|
I personally don't feel that the combat feats are adding anything to the game. I particularly feel that combat feats that are feats that used to be in 3.5 are being changed unnecessarily. I think the restriction to one feat per round is an unusual limitation, since some feats have the previous feat built into their use as a specific exception.
For example, Spring Attack grants the benefit of Mobility when you use it, avoiding the 'one feat per round' rule.
The [Combat] feats have the same names as existing feats, but for the most part don't work as well. Other threads have been brought up about this, but Power Attack is one that I find particularly distasteful. If I have a +18 Strength modifier and a +12 BAB, I get a -12 to my attack and a +12 to damage. I cannot take a -3 to attack, so I can't use power attack to get a little more 'oomph' without giving up the chance of hitting. In Paizo adventures, frequently the villains will attempt to powerattack for full, then decrease the amount by 5 each round until they start hitting (I'm looking at you Papa Kreeg). This is an issue of backward compatability far more than the number of feats or the way the skill system works.
I'd like to put a loud vote in for 'NO' on combat feats. Those that are worth keeping can be made General Feats. Yes, you can use multiple ones in a round, but I don't see that as a problem. I don't see why Careful Targeting and Many Shot are such a powerful combination that they shouldn't be allowed in conjunction.
They may be better in the Alpha 2 than in the Alpha 1 (there they were so bad I didn't even want to go near them). But after giving them a fair shake in Alpha 2, they're still far inferior to the feats we had in 3.5. Please remove them for the Alpha 3.
I have to agree. I would rather see the 3.5 feats mostly left alone and just add in new feats to take advantage of the ideas presented with some of the combat feats, but make them normal feats.
I too concur with DDMW. Combat feats seem like an unnecessary distinction that will almost certainly cause occasional confusion for some players.
His point about Power Attack stands as well (though I don't think that's actually listed as a Combat feat). I like the simplicity of the new version (and the way it prevents players from using an obnoxious Power Attack vs. AC chart), but the rigidity is sure to screw over many monsters as well as PCs. More the former than the latter, actually, especially giants and other big basher types.
|
I personally don't feel that the combat feats are adding anything to the game. I particularly feel that combat feats that are feats that used to be in 3.5 are being changed unnecessarily. I think the restriction to one feat per round is an unusual limitation, since some feats have the previous feat built into their use as a specific exception.
For example, Spring Attack grants the benefit of Mobility when you use it, avoiding the 'one feat per round' rule.
The [Combat] feats have the same names as existing feats, but for the most part don't work as well. Other threads have been brought up about this, but Power Attack is one that I find particularly distasteful. If I have a +18 Strength modifier and a +12 BAB, I get a -12 to my attack and a +12 to damage. I cannot take a -3 to attack, so I can't use power attack to get a little more 'oomph' without giving up the chance of hitting. In Paizo adventures, frequently the villains will attempt to powerattack for full, then decrease the amount by 5 each round until they start hitting (I'm looking at you Papa Kreeg). This is an issue of backward compatability far more than the number of feats or the way the skill system works.
I'd like to put a loud vote in for 'NO' on combat feats. Those that are worth keeping can be made General Feats. Yes, you can use multiple ones in a round, but I don't see that as a problem. I don't see why Careful Targeting and Many Shot are such a powerful combination that they shouldn't be allowed in conjunction.
They may be better in the Alpha 2 than in the Alpha 1 (there they were so bad I didn't even want to go near them). But after giving them a fair shake in Alpha 2, they're still far inferior to the feats we had in 3.5. Please remove them for the Alpha 3.
Agreed.
|
|
My group is currently running a Rise of the Runelords campaign. We are not testing the Alpha 2 Document in-game. The reasons for this are that the group agreed that remaking the characters to comply with the new rules would be something of a pain, but also some of the new rules seem somewhat confusing and not worth ‘learning’ since they’ll probably be thrown out in the next release. I do want to play-test the heck out of the Beta when it comes out, but I’ve been working on various methods of play-testing without having my group help. This means that some of my conclusions come from ‘play’ but not from a ‘real’ play-session.
The rule that I think gives me the most trouble and will certainly be problematic for my group is Combat Feats. Remembering if the feat is a combat feat or a general feat is somewhat difficult. Remembering how it interacts with other feats is therefore one more detail to keep track of, and does little to streamline the game. The feats fall into three general categories: powerful feats that should be allowed only once/round, feats that would be decent if they could be used in conjunction with other feats, and feats that have been changed from 3.5 for no discernible reason. What follows is a review of each feat in the Pathfinder Alpha 2 release. I would appreciate comments and discussion about any and all feats and any analysis you disagree with.
Arcane Armor Mastery
This feat requires the use of a Swift Action to use. That means that someone using this feat cannot also cast a quickened spell. Someone using this feat cannot also benefit from another Combat Feat, such as Careful Targeting (firing a ray spell). Since even with the higher number of feats in Pathfinder, each feat is precious. There would be little difference if this feat were made ‘always-on’ and put in the general feat category.
Arcane Armor Training
This feat suffers the same problems as Arcane Armor Mastery. Reducing the spell failure by 10% all the time will encourage casters to wear armor, but not much. The best ‘non-magical’ armor with a Spell Failure of 20% is Chain Shirt, while Leather has 10%. Since Mage Armor is a first level spell, providing a +4 bonus (and there is an improved version granting a +8 bonus) few casters will choose this option in the first place. Those that do are most likely doing so for flavor reasons since there is little mechanical benefit. If that is the case, they should be encouraged, and removing the action and the limit to one such feat per round is a good thing.
Arcane Strike
This is a feat that could use a limitation. Rather than make it a feat that cannot be used with any other combat feats, this one can be limited by requiring the use of a swift action (so it can be used on an attack of opportunity). This feat appears to stack with other magical bonuses since the bonus is untyped. If that is not the design intent, it should be clearer, but a +1 to damage from a feat with a limitation on use is not terrible.
Backswing
What does this feat do? Basically it allows an extra attack, like any number of other effects including haste and weapons with the speed property, and a barbarian’s Unexpected Strike ability. The difference is that it stacks with those abilities, but doesn’t do the full strength damage. This is a fairly powerful ability that does require a limitation. Having three attacks at the highest base attack bonus plus additional attacks would add up pretty quickly. Personally, if this is kept, I think it can be modified as follows:
Benefit: When making a full-attack action, you may make one additional attack at your highest bonus. This additional attack does not stack with haste or other similar effects.
This makes this a good feat for any melee character to take, whether they use a two-handed weapon, a one-handed weapon, or even two-weapons. An extra attack is always a good thing. Having it be a feat makes it so it is a ‘special’ power, but it isn’t game breaking since it doesn’t stack with a frequently used 3rd level spell, and allows a little more ‘power’ to the melee characters without getting that help from arcane casters or powerful magical items. Since it can only be used as part of a full-attack (a restriction that haste shares) it will not allow more attacks in situations that would not have been possible before.
Careful Targeting
This is a good ‘basic’ feat. This is not much different than 3.5 Precise Shot. The limitation against using this feat in conjunction with any other feat is unnecessary. Since the feat is already situational (the target must have concealment and/or cover) there will not be many situations where it will come up. In those cases, however, why not allow feats like Manyshot (discussed later) or Caught Off-Guard (discussed next). In a bar brawl where the opponent kicks over a table (cover bonus) behind the curtain (concealment) and you want to throw your pint glass at him (improvised weapon), the use of both feats will be a nice combination – especially with Sneak Attack. Though, and this is probably the most important, it should be very clear whether a reduction of the miss chance to 0% ‘negates’ concealment for the purpose of sneak attack. This wouldn’t happen a lot, but in a situation where it did, the player would be rewarded for having taken ‘multiple’ combat feats. By allowing only one to be used at a time, there are many situations where they would work together well, but a player must choose. As long as the power-level is in line with 3.5, I don’t see a problem with stacking feats.
Caught Off-Guard
The thing about this feat is that it does funny things, and I know some of them have been addressed elsewhere. The worst abuse is probably if you use this feat in conjunction with the Disarm maneuver. A character that lost a weapon to the broken bottle that you used now suffers sneak attack on all attacks until he retrieves his weapon – this makes the bottle better than a rapier for the rogue. Not taking a penalty for Improvised Weapons is a good benefit, and probably feat-worthy already (though a better name might be ‘Improvised Weapon Master’ or something). This feat could use limitation – maybe by limiting it to the first attack made with an improvised weapon. Thus you could go all ‘Jackie Chan’ with the Quick Draw feat by hitting someone with the chair, then the table, then the nearby ladder, then the paint can. By using all the various ‘weapons’ nearby the fight should be more entertaining, and because there have to be a ready supply of weapons around, it will not be overly ‘abused’.
Cleave
This is a feat that worked much better in 3.5. I don’t understand the design goal of the re-write. Is it to make it useful more often? Since it doesn’t require an opponent to be dropped, it allows the feat to be used more frequently, but it also makes the feat a poor choice for any high level character. A character with three attacks is better off making the first attack at normal bonus against the first target, and spending the next two attacks on the second target. Even at -5 and -10, the character may be more likely to hit at least once with two swings, even with the penalty. [This is true when the character needs a high roll or a very low roll to hit his opponents on his first attack]. Simply put, I think that the 3.5 version works better. As long as it is clear that you cannot cleave to the same target multiple times (in the case of Great Cleave) this should work just fine.
Dazzling Display
This feat already requires a full-round action, so the limitation against using other Combat Feats is unnecessary. The wording of the feat needs improvement. It says: ‘You can substitute an attack roll in place of your Intimidate check if it is higher’. Please consider the following example: my character has a Intimidate bonus of +15, and an attack bonus of +8. I roll my intimidate check, and I roll a 1 (16). Because I can use my attack roll if it is higher, I roll an attack roll, getting a 15 for a total of 23. In this case, my attack roll was higher, allowing me to substitute it for my Intimidate check, even though I had the better bonus. It simply needs to be clarified that it is ‘1 roll’, but you ‘add the better modifier’.
Deadly Stroke
This is a great feat, if it is General Feat. Since it requires a standard action, it cannot be used in conjunction with other feats anyway.
Deft Shield
The fact that you still take penalties for fighting with two weapons is good. The fact that you lose your shield bonus if you miss, but keep it if you hit is bad. First of all, what if I make multiple attacks with my shield (primary weapon)? Do I keep the bonus if I hit with some but miss with some? Even if I only have one attack with my shield, 5 minutes later the DM may ask ‘what’s your AC’ and then I have to remember which attacks hit. This is a feat – make it useful. You spend the feat and you can use the shield bash and hit-or-miss, you should get your shield bonus to AC. That will encourage the use of a very under-utilized attack, and again, not terribly game breaking since shields already have the problem of requiring being enchanted for both defense and offense.
Devastating Blow
This is another good feat, but because it requires a Standard Action, there is no reason to keep it as a Combat Feat. It can be a General Feat without any concerns about balance.
Dodge
In 3.5 this feat could be used in conjunction with other feats. Now it cannot. That is somewhat confusing. This is particularly problematic since it can no longer be used at the same time as Mobility (though, in all honesty, few people would move to perform an action that provokes, like picking up a weapon). But having a +1 to AC against a chosen enemy, even when using other feats, cannot be game breaking since it has been used successfully in 3.5 for a long time. This is another situation where this is a good General Feat, and simply more complex with no additional utility as a Combat Feat.
Double Slice
This feat has some problems. If I’m fighting with two weapons, but both are light weapons (say, two handaxes), can I choose which one to apply it to? It seems to imply it is use for the ‘off-hand’ weapon, but in the benefit it says one light weapon – and that implies my choice. What if I want to take the feat twice? Then could I apply it to both weapons (primary and off-hand)? Normally there is a restriction on using multiple combat feats per round. If you’re using the same feat more than once, is that still covered by that restriction? I wouldn’t mind seeing a feat that eliminated the -2 for using 2-weapon fighting. There are still advantages with 2-handed weapons, and going ‘sword & board’, so I don’t know why the penalty couldn’t be eliminated with a feat. Still, this one doesn’t make sense to me.
Exact Targeting
This one also needs clarification in regard to sneak attack (whether the concealment counts for negating the attack).
Gorgon’s Fist
This might be a powerful ability that needs limitation. It is not as good as stunning fist (since they lose an action if you hit). I’d like to see this as an ability a monk can choose to use in place of stunning fist, and the DC just be higher. You’d be more likely to stagger your opponent than stun him outright. Assuming that no saving throw mechanic is included, this still does not need to be a combat feat because it requires a standard action as written.
Great Cleave
This just isn’t as good at 3.5. This is much more like Whirlwind Attack, but if you miss your attack action ends. I think I would just leave Great Cleave as it was in 3.5, change this to Whirlwind Attack, remove the ‘if you miss it ends’ restriction, but put a new one in place. I’d limit it to no more than one attack per point of BAB. Thus, if you’re surrounded by 9 goblins, you can whirlwind attack all nine of them if you have a BAB of 9 or better. This is particularly important in case you’re flying. And wielding a Spiked Chain. If 3 dimensions you can have 29 people threatening you if you don’t have reach. It gets ridiculous quickly. The limitation based on BAB will make it so that you can still get benefit from Whirlwind Attack without the possibility of offering hundreds of attacks (literally).
Improved Vital Strike
Since this already involves the use of giving up attacks, I don’t think this one is broken. The ‘best feats’ already require a standard action, so this couldn’t be used in conjunction with Devestating Blow, for instance. It also makes it clear that the extra damage isn’t multiplied again on a critical hit, so the worst abuses are already dealt with. Basically, this gives the fighter a chance to do the damage of 3 or 4 attacks with less dice rolling. This is great. I like this feat, but I think it can survive as a general feat just fine. Since you must have a +16 BAB, only martial characters can hope to qualify.
Lightning Stance
This is another feat that requires a full round action, so there is no other limitation required against using other feats in conjunction. Why not use Dodge at the same time you use Lightning Stance? What was the point of taking Dodge at all after you get the feats that ‘build off it’?
Manyshot
This feat requires a full-attack, and is somewhat nerfed from 3.5 (which is fine) especially since it can be used with haste (but now is only limited to one attack with the double arrows). I think this feat should allow the use of other feats (like Careful Targeting). This is another feat that is well-served by being returned to the General Feat category.
That’s all I have time for now. But I think that the analysis will hold true for the rest of the feats in this chapter. They gain nothing from being designated ‘combat’ feats, and in fact make the game more complicated.
I'll try to come back to this after work.
We've been playing for a while now; the combat feats tend to discourage the fighter from trying anything but the most proven tactics, and he tends to fill up on interoperable stuff instead.
I don't think the benefits most of them give are really justified with 'only one per turn!' especially given the fact that many take standard or full actions to use.
Jepp. Just one additional mechanic that isn't really necessary and I want to see gone too.
|
Very good points, DDMW! I agree with them, and although I had thought that it's a good thing that you can only use one CF per round, after reading your post I'm starting to have doubts. Hopefully the things you addressed will be corrected in Alpha 3.
One note, though: Arcane Strike is a very odd Feat, since it is only useful for low-level "Gish" characters and practically (i.e. under normal circumstances) useless once you obtain a magic weapon (besides, it emulates a spell, which feels wrong to me). To be frank, I would like to see it gone.
Yeah same here. Although if I could get an explanation as to why combat feats were introduced in the first place I might be sold on them if there is a good reason for it. There may be something going on here none of us have considered. It would at least open up this discussion a little. Jason? Anyone?
They are kinda growing on me but I wouldnt mind seeing them going
A few in our group like them other think they are just one extra thing that you dont need
From what I've gathered, the combat feats are supposed to be stances, like baby brothers of the stance maneuvers in Bo9S. As a general idea, that sort of thing has merit. As for the specific execution of the idea: that's debatable.
That crossed my mind as well. It ain't a bad idea conceptually. I've messed around with some variant rules that incorporate a bit of ToB's main ideas for the Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, and Monk. It may very well work out better if the combat feats were more similar to the actual stances, as opposed to some of the maneuvers, which would make good general feats.