|
ON FIGHTER-ONLY FEATS...
I think you have the right intentions, but aren't correct. For Fighters, feats are his class abilities.
As you point out, the transition from 3e to 3.5e included a proliferation of Fighter-only feats. This was a good thing for the Fighter because it gives him access to feats to which no other classes have access. The problem with the 3.5e core Fighter-only feats from the PHB (or SRD, if you prefer) is that they so vanilla that they might as well be class features.
To that end, I think the direction Jason has gone (in line with his desire to "fix the Fighter with feats") is to add a number of additional Fighter-only feats to give Fighters more exclusive options beyond those presented in the 3.5e SRD. I think this is a good idea, but there will need to be plenty more Fighter-only feats to make it viable. To that end, removing the "x-level Fighter" requirement will make them accessible to characters with 1 level of Fighter (a 1 level dip gets you access to any [Fighter] feat for which you meet the requirements).
3.5e, with the Fighter-only feats you've mentioned, has already set the precedent for what Jason has done. He's simply building on an existing feat requirement mechanic. The other way to go would have been something like the Rogue talents, which are a skimpy version of the class talents from d20 modern/Star Wars Saga Edition.
Personally, I would have rather gone the talent route, but in the spirit of backward compatibility and the desire for Pathfinder to look like a smoother version of D&D 3.5, the Fighter is taking the feat route. If done right, it will be fine.
-Skeld
3.5e, with the Fighter-only feats you've mentioned, has already set the precedent for what Jason has done. He's simply building on an existing feat requirement mechanic. The other way to go would have been something like the Rogue talents, which are a skimpy version of the class talents from d20 modern/Star Wars Saga Edition.
Also, in Splatmania...err, Player's Handbook II, there are a LOT of Fighter-only Feats, which have Fighter levels as a prerequisite (Weapon Supremacy as an example).
Clairification
Jason,
The Advance feat says "You do not provoke attacks of opportunity by moving through a creature’s threatened area, so long as you end your movement adjacent to that creature."
Does this apply if you circle an opponent while still in base-to-base contact? Or is it meant to apply only when closing through threatened squares?
|
|
Also, in Splatmania...err, Player's Handbook II, there are a LOT of Fighter-only Feats, which have Fighter levels as a prerequisite (Weapon Supremacy as an example).
You are correct. I was trying to stick strictly to core/SRD (since that's what we have to work with). Splatbook Fighter feats offer further proof that Fighter-only feats have precedence in D&D.
-Skeld
I am a big fan of fighter only feats. All other melee classes get all kinda of class features. The fighters class feature is his feats. His whole point is to be the best melee class at fighting. So why would he not have feats that no other class would have.
Director of Game Design
|
Clairification
Jason,
The Advance feat says "You do not provoke attacks of opportunity by moving through a creature’s threatened area, so long as you end your movement adjacent to that creature."Does this apply if you circle an opponent while still in base-to-base contact? Or is it meant to apply only when closing through threatened squares?
Currently, it does mean that you can move to the other side of a creature. Considering the prerequisites, that does not seem like such a huge problem to me, but I am unconvinced one way or the other.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Currently, it does mean that you can move to the other side of a creature. Considering the prerequisites, that does not seem like such a huge problem to me, but I am unconvinced one way or the other.
Thoughts?
It would be great for rogues setting up a flank. I don't see a problem with it either. Is there no limit to the number of threatened squares through which you can move?
|
Director of Game Design
|
Since you specifically request thoughts, at present I'm wondering if there's enough clear water between Advance and Spring-Attack? For a requisite of two more dex, you get not having to move before and after an attack.Clairification
Jason,
The Advance feat says "You do not provoke attacks of opportunity by moving through a creature’s threatened area, so long as you end your movement adjacent to that creature."Does this apply if you circle an opponent while still in base-to-base contact? Or is it meant to apply only when closing through threatened squares?
Currently, it does mean that you can move to the other side of a creature. Considering the prerequisites, that does not seem like such a huge problem to me, but I am unconvinced one way or the other.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This is actually quite true. I had thought about moving this to a different chain, or making it easier to acquire. The point of this was to allow a character to move up to a baddie without provoking an Aoo. Spring Attack certainly fills a similar role, but also requires you to move after the attack.
Hmm...
I may go back to the drawing board a bit on this one.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Currently, it does mean that you can move to the other side of a creature. Considering the prerequisites, that does not seem like such a huge problem to me, but I am unconvinced one way or the other.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I have no problem with it working that way. I just wanted to make sure I was correct on the intent of the feat.
|
Lunge (Combat)
You can strike foes that would normally be out of reach.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: You can increase the reach of your melee attacks by 5 feet by taking a –4 penalty to your AC until your next turn. You must decide to use this ability before any attacks are made.
I'm surprised this feat didn't catch any special comments yet. In effect, this feat seems to allow a medium-sized character to attack adjacent squares and squares ten feet away (or 10 and 15 for reach weapons). My questions are these:
A. Is this intentional? My feeling is that the reach should only apply to a full-round attack or single standard action on that PC's turn, but perhaps the penalty to AC is a balancing factor with more weight than I attribute to it.B. Would you threaten all of the squares that you can attack with this feat until the start of your next turn? This is could have balance issues in the style of the spiked chain.
|
|
Please read entirey of my post before commenting on first paragraph.
I did read your entire post before commenting, first paragraph or otherwise. I didn't agree with it. There's no need to get testy.
-Skeld
EDIT: you can now discuss the issue here.
I'm surprised this feat didn't catch any special comments yet. In effect, this feat seems to allow a medium-sized character to attack adjacent squares and squares ten feet away (or 10 and 15 for reach weapons). My questions are these:
A. Is this intentional? My feeling is that the reach should only apply to a full-round attack or single standard action on that PC's turn, but perhaps the penalty to AC is a balancing factor with more weight than I attribute to it.
B. Would you threaten all of the squares that you can attack with this feat until the start of your next turn? This is could have balance issues in the style of the spiked chain.
A. I should hope so. Fighters need reach to live.
B. It's not the feat that's the problem, it's the spiked chain. That thing should die in a fire.
That thing should die in a fire.
Amen
Jason, in regards to Strike Back,
I'm not sure if the text makes sence. A limited number of weapons actually offer a 15 ft reach. For larger foes, reach weapons can really extend their space. How does the text justify that attacks against that?
Personally, I'd restrict the feat to use against natural weapons or foes without reach weapons. I'm not really analysing the effect of the feat, but I'm a little cautious about the flavor. I'm not sure if this is the forum for that or not.
-Steve
That thing should die in a fire.Amen
Agreed
I really don't understand the impetus for "fighter only" feats.
1. Fighters get 2x as many feats as anyone else. Other classes won't be able to take many of these feats.
2. High BAB is another good limitation, if you want only "fighty" characters to get them.
What's the concern, that a level 16 mage takes some stabby feat? I feel that class feat restrictions will make all characters too much "the same."
Most of these feats are a suboptimal choice for a barbarian - taking rage-enhancing feats and going 2-hander is optimal for them. If someone wants to play a sword-and-board barbarian - do we need to penalize them more than they're penalizing themselves?
If someone's trying to compete in combat as a pally or cleric - allowing them these feats certainly doesn't bring them to fighter parity.
Feats are a very limited resource for classes other than fighter. Restricting feats just removes interesting choices; no one is going to threaten the fighter with them.
In our current CoCT playtest, the ranger and Holy Warrior cleric don't hold a candle to the fighter, as their two-weapon and sword-and-board styles are much, much inferior to the fighter's two-hander. If you really want to preserve balance, I would look hard at restricting some of these feats not on fighter class, but to one-handed weapons or the like.
Take the crit feats. Piled on top of a 2h, overhand chop, etc. it's ridiculous. But using the same reasoning as sneak attacks are designed for 1h weapons, you could say the crit feats require more precision and thus are usable with 1h only.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I really don't understand the impetus for "fighter only" feats.
1. Fighters get 2x as many feats as anyone else. Other classes won't be able to take many of these feats.
The point in making some Feats Fighter only is that a Fighter's Special Class Abilities are his/her Feats. Simply think of Fighter only Feats as being exactly the same as a Wizard's (or Sorcerer's) Spells. A Fighter can't take them now can he?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Would you prefer "Fighter only" or a separate "Fighter training" list. Either one works the same.
I think that Fighter only works fine, but I do also think that there should be some exceptions (as noted in my Shield Feats Post above).
If something has a thematic feel for another Class as well, then there should be no reason why it can't be available for that Class as well, but maybe at a higher level. eg. Shield Mastery: Fighter 4th, Paladin 7th.Another way of doing it might be to open the Feats up to every Class with the Martial BAB Progression, but at a Higher Level for non-Fighters. eg. Weapon Specialization: Fighter 4th, Martial 7th.
What if a Medium character with a Longspear is fighting a Monster with 15'/20' Reach?
Should it be 'so long as you end your movement IN MELEE RANGE of that creature', instead?
Like you said, this Feat's utility overlaps alot with Spring Attack.
I'm not sure if this is worded wrong, or if I'm completely misunderstanding this.
Doesn't failing to Cast Defensively NORMALLY mean the Caster DOES provoke an AoO when casting?
Or would this Feat mean that Casters would auto-fail their Saving Throw-as-Concentration...???
As-is it seems very underwhelming...
Does this increase AoO's Reach as well?
Shouldn't this apply to Sundering ARMOR as well?
This really seems like it should be part of the STANDARD "Improved Sunder", not ANOTHER Feat on top of it.
|
Benefit: Enemies in your threatened area that fail their checks to cast spells defensively provoke attacks of opportunity from you.
Normal: Enemies that fail to cast spells defensively do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
I'm not sure if this is worded wrong, or if I'm completely misunderstanding this.
Doesn't failing to Cast Defensively NORMALLY mean the Caster DOES provoke an AoO when casting?
Or would this Feat mean that Casters would auto-fail their Saving Throw-as-Concentration...???
As-is it seems very underwhelming...
Failing to successfully cast defensively means you lose the spell; you don't normally provoke an AoO. Chosing to cast defensively normally means you are safe from AoOs, no matter what - it's getting the spell off that becomes the issue.
Many houserules work differently, however.
|
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.
My problem with the name of the feat is the wording. While "You Shall Not Pass" and "None Shall Pass" are both perfectly good idiomatic English (both are full sentences consisting of a noun phrase and a verb phrase) while "Shall Not Pass" is simply a hanging verb phrase. Due to the structural constraints of the English language a verb phrase by itself can not be an independent structural unit as it always needs to be subordinate to a noun phrase (the subject).
All of the other feats in the game have the form of a noun phrase with variations between combinations of adjectivals and nouns and sometimes simply a single noun, which all follow the structural philosophy of the English language simply because noun phrases can act as independent units without being subordinate to other structural units of a sentence.
My understanding is that the name of the feat came as a result of taking the sentence "You Shall Not Pass" and then removing the subject to make the wording less explicitly referential. Unfortunately this results in a structure which, at least to a linguist, looks incomplete. Therefore I'm proposing the change of the name to "None Shall Pass", as it is a full sentence and conveys the exact same meaning with no reference to a specific person. Then again, I'd actually like to take it further and rename the feat to be consistent with the NP structure of all the other Pathfinder RPG feats. After the feat has a name consistent with the rest of the rules players will be allowed to reflavour it to call it whatever they want, be it "None Shall Pass" or "Stop! Hammertime!" ;)
EDIT: I now noticed that I was wrong about the consistency of feat names in the game: the crafting feats are all verb+noun constructs as are most metamagic feats and certain other examples (Snatch Arrows and Deflect Arrows). There are still others that only consist of an Adjective. As far as consistency goes, "Shall Not Pass" is still an oddball, as all of the other verb+noun structured feats in the game are written in the imperative mood, whereas "Shall Not Pass" seems to be written in "I'm saddened by the fact that I'm an incomplete structural unit" mood. ;)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
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...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.
It's a valid theoretical point, but recall that at the level PCs are getting these "no save" feats, your spellcasters already have "no save" spells that are doing as good or better.
Power word (any), maze, irresistible dance, weird, energy drain, polar ray (don't laugh!), ray of light, ray of exhaustion, waves of fatigue, waves of exhaustion, reverse gravity - well, there's plenty more where that came from.
The point is, there are already tons of effects and conditions spells that casters can lay out round after round... or that they don't HAVE to do every round cuz they last more than one round already, generally being instantaneous and non-dispellable.
These effects have no save (weird does, but it still does stuff to you even if you do save).
Sure, they usually require an attack roll, but so does our HL fighter with his crit feats.
So stop with the weeping and gnashing of teeth over the fact that the fighter might, just MIGHT, with a big stack of feats be able to keep the BBEG blinded or exhausted or stunned for multiple rounds. He's just finallllllllly catching up to one little shred of the spellcaster's high-level mojo. Stop hatin'! Start apprecatin'!
Here endeth the rant... :)
Sure, they usually require an attack roll, but so does our HL fighter with his crit feats.
Jason, I think the concern is that the fighter will have 4-8 chances to score that crit per round on a full attack. With a high crit weapon (keen rapier) that's nearly a 100% chance of threatening a crit/ on a given round of full attacks. What the chances are of confirming depends on the target AC. Also, characters with more attacks per round are much more likely to crit.
I really like the idea but it seems to me that perhaps it's a little too easy to achieve.
Maybe if it were limited to the first attack per round?
My vote is "Yeah" for the name of "Shall Not Pass". Very Monty Python "Black Knight" feel :-)
(I'd argue with the wording of "Caught off Guard" before this one)
Re: No-Save Effects on Crits and Full Attacks at high level, I don't think it's particularly overpowered.
Any intelligent opponent will attempt to deny the opportunity to Full Attack if at all possible, and there's not so many (Core) ways around the 5' step limitation. All in all, I think this is EXACTLY the sort of thing that is called for to give the Fighter (and Barb, Paladin) relevancy at high levels.
The second part seems a bit off to me. The idea would seem to work like Immediate/ Swift Actions, for your Movement.
I believe it SHOULDN'T say that it "prevent(s) any other movement".
It should obviously consume 5' of your next round's movement, preventing you from 5' stepping and Full Attacking. But I don't see any rationale why a character couldn't Withdraw (Double Move MINUS 5'), or Single Move (Move Speed -5') and Standard Attack, or Charge (1.5 Move Speed -5').
I also noticed that because Step Up is an Immediate Action,
it would use up both the next Round's Swift Action, AND the movement of next round.
I'm fine with that, but since you're losing more than just movement (also the Swift Action),
I think that's another reason it shouldn't COMPLETELY negate your movement next round, but just count as if you've already taken a 5' step (precluding Full Attack/Casting but only subtracting 5' from other Movement)
|
|
- 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
My suggestion would be scrap the class-only and just put a BAB requirement for the feats. You could even make it a bonus class feat if you like. That would help fighters qualify more quickly and more easily, but would still make the feat available for other classes. For example a feat like Disruptive (which combined with Spellbreaker sort of equal the old Mage Slayer feat from Complete Arcane) could be BAB +6, so that an 8th lvl monk or rogue could also benefit from Disruptive, but would be lvl 14 to benefit from Spellbreaker.
At the very least, try to keep discussions in spoiler tags? So as not to make it more difficult for him to find clarification requests.
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.
Well it's dr /- and it only stacks with like bonuses (more /-). Another basis for it is the Ironward diamond armor crystals introduced in the magic item compendium. All the rule means is that DR doesn't stack unless otherwise noted. It doesn't break balance as these instances are balanced knowing that they'll be used in a stacking manner and can be designed to prevent exploit.
I only wish I was playing a fighter now to try 'Shall not pass'
Questions:
'Strike Back' only allows for a single attack through use of the readied action correct?
'Shall Not Pass' so if an enemy chooses to use a movement type that is a full round action such as charge or bull rush and you attack and stop him, he's already used his full round action correct?
A. I should hope so. Fighters need reach to live.
B. It's not the feat that's the problem, it's the spiked chain. That thing should die in a fire.
You know, I'm beginning to like you better and better...
Two excellent points. Fighters should "not suck," even without a cheese weapon.
They look interesting I may have to try to print them out later and get a game together and try them out.
Shouldn't "Shall Not Pass" apply to AoOs provoked by movement out of threatened squares, rather than adjacent ones? If so, it'd work with Lunge but also wouldn't disqualify people using reach weapons...
Jason said above that he wanted it to apply specifically to adjacent squares so it couldn't be used with reach weapons to control huge portions of the battlefield.
I'm not sure I agree with that but it is by design, not by omission.
|
|
Jason said above that he wanted it to apply specifically to adjacent squares so it couldn't be used with reach weapons to control huge portions of the battlefield.I'm not sure I agree with that but it is by design, not by omission.
Damnit, that blows. Also means that spear users, say, can't use it at all (as they don't threaten adjacent squares). Not sure I'm interested in an AoO feat that's avoidable by walking 5' away.
But hey, the meleer is still the King of the 10' corridor! Big whup!
Feels like a really big missed opportunity to me. But this isn't the thread, to be fair.
Actually, it means a fighter can block a 15' area instead of a 5' area which is decent. Previously creatures could just suck up an AoA and roll right past the fighter.
|
|
Actually, it means a fighter can block a 15' area instead of a 5' area which is decent. Previously creatures could just suck up an AoA and roll right past the fighter.
Oh, I know that, but on a less restricted battlefield, combining lunge and Shall Not Pass would pose a serious impediment to bypassing the fighter.
Also, the way Shall Not Pass is written just screws people with reach weapons (who don't threaten adjacent squares unless using Spiked Chain) for no apparently logical reason. I mean, seriously, why wouldn't the feat work with a spear if it does with a sword, in the areas they threaten? And, for that matter, given that Lunge and Shall Not Pass cost feats and Lunge comes with a -4 AC, why is their combination so evil? It might be that there should be a way to overcome Shall Not Pass -- as it stands, it might be too strong -- but using Lunge to increase AoO goodness, not just AoO damage, would be pretty sweet and go some way to fixing the problems with combat.
I also noticed that because Step Up is an Immediate Action, it would use up both the next Round's Swift Action, AND the movement of next round.
I'm fine with that, but since you're losing more than just movement (also the Swift Action), I think that's another reason it shouldn't COMPLETELY negate your movement next round, but just count as if you've already taken a 5' step (precluding Full Attack/Casting but only subtracting 5' from other Movement)
I could be misreading you here, but "Step Up" doesn't preclude a Full Attack (or casting).
As for your other post - I see it as you can't get your 5' step, plus move later. I do think you should be able to take a move action in place of any other ("double" moving with the 5' step + a regular move, similar to withdraw).
|
|
Jason,
In general I like the new feats. However, with that said, I do not like feats that have to do with movement on a battle mat grid, as that changes the focus of the game from a role playing game to a miniatures game. One of the things I do not like about 4th ed is the mandatory use of miniatures and a battle mat. While I do agree that the use of miniatures helps in complex situations, I do not want the game to mandate use of miniatures. I do like miniatures games, but I do not want Pathfinder to turn into the Pathfinder miniatures game.
|
|
3.x tactical combat depends on the grid, though. Any additional tactical melee options are going to be based on the grid, which is natural when a lot of the problems -- limited meleer range of threatened squares making them more ignorable, inability to move and still perform multiple attacks -- are also based on the grid. I don't see how you can break those shackles (to the grid) without it not being 3.x combat anymore.
|
|
the reason you need to have Fighter only feats is because you can just take the creme of the crop as a barbarian (or other "low" feat character), and do whatever you want better than a similarly built Fighter. it makes the Fighter the bard of the melee classes. there are only so many feats in one progression that you can get, and now with every class getting more feats over a 20 level span, its more of a problem.
sure a Fighter can be good at sword and board, twohanded power attacking and two weapon fighting with the same character, only one of those is needed to get the job done.
man, i remember a day when barbarians were a kit that was underplayed, now loin cloths are everywhere ( mechanics drive aesthetics in modern games. druids were NEVER played, but since they got pimped EVERYONE loves their aesthetics now. I liked them in 2nd ed more) old man grumble grumble grumble ^^