand chop, backswing, etc. chain, because they are all essentially similar actions getting better as you do them over and over.
Two weapon rend was another one that got me. I think that it would be a great feat to use after a round where you hit with both weapon. If you hit with both weapons again the next round, boom, you get the two weapon rend. It makes sense. You hit two times, open the wound, hit two more times, tear it open. But the set up feat is the juggly feat thing. Why would juggling your weapon to hit with your main weapon with both hands in one round set someone up for a rend?
Plus, the juggly feat just didn't do much for me. I get mechanically why it might be good, but I just have a hard time picturing a guy that has time to juggle his weapons so that he can hit with his left and right hand with the same weapon while holding another weapon not being better off, and probably able to, just get three or four more slashes in in the round. Unless the foe is just so dazzled by the juggling that he lets the character hit him again.
So the concept isn't bad, but the chains need to be smaller, and should all be similar actions. And none of the actions in the chain should be using the feat just to use a feat in a chain. I can see having prerequisite feats that need to be taken, but not used in the chain. For example, presumably the benefit of spring attack is to run up to someone, hit them, then move away from them. Why would that person, logically, just move through that person's threatened area the round before, with no other benefit than not getting an AoO, other than to set up the chain?
I think there is a lot of potential here, but it gets a bit too complicated, and plus, if you do want to use 3.5 feats from other books, this area does more to stray from the backwards compatibility area than other areas of the rules have thus far.
Edit: One of my players just e-mailed me and reminded me of another seemingly "close, but not really the same thing" chain, that being Rapid Shot/Many Shot duality, which has similar mechanical effects, but character wise has the character doing two different things (shooting lots of arrows fast, and trying to shoot two arrows at once).
Combat feats Pg 34-39
I played a rather limited game Saturday, Using PFRPG. I observed two of my players (both the Rogue and Fighter) failed to use their Dodge Feat in EVERY combat that I ran. when asked about this afterwards, they both said they felt a little stupid for forgetting it was there. Both players have played for years and I would consider them experienced.
I will post more later but my initial feeling to "improve game play" is to make dodge a Feat and not a Combat Feat. Same penalty as a Dexterity bonus but always on.
I completely agree with Wotc'c Nightmare 1st post. Also IMHO feats should always provide more options to characters not more restrictions.
I'm torn on these.
I like the idea of one feat building on another through the combat. Rather than just attacking round after round, you get possibilities for some "combos". Seems like it would add some excitement to the combat to see if you can pull off the later feats.
But...they don't really build on each other - you just have to pass time.
"Hey everybody, fight defensively for the first two rounds while I wait for my Devastating Chop to power up!". The Overhand Chop should have to HIT before you can use Backswing. And the Backswing has to HIT before you get to Devastating Chop. Then you have some excitement hoping that you can get off your combo (wonder if I'll be flamed for that choice of words?).I agree with the OP on Dodge/Mobility. Those shouldn't be tied together. What, I have to hop around a bit at the back of the group before charging into the battle? And Precise and Point should be used together - or they should be made more powerful if you can only use one or the other.
Maybe someone has already made this comment (I haven't read the whole thread yet; I'm commenting as I go).
Anyway, I can understand the interest in trying to set up combinations, but I agree that it's a bad idea to require players to script out their combat moves two or three rounds in advance. I'm not about to do that - frankly, it's enough to keep me from adopting the Pathfinder rules.
I don't think that every feat chain needs to be built into a combat combo. (Dodge and Mobility are an example of this.) If there is a strong desire to build combos in, then they should resolve in a single round - I'm thinking here of something like the 3.5 version of Cleave (as opposed to the Pathfinder version): you kill a opponent and the feat is triggered, giving you another attack at the same attack bonus. But stringing it out over more than one round is a mistake, and so is linking together different feats just because they're in the same feat tree.
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
I think the chaining is a problem and I also think it's a problem that you can only use one combat feat per round. Of these, it's a toss-up as to which is the bigger problem; maybe the one-combat-feat-per-round limitation.
Personally, I think that the number of changes from 3.5 to the Pathfinder rules should be kept to a minimum. (That serves the goal of backwards compatibility; also, I'm not interested in straying too far from the rules I already know.) So far, I don't see anything in the Pathfinder rules that would convince me to adopt them in their entirety; more likely, I'd take a few things that I like (Perception instead of Spot, Search and Listen, for instance) and houserule them into 3.5, but otherwise run 3.5 straight from the books.
To me, the idea of chaining is a great one. However, being limited to only using one combat feat in a round is VERY restrictive, particularly to fighters (who will likely be the ones taking the lion's share of combat feats).
I think getting rid of that clause is a very common desire in the posts I have read so far. I would have to agree with previous posters that it would be something I would immediately house rule out of existence in my games.
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.
Overall, a great idea, but one that needs a bit of work yet!
The idea of making feats usable at any point, but giving an additional bonus if performed in sequence would be better than the proposed rules in the Alpha 1 document - but I'm still not sure it's worth doing.
|
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
I don't mind the chaining, too much, its a combination of only one per round(really don't like this part), and the inclusion of common feats in the restrictions, that really bothers me. The feats in the combat feat section just aren't that powerful to warrant an only one per round rule. I can guarantee that its a rule that most of the people I game with would ignore, and if we were to play in a game with this rule they would be feats that would fall by the wayside in favor of constant effect feats. If there were more powerful feats beyond the current set that you could only one of per round that would be better.
One negative to chaining is that the combat can change pretty drastically in three rounds making it so that all your work of the previous two rounds building up to what is possibly a fairly mediocre feat, say Spring Attack, is completely wasted. In my experience Spring Attack is a good example of a Feat that often would suffer this.
Cory Gilman
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
For me, it's a combination of both on several levels, but to be honest I find the feats intriguing as well if they are adjusted. I will try to be specific in my dislikes and hopes to help.
First off, PRECISE SHOT, POINT BLANK SHOT, AND, DEFT SHEILD should not be combat feats in my book (along with Dodge, but we will get to that in a minute). None of these offer a power that shouldn't stack in my book, and should be used regularly.
SHIELD SLAM should be at the largest the first move in a two feat chain. Typically I think none of the buildups should be more than three and almost all should be two. Shield slam has enough requirements that it could be used first round with maybe a higher BaB or a limit to the distance pushed at worst, and then Shield Master could be used in succession. This makes it two rounds which isn't too big of a deal in my book.
ARCANE STRIKE CHAIN (powerful and specific...if not it's just doing away with Armor check penalties)
CLEAVE - GREAT CLEAVE A short and sweet chain only totaling 2 with a more effective mechanic. I don't mind this one but I could certainly see an argument for it being non-combat. Perhaps for the issue of transparency this should be one feat that replaces another and a non-combat.
WEAPON SWAP -TWO WEAPON REND once again fairly short and sweet with a decent mechanic. I don't think too many people would complain about this.
THROW ANYTHING/CAUGHT OFF GUARD - RAZOR SHARP CHAIRLEG eh...I think I would rather have throw anything be just a universal non-combat mechanic for dealing damage with improvised weapons.
CAUGHT OFF GUARD AND RAZORSHARP CHAIRLEG have some very specific mechanics...I would rather have THROW ANYTHING(or improvised weapon) be non-combat and leave that effect for combat...and I'm concerned about the ability of Caught off guard to effect casters over and over again until they drop their wand and pick up a dagger. I'm not sure if this was the intended effect for this feat or not.
Scorpion Style chain (not that this doesn't work but I'm not sure how much better gorgons fist is than stunning fist other than it follows up with something more powerful. If the chain was to exist, I guess I wouldn't mind seeing it on stunning fist or does Gorgons fist replace stunning fist? I'm not sure this couldn't once again be made shorter by making it a two-chain off of stunning fist but it still seems to work and I do like the 5 foot hampered movement)
more to come....
(cont.)
My opinion on OVERHAND CHOP...it's awesome, but it shouldn't be a combat feat. I see this as something great at low level because it's a full round attack in place of one you do not yet have and an interesting attack still at higher levels, but only if you can use it with something like cleave. I guess if you remove CLEAVE from the combat list then leave this one on...it's a new mechanic and a full attack. You won't be doing much else that round. :P
As for the next in line BACKSWING, I think this could be the start of a 1-2 and that would be fine if the mechanic was adjusted. You could have the same mechanic, but change the strength mod to x1 instead of x1.5 and then x0.5...also possibly add a -2 to hit on all blows. Now this is a new tactic with different uses at higher levels, and you can then follow it up with your DEVISTATING STRIKE. Really, pulling off 2 full attack actions before this when you will need to be at minimum 11th level to access it and take 3 feats seems like a bit much and it will be hard to implement well in the game.
On the other hand it's an auto-crit that still gives you a move action... that in itself is powerful! I think one full attack action using backswing taking the minus and then being able to follow up with an auto-crit and move is nice however... I certainly wouldn't complain about the chain if that was the action.
(cont.)
After looking over them more I like over all.here is my full thoughts
Remove dodge,Double Slice, mobility,point blank shot Precise Shot,Caught Off-Guard,Razor Sharp Chair Leg, Throw Anything,Turning Smite and Shot on the Run they should be feats.
Now here is the main change.Allow them to be used in one round if you have the BAB for it.You may move one step down the chain for each attack you have that round.
we now make it a full round action to use feat chains.
* arcane strike
Arcane Strike
Conduit Spell
Arcane Buildup
you can do this In two rounds by the time you can cast 7th level spells.
* Care full targeting chain
Careful Targeting
Exact Targeting
Pinpoint Targeting
BAB+11 for full chain can be done in one round by then.
*Cleave chain
cleave
great cleave
you can do this full chain by BAB+6
*Dazzling Display chain
Dazzling Display
Stunned Defense
Deadly Stroke
full chain by BAB +11
*Deft Shield chain
Deft Shield
Shield Slam
Shield Master
full chain by BAB+11
*Spring Attack chain
Spring Attack
Wind Stance
Lightning Stance
full chain by BAB+6 but cant take to BAB+8
*Overhand chop chain
Over hand chop
back swing
devastating blow
full chain BAB+11
* Rapid Shot chain
Rapid Shot
Many Shot
Full chain BAB+6
*Scorpion Style chain
Scorpion Style
Gorgon’s Fist
Medusa’s Wrath
Full chain BAB +11
*Weapon Swap chain
Weapon Swap
Two-Weapon Rend
Full chain BAB+11
as you see most chain can be done in one round at the level you can get them anyhow. This give make fighters more options with there attacks.
a fighter with the over hand chop chain could do 3 attacks or his chain.
I would be very happy with feat chains done this way. If any one would like to test them please let me know If they work they way they seem like they would.
(cont)
CAREFUL TARGETING, EXACT TARGETING, & PINPOINT TARGETING
Now I'm not sure how much everybody explored this mechanic, but it should stay exactly like it is in my opinion. This is a more powerful effect than I expected to see... even if it resets and you have to start out in the 4th round with 20% less miss chance and a -2 to cover, that's still powerful, and also maintains a certain level of realism that not every attack on an invisible opponent, one shrouded or one behind fairly heavy cover can be hit with absolute certainty every time.
I would have liked to leave most of these at two-chains instead of 3... but really this is so effective at 2 and 3 it really doesn't matter.
This is excellent and I'm not sure something like this should really stack too much. This one should be a chain for certain, in fact if it's not, well... then it's kind of radically overpowered. It's also a new mechanic, so it's an add on...good stuff.
DODGE MOBILITY SPRING ATTACK, WIND STANCE, LIGHTNING STANCE
Ok, I like the new mechanics, but this starts getting tricky a bit.
First off, I acknowledge the fact you cannot have WIND and LIGHTNING STANCE on their own... this would basically mean that when not doing some other form of attack that uses a combat feat you have 20-50% concealment varying by round,just whenever. That's a but much.
I do like the new mobility seeing it basically makes you immune from AoO's for a round... that's fairly tough as well and without a first round buffer that just makes you immune to all AoO's unless doing something else...little too good of a bargain.
Well first off you could possibly change the old feats back to the way they were and add something like WATER STANCE the first round that gives you a +1 to dodge (or maybe +1 to reflex or Dodge) that specifically stacks with dodge. This leaves the transparency of the old system makes it useful and still stops the STANCE feats from becoming automatic when not doing something else.
Second, you could leave as-is and have spring attack come strait off of dodge. This means one round you use dodge and the next you can use mobility, spring attack, or wind stance. If you do this I think you should make dodge either +2 bonus to AC or Reflex saves. This beefs up Dodge a bit and actually justifies it's usage in more than one situation, and the chain is now only 2 rounds long for everything but 50% cover... which is killer.
PRECISE SHOT, POINT BLANK SHOT, RAPID SHOT, MULTISHOT, SHOT ON THE RUN
Well like I said, and I think their is a fair consensus on this issue...Precise and point blank should be non-combat.
RAPID MULTI AND ON THE RUN... well they are already full round actions you cannot use with each other. I guess I wouldn't mind RAPID followed by MULTI. It fundamentally changes very little.
I also see DEADLY AIM on the list which is already non-combat :D good stuff, so I don't think we will lack stackable feats, just not with some of the more uber effects and for those it really falls into a bad powergaming trip...like stacking deadly aim, pointblank shot, pinpoint shot and multishot on a rogue that's sneaking thru a fog cloud ready to plug 3 sneak attacks and 4 arrows into somebody with a hefty bonust to boot. The lack of the additional 1 arrow damage won't really phase me too much to be honest, and the addtion of pinpoint shot is really a powerful option...really. I don't think it needs to stack with multishot.
|
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
I personally *love* the idea of these Combat Feats and chaining them. They look *very* good in theory, but can’t really comment a lot on them until I’ve seen them “in action�. In fact, I especially like that you can build “combos� with them in combat (e.g. Overhand Chop and Backswing). Also, in my opinion Cleave and Great Cleave seem to work a lot better than in 3E. Combat Expertise and Power Attack should both definitely be Combat Feats, though.
Combat Expertise: As someone pointed out on another thread, this feat is probably quite useless to most fighters if it only lets you apply your INT bonus to AC. I’d suggest that it’d work as Superior Expertise in 3E –- your BAB is the maximum bonus to your AC. Also, it’d be logical that you can’t use Power Attack during the same round (which would make it and Power Attack better off as Combat Feats).
Power Attack: As it works now, but what if the penalty would be to your AC rather than your attack? At some point (higher levels) Power Attack currently becomes pretty useless as you can’t hit anything while using it, so I’d rather see it working as ‘Reckless Attack’ in 3E.
Arcane Strike: I’m not sure whether I like that odd +1 bonus to attack and damage. I’d rather have this feat work just like in 3E (i.e. sacrifice a spell to receive its level X D4 as bonus to damage).
Dodge: I’m a bit leery about that +1 Dodge Bonus to AC – why not make it +2 or INT bonus +1? Or perhaps there could be an “improved� version of Dodge (Improved Dodge)? Besides, why is this a Combat Feat while Combat Expertise, Power Attack and other similar feats are “regular� feats?
DAZZLING DISPLAY - STUNNED DEFENSE - DEADLY STROKE
Now... at first this didn't look that tough until I realized you could make an attack action to intimidate in the first round. That's pretty bad-ass if that's not based on BaB but on your actual attack... hell you could scare the crap out of everything. A high level fighter, barbarian or paladin would be TERRIFYING.
The feat chain doesn't bother me with this one either... somebody can take the standard feats and just use normal intimidate in a much less effective way if they wanted to. This is an improvement and a new deal so I don't mind having the chain so much (not to mention this is also an interesting feat for the rogue even if he doesn't have quite the attack roll the fighter does).
The one thing I wouldn't mind seeing is if you put a +2 or +4 prereq on it and actually made an option where you could dazzle as a standard action or dazzle with an attack as a Full Round action. This I think would be cool, but if you take the attack you should probably hit...missing isn't very scary.
IN CONCLUSION
The system needs work and a bit of consensus on what to do...
but that's why this ALPHA is here and we should all remember that. Personally I like this approach alot better than WotC's tactic of feeding us marginal info over several months before we got a real look. I've talked this over with one or two people and what I've posted is kind of what we have come up with. I think people will accept the new combat chains based on a couple simple premises:
1) For purposes of tracking and simplicity, you should try to keep them at effects per chain and 3 at absolute maximum.
2) It would be better to have one prereq feat and 3 options for that one, better that than a chain of 3 unless it has significantly related, scaling effects like the PINPOINT SHOT Chain does. Since they are so alike, I'm sure the player will be able to keep track of something like what round his enemies armor and shield get ignored by his attack, along with his miss percentage :P
3) The effects for these chained feats should be both memorable and more powerful than the normal feats that stack...since if they don't what's the reason?
4) Give us a fair amount of both stackable and combat feats. This may make balance a bit harder but will make gameplay more enriched I think.
) Try to keep it mainly to new feats. I think the group as a whole likes what they can do now with what they know, but certainly isn't afraid of new material. Whatever you put in this book isn't an addition to core... it's our new core. Most of the people here are looking for a book they can pick up and use as their new handbook.
What you make is core now to most of us. That means new stuff isn't an add on...it's what is.
Oh and just so everybody knows since not everybody here is on the same page given the amount of time they had to review... not ALL feats are combat feats and as far as I know only combat feats don't stack.
Reading thru, I kind of got the impression a handful of folks think all the feats don't stack. That's not the case.
thanks for the well thought out post man. seesm there is alot of confusion they have grown on me and i think they just need reworked a bit.
|
|
Interesting thoughts everybody.
Once again, I would like to thank you for including us in providing feedback. I'm not certain if internal playtests would have shown the combat feats to be something that works, but they don't work at all for me or my group. To that end, I'll answer your questions and provide some additional feedback.
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?
I'm not a fan of chaining, and specifically this version of it. There are chains I would be happier with, and they have been alluded to or explicated by previous posters. For a chain to work, it should grant an ADDITIONAL benefit for using the prerequisite, but it should not require the use in the previous round. More on this in a moment.
The fact that 'common feats' are now chained and less useful is definitely a problem. Feats are a finite resource for any character, and even with more feats in the Pathfinder Alpha, making them less effective is not a design I'm willing to accept. While I recognize that Pathfinder has 'ramped up' the power in significant ways, I'm generally okay with that. Giving more feats, etc, is easy to do on the fly, but taking feats away wouldn't. This feels like taking feats away from 3.5 characters. They don't work the way they did in 3.5, and in some ways they do not work as well as they did in 3.5.
The fact that only one combat feat can be used per round isn't a good thing. The suggestion to allow one per attack is good - but sometimes feats are completely 'unrelated' and ought to be used in conjunction with each other. Using Dodge at the same time you use Caught Off Guard makes perfect sense. While sitting in the tavern, the goon comes up and looms over me. I throw myself backward out of my chain, using the pewter mug filled with ale to smash my opponents face in. This is the type of 'cinematic' combat you lose when you require feat chains.
Or I guess, is it ombination of problems. If we removed one of the above, does the concept work better?
I usually DM, but I also like to be a player. I frequently play a melee character, often a fighter to fill a necessary party role. Because I so frequently play fighters, I'm very concerned with not making them 'suck' any more than they do relative to other classes. While some have argued that a fighter absorbing damage from the bad guys while the other characters do something 'useful' is a vital role, I don't think it is what makes being a fighter fun. Since the game is supposed to be fun, I'd like rules that support it.
Now, the group I play with has a total of 6 people. Most of my players could wrap their heads around this and make this work for us if we liked it. Two of my players simply cannot. They frequently don't know what is happening THIS ROUND, let alone LAST ROUND. As much as I like my players, I'm certain that setting up these chains is more work than they're prepared to handle (and I don't fault them, since that isn't part of the game they enjoy) and so would not be used. One is playing a Swashbuckler and one is playing a Rogue right now (both with combat emphasis) and are frequenly involved in melee where these feats would matter.
Even if my group COULD use them easily, I have to ask why? I really like feats in 3.5. I think feats are one of the best parts of the game, and it is a shame that you get so few. It is also a shame that they fail to scale up in power. I don't understand WHY this change is being considered, and I don't see it improving my play experience.
What I would like to see are feats that scale with level. I absolutely hate two-weapon fighting, because you're 'locked in' to taking so many feats. You take two-weapon fighting, than improved, than greater... Each one gives you the 'benefit' you already had with 2-weapon - it doesn't expand your options in any way. There isn't much difference between 2 attacks with the off-hand weapon and three attacks with the off hand weapon (especially since the 3rd is at -17 to your normal attack progression).
So, nothing against chained feats or anything, but I don't think they are necessary. Leave feats like PowerAttack and Cleave alone, for the most part, but let others scale with level.
For example, instead of weapon focus granting a +1 to attack rolls, let it add +1/3 levels (like Divine Favor). Make it nice for fighters by giving them an extra bonus when they take it (a +2 instead of a +1/3 levels maybe). Fighter bonus feats would be just like regular feats, but fighters would get just a little more out of it. So, for example, in Power Attack everyone could take it to take a penalty to attack for a bonus to damage. Fighters could get an extra +5 damage when they take it as a fighter bonus feat (making fighter bonus feats a little different than general feats)..
Regarding Power Attack specifically - I have a major problem with the way it has been changed. Let's say I'm a 12th level fighter, and I have a strength bonus of +8 (not too shabby). When all is said and done, my normal attack bonus is +24. With Power Attack it is +16 and I deal +8 extra damage.
Now, let's say I'm a Storm Giant. My normal bonus to attack is +26. With power attack my bonus to attack is +12 (thanks to my +14 ability modifier).
As a giant I have only two options +12 or +26. That's a huge difference. It isn't so bad for the fighter, but the stronger he is, the more likely he is to miss level appropriate opponents.
I understand trying to make the math easier, but this makes the feat inflexible. The 20 Str barbarian suffers from using Power Attack at 1st level far more than he benefits. Just as an aside, I have a solution for Power Attack. For some reason, people have a much easier time adding than subtracting (I'm guessing cause we learned it first, but it could be just because it is easier). So, instead of subtracting the amount you want to from attack and adding it to damage, I take my total modifier before BAB and decide how much to switch over. So, if I have a +10 BAB and normally I'd have a +9, I just take my +9 and decide whether I'm putting 1, 2, 5, or 10 points into attack. Anything else goes to damage. So, if I put 5 in I know that 9+5=+14 to attack roll and normal damage +5.
If that makes sense.
I encourage everybody to put some of their skills to use and post on the "New Combat Feats" Thread, if they think they have some good ideas for Combat Feats that can be hammered out.
Personally I think General feats for the most part should stay the same unless working with the combat feats makes them ridiculous, and the combat feats should be High-powered and hopefully not chained more than 2 unless the 3rd has an extraordinary power attached to it you wouldn't want common access to.
Spring attack doesn't raise that kind of concern in my mind, so either 2nd chain or simply a general feat (which would work because plenty of the combat feats are full rounders + Spring attack is pretty specific. I don't think overlapped effects are that big of a concern).
Also, some combat feats should have an ability to maintain themselves once reached rather tripping thru the progression again. I made one like this in the thread mentioned.