|
Title says it all. Granted I love the idea of combat feats and the options it adds to fighting classes, however, I do not belive they should cost a feat to gain them. Could they not be tied to BAB? Perhaps at every 2 bab you gain one, and make a 'feat' that allows you to gain 2 extra? Would this imbalance the game?
I'm afraid we're lacking the concept. Either a technique is a class ability, a combat maneuver or a feat.
|
|
Combat Feats should be feats, but not Feat (Combat). They should be Feat (General).
If they shouldn't work in conjunction with each other, they should require a standard or a full action to work. There is no extra mechanic required to define how a 'combat' feat works differently than a 'feat you use in combat that isn't a combat feat'.
The whole distinction is pointless and confusing.
Combat Feats should be feats, but not Feat (Combat). They should be Feat (General).
If they shouldn't work in conjunction with each other, they should require a standard or a full action to work. There is no extra mechanic required to define how a 'combat' feat works differently than a 'feat you use in combat that isn't a combat feat'.
The whole distinction is pointless and confusing.
I think you are more then likly right most of these combat feats do stuff that feats in other books have already done in 3.5 some not all if they are going to limit them to one a turn then I think they need to make them more powerful
The only thing I wan't to see about em is that they become normal feats.
All this "Only one Combat feat" per turn stuff is neither BWC nor any real fun worth to mess with.
|
|
Why do you need so many feats.. particularly when you can only use 1 combat feat at a time?
Yes, they should remain how they are. There's no reason to need so many of them... there aren't that many combat feats to begin with and if/when there are more, having more isn't necessarily good for the character. (See the discussion about feats every level.)
As for the whole, "why 1 combat feat per turn".. it's simple, look at the design. All the combat feats give you is something for nothing. Feats like power attack give you a - for a +.
Cleave provides a pretty sweat ability with no downside.. hence making it a combat feat.
It's checks and balances, new powerful feats can now be introduced but balanced against other feats without ridiculous stacking issues.
|
One of the great advantages of the "one combat feat per round" clause is reduced skill synergy. In 3.5 fighters had to take tons of feats to specialize in one sort of thing, often using skill redundancies. In pathfinder, fighters will probably be alot more versatile since their feats exclude themselves. A few of the early combat feat choices like point blank shot and precise shot were a bit strange, but they were removed from the list. Others, like whirlwind attack, should probably be added. But in general I like them. And in my opinion they should stay feats. They are primarily a fighter thing, but not exclusively so. Tying them to base attack bonus would reduce the fighters general effectiveness compared to other classes unless, at the same time, the number of general feats a character can take is reduced again (which would be not to my liking)
|
I also have to agree that if you don't want two combat Feats used together, make both standard or full-round actions. For instance - spring attack, movement included, could be a full-round action. This prevents you from using many other abilities with it, and doesn't require an artificial "one-a-round" limitation.
Yes.
As for the whole, "why 1 combat feat per turn".. it's simple, look at the design. All the combat feats give you is something for nothing. Feats like power attack give you a - for a +.
Cleave provides a pretty sweat ability with no downside.. hence making it a combat feat.
Have you actually read the combat feats? It doesn't look like you have. Nearly all of them require you to give something up.
Cleave requires you to make only a single attack, giving up as many as 6 or 7 attacks to make the single cleave attack IF it works. Vital Strike requires you to give up an attack. Wind and Lightning Stances require you to move, which means they require you to give up on full attacking. The Arcane Armor feats require you to give up casting a quickened/swift action spell. Exact Targetting requires you to not move. Gorgon's Fist requires you to only make a single attack. Etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
On top of that, most of the feats require you to use standard or full-round actions to use, which would prevent them from being used with each other anyway.
|
|
As for the whole, "why 1 combat feat per turn".. it's simple, look at the design. All the combat feats give you is something for nothing. Feats like power attack give you a - for a +.
Cleave provides a pretty sweat ability with no downside.. hence making it a combat feat.Have you actually read the combat feats? It doesn't look like you have. Nearly all of them require you to give something up.
Cleave requires you to make only a single attack, giving up as many as 6 or 7 attacks to make the single cleave attack IF it works.
A low level character with one single attack per round doesn't give up additional attacks. He gains one free attack.
I'd guess that a character who is in position to make 6 or 7 attacks would qualify for Great Cleave, which gives up to 7 additional attacks at the highest BAB if he's completely surrounded (up to 24 attacks if he has a reach weapon which can strike adjacent targets) Not bad and quite cinematic.I also think that to cleave or not to cleave is a question of choosing the right tactic against the opponents. Taking one single opponent down quickly requires that all attacks are directed at him. For several weaker opponents, cleaving sounds like an interesting option, like a small fireball dropped in the middle.
I'd go as far as say that Cleave is actually more useful than in 3.5.
3.5
If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.
Alpha 2
As a full-round action, make a single melee attack against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (at the same bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. Both of these attacks are made at your highest attack bonus. You can only make one additional attack in a round with this feat.
In 3.5, you had to (1) hit and (2) deal enough damage to drop the first target before being allowed to attack the second target.
In Alpha 2, you have to (1) hit the first target before being allowed to attack the second target. That's one condition instead of two and I gather that most players with one attack per round (or with iterative attacks but going against high AC opponents) will be happy to declare the Cleave and get a second free attack.
Note that the current wording doesn't say that you cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. It may be an oversight, but it it's not, it opens up additional combat options.
I'm aware that the full-round action limits the options, but in 3.5, a missed first attack followed by a movement action triggered attacks of opportunity from two or more opponents.