Announcement: New Feats for Playtesting


Announcements

51 to 100 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

I sent these new feats to my players last night for their perusal. Hopefully we can try some of the lower-level ones out soon... :)

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dalesman
"Bringing Big D**n Justice to the Bad Guys Since 1369 DR"


I was thinking of doing a non-caster item creation thing to allow the Fighter specifically, and really anyone that spends the feats, to do something extra outside of combat.

And honestly, it'd be nice to have anyone capable (especially the Fighter) to make their gear. Takes the pressure off the casters.

And I can't stress enough.. it gives the Fighter something to do outside of combat. Craft skills and feats like this mean he can contribute in other ways.

Now all he needs is 4 skillpoints per level so he can keep up with the extra skills he has (and will likely now use... Craft: armorsmithing, weaponsmithing, and bowmaking would eat up ALL the skills a Human Fighter has).
I'd even go so far as to take a page from the Bard and give him 1 skillpoint per class level towards one Craft, AND a 1/2 level bonus to all craft checks... just to reinforce this as a Fighter staple.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Critical Focus (Combat)
You are trained in the arts of causing pain.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +9.
Benefit: You receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attack rolls made to confirm critical hits.

It might not be OGL, but isn't there a feat out there that already does this, with easier prerequisites?

I don't want to get into feat mechanic discussions, of course.. just wanted to know if the +4 bonus or the +9 prereq was a typo?

If not, then I'll discuss the value of gateway feats and questionable bonuses on high level feats in the actual feat forum.


James Jacobs wrote:
raidou wrote:

Jason, I'm very hesitant to use critical effects that are automatic, even for a single round. I think any "rider" effects should allow a save for no effect. A keen-scimitar/kukri/falchion wielder can keep a foe stunned/blinded/etc for multiple rounds without that foe being able to do anything about it.

That's not fun if used against the players, and it's certainly not fun from the DM's side of the screen.

That's a good point; I'd still love to hear some feedback from playtesting of no-save versions of these abilities as well, of course...

Just an quick thought would be to have these effects all key off a natural 20 and confirmed crit.

If you assume that an axe and a scimitar are balanced as is, then adding a special effect that works more often for a scimitar is not going to maintain that balance.

But if you add the exact same special effect to all weapons, then the balance is retained.

Silver Crusade

Jason Buhlman wrote:

Master Craftsman

Your superior crafting skills allow you to create simple magic items. Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks.
Prerequisites: 5 ranks in any Craft or Profession skill.
Benefit: Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats. You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level. You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item. The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Chapter 15). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item.
Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats.

A question: does it mean a fighter with Craft (wood bunnies) (yes, a player in my first campaign had this skill. Yes, it's rather sad -_-) will be able to create magic carpets (provided he has access to the required scrolls), or must the type of item created be strictly limited to his Craft/Profession?

A second question: what about skills like Profession (gambler) or Profession (sailor)? They are not Profession skills aimed at creating items. Shouldn't this feat be limited to Craft skills (needed to create objects)?

EDIT: I just noticed that I should have reserved the second question for the playtest. Sorry.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Ruemere,

Couple of things:

First, this should wait until the design forum. This thread is only for clarifications.
Second, there is already a number of feats that refer to a minimum fighter level. See Weapon Spec.
Third, there is a precedent for some, limited form of DR stacking. I will look into this.

Please save further comments for the design forum.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Thank you for replying. I have saved detailed reasoning for future discussion listing only the issues without any argument. Please note however, that items you mentioned were special design exceptions introduced by designers of 3.0. And as such, should be treated as exceptions only.

Again, if necessary, I will provide detailed explanation at later stage - this forum lacks means for private messaging, unfortunately.

Also, please note that these are only (with 4 minor exceptions) formal nitpicks. The analysis (and arguments) of particular feats was intentionally left until design forum opens.

Regards,
Ruemere

Sovereign Court

Jason thanks for the new feats to chew on a lot of these are feats that players have been waiting for


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
jakoov wrote:

...

A question: does it mean a fighter with Craft (wood bunnies) (yes, a player in my first campaign had this skill. Yes, it's rather sad -_-) ...

It kind of bugs me when I hear about these situations. Clearly the player wants a quirky character detail and that's fine but the DM realy should re-direct the player towards either Craft (Carpentry) or Craft/Perform (Sculpture) that will allow the character to crate any wood bunnies he wants and can actually become usefull in-game. So the wood-bunny crafter can craft any wooden items (with pretty bunny motifs!) and enchant them as wonderous items (after getting the feats).

Would a scuplting fighter like to create Stone-Bunny-Golems? (I know, just Weapons/Armor and Wonderous items for now but Golems would be a lot of fun too.)

Silver Crusade

Slime wrote:
It kind of bugs me when I hear about these situations. Clearly the player wants a quirky character detail and that's fine

Nothing THAT deep. I was a young and naive DM, he was just being a jerk. -_-

Liberty's Edge

Thanx for the additional Feats - several look very VERY promising!
I'll let cha know how the test for some of em turn out (In the Skills & Feats Forum)!

Keep those dice rolling all!

The Exchange

thank you for the new feats! (i wish more were Fighter specific, but i can cope) The crit buffs for fighters looks fun. the mage slayer feats (including the step up feat) has me drooling, and the sword and board got some lovin. looking good so far ^^.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Third, there is a precedent for some, limited form of DR stacking. I will look into this...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Here's a precedent for stacking DR straight from the SRD:

SRD wrote:

DAMAGE REDUCTION [EPIC]

Prerequisite: Con 21.
Benefit: The character gains damage reduction 3/–. This does not stack with damage reduction granted by magic items or nonpermanent magical effects, but it does stack with any damage reduction granted by permanent magical effects, class features, or this feat itself [emphasis mine].
Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Each time he or she gains the feat, his or her damage reduction increases by 3.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Blazej wrote:
I did recognize Shall Not Pass as something similar from one of the OGL feats from the Expanded Psionics Handbook here.

Yep. It's not just OGL. It's also part of the official SRD. (It's just not listed in the main Feats section.)

Liberty's Edge

Slime wrote:
Would a scuplting fighter like to create Stone-Bunny-Golems? (I know, just Weapons/Armor and Wonderous items for now but Golems would be a lot of fun too.)

Could you imagine the stories?

---

Player 1: Yeah, I had this totally kickass fighter who was totally awesome this one time.
Player 2: Oh? What happened to him?
Player 1: ... He got mauled to death by stone bunnies...
Player 2: *insert mocking*

---

I would SO let a player get away with that. :D

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:
raidou wrote:

Jason, I'm very hesitant to use critical effects that are automatic, even for a single round. I think any "rider" effects should allow a save for no effect. A keen-scimitar/kukri/falchion wielder can keep a foe stunned/blinded/etc for multiple rounds without that foe being able to do anything about it.

That's not fun if used against the players, and it's certainly not fun from the DM's side of the screen.

That's a good point; I'd still love to hear some feedback from playtesting of no-save versions of these abilities as well, of course...

Yeah, without actually playtesting these (yet), but based on my experience with rapier/falchion/scimitar wielders ("crit. optimizers") in 3E, I'm also concerned that any automatic "rider" effects most likely prove to be annoying and even game-breaking to some degree (especially if monsters will have less immunities to various conditions and effects in PF RPG).


Epic Meepo wrote:
Blazej wrote:
I did recognize Shall Not Pass as something similar from one of the OGL feats from the Expanded Psionics Handbook here.
Yep. It's not just OGL. It's also part of the official SRD. (It's just not listed in the main Feats section.)

Yes I was going to say that, but I then recalled something from events that happened during RPG Superstar that made me think that being on d20srd.org didn't necessarily mean that it was in the SRD. My memory may be faulty though.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
jakoov wrote:
Slime wrote:
It kind of bugs me when I hear about these situations. Clearly the player wants a quirky character detail and that's fine
Nothing THAT deep. I was a young and naive DM, he was just being a jerk. -_-

I see what you mean, sorry if I sounded critical.

I recently had a player who had a good backstory of being a cobbler aprentice, I recomended she change Craft(Cobbler) to Craft (Leather-worker) and included foot-wear. It was more fun to support the back-story and not have the skill points go to waste.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Gene wrote:
... He got mauled to death by stone bunnies...

T'is a fearsome beast!

Dark Archive

Jason,

I must say that (at a quick glance) these new critical-related Feats are *EXACTLY* what I was hoping for with new Combat Feats -- tactical options and "rider" effects instead of just (boring) +X to Y and Z. I'm sure that the fighter's player in my playtest campaign will be absolutely thrilled to test these out! :) I just wish more of them would be fighter-only, because that's what the fighter needs -- more mid-to-high level combat abilities that none of the other "martial" classes can access.

BTW, would it be a bad idea to include 'Fighter-only' or 'Fighter' in the Feat Title, e.g. (Combat, Fighter-only)? Or list them separately in the Feat Index Table?

Idea: what if Greater Feint would cause the opponent to lose his DEX bonus to all your adjacent allies for one round (I think there was a Feat like this called 'Pack Tactics' in the 'Dragon Compendium'?)?

Dark Archive

These new Feats strongly remind me of the critical system posted on these forums (sorry, can't remember by whom). Essentially, it provided a damage bonus (+1/2 X your character level) on all your crits, and each weapon type also had a "special effect" (e.g. CON Bleed for piercing weapons) you had to save against (FORT DC 10 + 1/2 X your level + your STR/DEX/CON modifier). I later tweaked this bonus damage and "special effect" to take place on a natural 20 (it would have been too easy to abuse otherwise) -- whether it was a crit or not.

Now, my actual point was that would it possible to include bonuses for certain weapons, i.e. (Bleeding Critical) "Special: you inflict +1D6 extra bleeding damage if you're using a piercing weapon."? Or if there is a Fort save related to the Feat, perhaps the you would gain +1 or +2 to the DC?

Also, would it be a bad idea if PF RPG implemented "ongoing" damage and effects from 4E (i.e. saves each round) -- not only to crits, but also to replace "save-or-die" and energy/ability drain mechanics?

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

I am loving those new Shield Feats!
I am currently playing an Azerblood Fighter in my PnP game that uses a Maul and Spined Shield. I would like to explore this concept more with another Character (stupidly, I didn't take into account some factors when building his stats and subsequently can't go the route I was thinking) and these really help that concept take shape.
Thanks Jason!
=D

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ruemere wrote:

- please do not use class names in feat descriptions - this essentially turns a feat into a class feature and class features should be included in class entries

Feats that are meant as Fighter-only feats should include a requirement of "x-level Fighter" or similar. While this has the effect of making them look like "class features" (albeit, optional ones that aren't free), it also prevents level dipping for Fighter goodies. Feats of type [Fighter] that have no level requirement are accessible by any character with 1 level in Fighter (other prerequisites not withstanding). The only exception to this rule should be any feat that is accessible by a 1st-level Fighter (since it would be redundant).

Since the idea of fixing the Fighter is to "fix him with feats," there will need to be plenty of Fighter-only feats. Other classes gaining access to the Fighter's unique feats will only further marginalize the Fighter as a class.

-Skeld

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Asgetrion wrote:
Yeah, without actually playtesting these (yet), but based on my experience with rapier/falchion/scimitar wielders ("crit. optimizers") in 3E, I'm also concerned that any automatic "rider" effects most likely prove to be annoying and even game-breaking to some degree (especially if monsters will have less immunities to various conditions and effects in PF RPG).

What I appreciate about these feats is how they change the landscape of crit weapons relative to the Beta. When the Alpha and Beta releases first appeared, the common wisdom was that Devasting Blow meant we would all be carrying scythes as soon as we hit 11th level. Now, however, we have a choice - go Devastating Blow for megadamage, or rapier/kukri/etc for status effects. Using a middle of the road weapon, like a longsword, lets you build for both options, with Improved Critical and Powerful Critical letting you play with critical feats and Devastating Blow both, at least to some degree.


raidou wrote:

Jason, I'm very hesitant to use critical effects that are automatic, even for a single round. I think any "rider" effects should allow a save for no effect. A keen-scimitar/kukri/falchion wielder can keep a foe stunned/blinded/etc for multiple rounds without that foe being able to do anything about it.

That's not fun if used against the players, and it's certainly not fun from the DM's side of the screen.

just my thoughts.
thanks,
-eric

This matches my concerns precisely.

20-only would be a solution. However it is a good point made right above re:Devastating Blow being the counter balance to this.

Dark Archive

Jason,

would it be a bad idea if the 'Improved Lightining Reflexes/Greater Fortitude/Greater Will' feats would also grant you a +1 bonus to the save, and/or let you pick the *better* of the two rolls? As a fan or "re-rolls" (I included quite a many on the Racial Feats -threads), I like these a lot, but as they read now, I still think they made for a poor choice in comparison to many of the other feats...

Also, would it bad idea to suggest that the bonus from the "base" feats (Iron Will etc.) "upgraded" to +4 at some point -- in the similar way that a lot of the other core feats have an upgrading bonus?

Liberty's Edge

Like the look of this so far, but...

I thought that the Combat feat category was going away? Is this a return?

and...

While I understand that the Critical feats are geared at high level play, I think they may be {b]too[/b] high. The base Fortitude save for the lowest level one is DC 21 (10 + BAB 11, as required = 21). Since Fort saves are generally low for monsters throughout the SRD, this almost guarantees maximum effect. Just an observation.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Arnim Thayer wrote:

Like the look of this so far, but...

I thought that the Combat feat category was going away? Is this a return?

and...

While I understand that the Critical feats are geared at high level play, I think they may be {b]too[/b] high. The base Fortitude save for the lowest level one is DC 21 (10 + BAB 11, as required = 21). Since Fort saves are generally low for monsters throughout the SRD, this almost guarantees maximum effect. Just an observation.

"Combat Feat" now mostly means "this is a feat a fighter can take as a bonus feat".


I like the new sword and board feats OK but I object to how many of these feats are fighter-only. In 3.5 e that was mainly Weapon Specialization and that was it. The new PF fighter is beefed up more than enough. In our current playtest, the ranger and holy warrior-option cleric may as well not be in the combats.

I strongly suggest removing the fighter-only restrictions from the vast majority, if not all, of these feats. Pallys, rangers, clerics, etc. should be able to benefit from them - they have far fewer feat slots, and that's the balancer.


Ernest Mueller wrote:

I like the new sword and board feats OK but I object to how many of these feats are fighter-only. In 3.5 e that was mainly Weapon Specialization and that was it. The new PF fighter is beefed up more than enough. In our current playtest, the ranger and holy warrior-option cleric may as well not be in the combats.

I strongly suggest removing the fighter-only restrictions from the vast majority, if not all, of these feats. Pallys, rangers, clerics, etc. should be able to benefit from them - they have far fewer feat slots, and that's the balancer.

Seconded.

There are feats here I could have in my playtest, as my paladin is a Sword and Board Fellow, except that he's not a fighter.


I would like to keep many as fighter only. The other melee class have there own class features and plenty of them. Leave the fighter some good feats thats just for them.


Love the new feats- more! more! more!

Ok- just for clarification: do the shield focus and mastery feats stack? They dont specifically say so.

Sovereign Court

so it doesn't take me three minutes to remember where it is when I look for it.

Dark Archive

blope wrote:
Love the new feats- more! more! more!

While I'm thrilled to see so many tactical and combat feats available for rogues and fighters, I'd like to see more utility feats for spellcasters. Not Item Creation Feats, but more feats along the lines of Augment Summoning or Arcane Strike.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

blope wrote:
Ok- just for clarification: do the shield focus and mastery feats stack? They dont specifically say so.

Ummm... yes they do. Very last sentance in both Greater Shield Focus and Greater Shield Mastery.

Sovereign Court

The big problem here, is with the "Shall Not Pass" feat.

It needs to be called "NONE SHALL PASS!!"

NI!!


Some of these look really, really good, but I have to say it:

Given the complexity of some of the critical feats, this has pretty much killed my using the critical hit deck. I'm sure I could work out a compromise, but its too much work for too little benefit, and the critical hit deck was one of my favorite accessories.

It will probably be worth the trade off, but its still another nagging "not easily compatible" chip in the armor of PFRPG.

Still, I'm sure that my players will really like a least a few of these. I've got them printed out to hand out Thursday night during our game night.


Awesome feats sir. I'm sure they shall see much use in my weekly game.

The Exchange

Skeld wrote:

Feats that are meant as Fighter-only feats should include a requirement of "x-level Fighter" or similar. While this has the effect of making them look like "class features" (albeit, optional ones that aren't free), it also prevents level dipping for Fighter goodies. Feats of type [Fighter] that have no level requirement are accessible by any character with 1 level in Fighter (other prerequisites not withstanding). The only exception to this rule should be any feat that is accessible by a 1st-level Fighter (since it would be redundant).

Since the idea of fixing the Fighter is to "fix him with feats," there will need to be plenty of Fighter-only feats. Other classes gaining access to the Fighter's unique feats will only further marginalize the Fighter as a class.

-Skeld

I agree, except for the 1st-level fighter bit - then you would get PCs taking a single level of fighter and then getting all he fighter goodies without actually showing any devotion to the class. I think the requirement for different levels works fine. While this definately puts them in the realm of class features, the thing about a fighter is the choice you get about when you take them, if you even do.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Skeld wrote:

Feats that are meant as Fighter-only feats should include a requirement of "x-level Fighter" or similar. While this has the effect of making them look like "class features" (albeit, optional ones that aren't free), it also prevents level dipping for Fighter goodies. Feats of type [Fighter] that have no level requirement are accessible by any character with 1 level in Fighter (other prerequisites not withstanding). The only exception to this rule should be any feat that is accessible by a 1st-level Fighter (since it would be redundant).

Since the idea of fixing the Fighter is to "fix him with feats," there will need to be plenty of Fighter-only feats. Other classes gaining access to the Fighter's unique feats will only further marginalize the Fighter as a class.

-Skeld

I agree, except for the 1st-level fighter bit - then you would get PCs taking a single level of fighter and then getting all he fighter goodies without actually showing any devotion to the class. I think the requirement for different levels works fine. While this definately puts them in the realm of class features, the thing about a fighter is the choice you get about when you take them, if you even do.

I agree that there are some Feats that are done with the Fighter in mind to make him more effective at higher levels.

That being said, I do think that the Shield Feats should have the Fighter Restriction lifted, or at least ammended to add Paladin. There are a lot of Paladins who use a Shield and I think that it would definately add to the flavour of the Paladin.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Blazej wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:
It's also part of the official SRD. (It's just not listed in the main Feats section.)
Yes I was going to say that, but I then recalled something from events that happened during RPG Superstar that made me think that being on d20srd.org didn't necessarily mean that it was in the SRD.

That's true about d20srd.org, but I also checked the zipped, rtf-file SRD I downloaded straight from WotC, and the feat's in there.

The Exchange

flash_cxxi wrote:
That being said, I do think that the Shield Feats should have the Fighter Restriction lifted, or at least ammended to add Paladin. There are a lot of Paladins who use a Shield and I think that it would definately add to the flavour of the Paladin.

Good idea.


What about the low level shield feats with the higher level ones staying fighter only


REGARDING DR EXCEPTION

Disclaimer: I was going to post it when the appropriate forum is available. However, since people seem not to pay heed to words of Jason or mine (and wait until official forum for this debate is open), I am just posting some musings on the matter.

Epic Meepo wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Third, there is a precedent for some, limited form of DR stacking. I will look into this...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Here's a precedent for stacking DR straight from the SRD:

SRD wrote:

DAMAGE REDUCTION [EPIC]

Prerequisite: Con 21.
Benefit: The character gains damage reduction 3/&#8211;. This does not stack with damage reduction granted by magic items or nonpermanent magical effects, but it does stack with any damage reduction granted by permanent magical effects, class features, or this feat itself [emphasis mine].
Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Each time he or she gains the feat, his or her damage reduction increases by 3.

There is a reason this feat has been put into [Epic] category. You see, the problem with Damage Reduction in general is that physical damage (weapons and similar) does not scale properly with levels under D20 system. Or rather - it does, but the scaling is based on additional attacks, superficial damage bonuses. It is also held in check by increased hitpoints and increased armor class rating.

Therefore effectiveness of any DR mechanic change is increased by the number of attacks, not by stacking.

Another thing - golfbag syndrome of AD&D and 3.0, i.e. if you fight monster with advanced damage reduction, you'd better have a golfbag with an assortment of swords for bypassing different types of damage reductions.

The major change between 3.0 and 3.5 with regard to damage reduction, was to make DR bypassable without any special means - the 5/10/15 split was placed so that every Power Attack using character had a chance to make a difference. Under 3.0, if you met a "Damage reduction 20/+2" demon, the weapon wielder without +2 or better weapon (Sunder, anyone?) was eliminated from combat.

3.5 changed this by introducing (theoretically) bypassable DRs. And making sure that stacking of DR of any kind was not possible (at least between levels 1 and 20).

The general rule on this (quote straight from 3.5 SRD):
If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the beneft of the best damage reduction in a given situation.

Of course, this is just one small feat. Still, it may be both exploited and may open way to more similar exceptions.

Regards,
Ruemere


ON FIGHTER-ONLY FEATS

Disclaimer: I was going to post it when the appropriate forum is available. However, since people seem not to pay heed to words of Jason or mine (and wait until official forum for this debate is open), I am just posting some musings on the matter.

The original fighter-only feat (Weapon Specialization, 3.0) was introduced for helping the Fighter to catch up a bit with Barbarian's Rage. Why it was provided as a separate feat instead of repurchasable class feature remains a mystery. However, the fact was that at lower levels 3.0 Fighters were significantly inferior to 3.0 Barbarians.

Overall, 3.0 Fighter only feat added only a little overhead - only one additional rule outside of class entry.

However, it changed in 3.5 with Weapon Focus, Greater, Weapon Specialization, Greater. The designers of 3.5 recgnized inherent inferiority of Fighter also at higher levels (where, as per intention of 3.0 designers, additional feats should have provided greater versatility and sufficiently increased power).

The issue of overhead was lost, as this time, to get most of the Fighter class, one had to make several trips for more feat write-ups.

And then came Pathfinder BETA.
And now we get a heap of new Fighter-only feats.

Now, a quick quiz:
1. What is a class feature?
Answer: It is a feature available only to a single class/ The class specified explicilty by class name.

2. What is an optional class feature?
Answer: As above, but the feature is not mandatory.

3. What are the disadvantages of putting class feature outside of class entry?
Answer: increased overhead (one has to cross check class information over more than one section). It's also decidedly newbie un-friendly approach, as the newbies are not aware of existence of optional class features. Finally, unless someone memorized choices available, one will have to spend additional time browsing rules (activity also known as page-hopping) during creation of advanced characters.

4. What classes besides Fighters get optional class features listed in SEPARATE section and why?
Answer: Spellcasters only, in Spells section, due to significant overlap of spell access.

5. Hey, what about Metamagic feats?
Answer: Metamagic feats are available to all spellcasters. Just like Item Creation feats.

6. Is there any other class with optional class features, yet those optional class features get to be included in class description?
Answer: Yes, Barbarians and Rage Powers, Sorcerers and Wizards and Arcane Bond, Paladins and Divine Bond, Druids and Rangers and Paladins and Companions.

7. Fighter feats are just feats. It would be pointless to include them in class entry.
Answer: This is debatable. However, Fighter class entry should provide at least a complete listing of these feats to announce such feats to person reading the class rules.

8. So, given a choice what would YOU do to improve the situation?
Answer: One of solutions presented below (#1 is preferred).

Solution #1:
- remove all Fighter-only prerequisites from feats
- remove all prerequisites of feat type (feat chains cause problems)
- add high BAB requirements. Feat progression is very slow. Only Fighter can actually afford multiple feat tricks at higher level. And there is nothing wrong with other combat classes stealing some oomph from Fighter. Without multiple bonus feats they will not be able steal all the oomph if the feats are good enough.
- add a separate listing for Combat feats in Feat section

Example:
Feat: MDK [Combat][1]
In a killing frenzy you slash your opponent multiple times.
Prerequisites: BAB 12+
Benefit: As a standard action, you attack your opponent at -2 penalty. However, roll weapon damage dice as many times as you have attacks. For confirmed critical hits, calculate critical damage first as normal. Then roll weapon damage dice as many times as you have attacks less one and add both totals together.
Normal: You roll only weapon damage dice only once per successful attack.

Advantages of this approach:
- Anyone can learn this feat, but the melee classes will get it earlier
- Fighters can get this feat one level earlier than other melee classes
- Melee classes other than Fighter will have to choose this feat over other feats
- no artificial limits, but Fighters are priviledged
- other melee classes get more options, too

Solution #2:
- keep Fighter prerequisites
- list ALL Fighter specific feats in Fighter class entry

Disadvantages of this approach:
- lack of flexibility (any prestige classes building upon fighter training, any Fighter-class clones will require additional information of "Counts as Fighter for the purpose of taking Fighter-only feats")
- other melee classes still are underpowered and lack options

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. Please FIX FEAT LISTING ORDER.
[1] MDK = Murder Death Kill

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
What about the low level shield feats with the higher level ones staying fighter only

I'd be happy with that.

ruemere wrote:

ON FIGHTER-ONLY FEATS

Disclaimer: I was going to post it when the appropriate forum is available. However, since people seem not to pay heed to words of Jason or mine (and wait until official forum for this debate is open), I am just posting some musings on the matter.

At the moment some of us are just back and forthing with each other. Most of us realize that Jason won't be reading this and will re-post our thoughts at the appropriate time. Most of us are not however posting every single problem we have in huge posts. Most of us are troubleshooting particular things we find troubling or ambiguous in one off instances.

So it's not that we "don't pay heed to Jason's words". It is a free forum and we are allowed to share our thoughts with each other.

The Exchange

What on earth is up with "Shall Not Pass"? Is that even proper English?

Changing it to "None Shall Pass" would make it a sound a lot less clunky.

Sovereign Court

That is a good question, how do these effects match up with the crit hit deck, a x4 pick with crit forcus and bleeding crit could get quite nasty.

The Exchange

Isn't it Gandalf who says "(You) shall not pass" to the Balrog?


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Isn't it Gandalf who says "(You) shall not pass" to the Balrog?

He also said it to the witch king at Minas Tirith (sp?/or one of the Nazgul anyway) in the books anyway and a believe he even said it at another point. He seemed kind of fond of that phrase.

51 to 100 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Announcements / Announcement: New Feats for Playtesting All Messageboards