Good Game Design: No Feats Should Suck


Skills and Feats

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

They shouldn't. Having gimped feats in the game forces game mastery. By forcing game mastery, one is left with two possible outcomes:

1. Only "hardcore" players can function against level-appropriate challenges.

2. Players who know the system very well can tear through encounters with ease.

And that's the sad fact. Players who know 3e inside and out are going to dominate the game while players who are new to D&D are going to get pooped on (unless the former make characters for the latter). The end result? Lameness. One shouldn't have to be a veteran fatbeard to play D&D.

Unfortunately, one of the big problems with Pathfinder is that these sub-par choices still remain in the game. For instance, Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization: they're junk. When I was first introduced to D&D, I thought they were awesome because, well, they were fighter-only, which meant that they were obviously special and thus awesome for the fighter class.

/facepalm

Another example of this is the Lightning Reflexes feat. It's a +2 bonus to your Reflex save. Wow. See the barbarian who just picked up Power Attack? He can function. The guy who picked up Lightning Reflexes is crying himself to sleep because he just failed so hard that quantum physics imploded. (That doesn't even make any sense, but I don't care.)

There are a few options to making these sub-par feats up to par. (Please note that I'm not saying that they all have to be equal--they just shouldn't be crap.)

1. Merge feats. For instance, let's take Quick Draw. It's handy, yes, but is it worth a feat slot? Maybe. However, if we took Quick Draw, Lightning Reflexes, and Dodge, and we put them all in a nicely-packaged feat called "Lightning Reflexes," it would definitely be worth a feat slot.

Similarly, let's look at the various combat maneuvers. There are like four hundred different feats, meaning that only the fighter can adequately make use of them. Would it break the game if there was a feat called "Improved Combat Maneuvers" that let you use combat maneuvers without provoking an AoO? No. No, it wouldn't break the game at all.

As a final example, suppose we merged the martial and simple weapon proficiency feats with all the armor proficiency feats and all the shield proficiency feats. Would D&D thoroughly break if one feat gave you access to all of those? No. Not at all. People might actually consider spending a feat on that, then.

2. Make numbers bigger. This is viable, but I hate it when D&D heads deeper into CrazyTown. For instance, suppose we were to take Great Fortitude. Holy sh*t, a weaksauce +2 bonus on Fortitude saves. Well, suppose we made it scale to level: you get a +2 bonus to Fort saves, +1 for every five levels you have. Well, that's something that the wizard might consider taking now. Unfortunately, if the fighter takes it, it's only going to exacerbate a problem with high-level D&D: the "don't roll a 1" syndrome. As in, the only way you can fail your Fort save is by rolling a 1. That's lame. The feat works for the wizard. It doesn't work for the fighter.

3. Make feats scale to level. This is probably the best solution out of the three, combining feat-merging with a slight power boost.

Let's say you've got Weapon Finesse. That's great and all, but why not give that feat a little more "oomph"? When you have a +5 or +10 BAB, you can apply your Dexterity modifier to damage with finessable weapons instead of your Strength modifier. Maybe you can make an attack as a standard action that causes the target to bleed for a few rounds.

Or let's take Combat Expertise. It's a stinker. It serves as a prerequisite for decent feats. Now, what if we gave the user of Combat Expertise the ability to negate extra damage from Power Attack against him? Or what if we gave him the ability to improve his attacks with his Intelligence bonus somehow? Now players have both options and good choices available.

To summarize: bad feats are bad. Turn the crappy feats into shiny, new feats.


Psychic_Robot wrote:

They shouldn't. Having gimped feats in the game forces game mastery. By forcing game mastery, one is left with two possible outcomes:

1. Only "hardcore" players can function against level-appropriate challenges.

2. Players who know the system very well can tear through encounters with ease.

And that's the sad fact. Players who know 3e inside and out are going to dominate the game while players who are new to D&D are going to get pooped on (unless the former make characters for the latter). The end result? Lameness. One shouldn't have to be a veteran fatbeard to play D&D.

Unfortunately, one of the big problems with Pathfinder is that these sub-par choices still remain in the game. For instance, Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization: they're junk. When I was first introduced to D&D, I thought they were awesome because, well, they were fighter-only, which meant that they were obviously special and thus awesome for the fighter class.

/facepalm

Another example of this is the Lightning Reflexes feat. It's a +2 bonus to your Reflex save. Wow. See the barbarian who just picked up Power Attack? He can function. The guy who picked up Lightning Reflexes is crying himself to sleep because he just failed so hard that quantum physics imploded. (That doesn't even make any sense, but I don't care.)

There are a few options to making these sub-par feats up to par. (Please note that I'm not saying that they all have to be equal--they just shouldn't be crap.)

1. Merge feats. For instance, let's take Quick Draw. It's handy, yes, but is it worth a feat slot? Maybe. However, if we took Quick Draw, Lightning Reflexes, and Dodge, and we put them all in a nicely-packaged feat called "Lightning Reflexes," it would definitely be worth a feat slot.

Similarly, let's look at the various combat maneuvers. There are like four hundred different feats, meaning that only the fighter can adequately make use of them. Would it break the game if there was a feat called "Improved Combat Maneuvers" that let...

I've seen plenty of times when a difference of 2 points made or broke a saving throw. As a DM, I've gnashed my teeth in frustration over a player that made himself impossible to hit through judicious use of the Combat Expertise feat. And a feat by which a character gains proficiency with ALL weapons and armor is so good I can't imagine anyone NOT taking it (I believe that's the very definition of broken).


Uh...no. People becoming proficient with weapons and armor is hardly broken. They're wasting a feat to become proficient in these things. For many classes, that's 10% of their feats.

The player who makes himself impossible to hit with Combat Expertise is going to be ignored by the monsters. The monsters will move on to squishier targets. The character with Combat Expertise can't keep up with the damage output of someone using Power Attack, especially not with the Pathfinder versions.

Silver Crusade

Psychic_Robot wrote:

2. Make numbers bigger. This is viable, but I hate it when D&D heads deeper into CrazyTown. For instance, suppose we were to take Great Fortitude. Holy sh*t, a weaksauce +2 bonus on Fortitude saves. Well, suppose we made it scale to level: you get a +2 bonus to Fort saves, +1 for every five levels you have. Well, that's something that the wizard might consider taking now. Unfortunately, if the fighter takes it, it's only going to exacerbate a problem with high-level D&D: the "don't roll a 1" syndrome. As in, the only way you can fail your Fort save is by rolling a 1. That's lame. The feat works for the wizard. It doesn't work for the fighter.

PR, I really liked your scaling Great Fortitude idea. It would make the save boosts VERY attractive to characters where this is a weak save. The still failing on a roll of one caught my eye. Perhaps the a good kicker for save boosters is that a roll of one is no longer an automatic failure if you have the appropriate save booster?

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

PR, it seems that your criteria for what makes a feat good are much, much higher than what feats are currently designed towards. Are there any 3.5 PH feats or PRPG Beta feats that you think are good as is? I read this and get the sense that you think all feats are too weak.

I fully admit that some feats are not equal to others, but think that a) there are many standard feats that are at a good power level as is, and b) that the gap between good feats and poor feats is relatively small. In fact, there is only one feat that I would never take (Combat Casting.)

Liberty's Edge

There are numerous poor feats, ones that look good but you realize that when the time comes and you have one feat, that one just never makes the grade (My personal one is Improved Init always on the list, never taken). Sadly, even if they are all about equal, some will still have that problem. However, the point that you make is valid, and quite interesting. Perhaps some of them could be rewritten/combined and or just retooled. I think that all 3 of the save enhancers should either scale up a bit or do something else, thus enhancing their tastiness.

I realized recently that my extreme hope is that every time a character gets to choose a new feat, I want them to have to stop and think long and hard about what feat to take because they are all so good.


Psychic_Robot wrote:

Uh...no. People becoming proficient with weapons and armor is hardly broken. They're wasting a feat to become proficient in these things. For many classes, that's 10% of their feats.

The player who makes himself impossible to hit with Combat Expertise is going to be ignored by the monsters. The monsters will move on to squishier targets. The character with Combat Expertise can't keep up with the damage output of someone using Power Attack, especially not with the Pathfinder versions.

Yeah, broken. And the guy with Combat Expertise still deals out a respectable amount of damage.

Liberty's Edge

mmm epic meepo
partially i agree, partially i disagre

yes there are lots of feat that are worthless and would work better as traits, many the only reason to exist is to link a chain of feats for the fighter

there are a myriad of new feats... many good ones, a few bad... but the important think is you see them and even with the higher number of feats for normal classes oyu know you just can't get some of the interesitng ones because they are made for the fighter (if you need 3 feats to have a good feat, then its made for the fighter, he is the only one whocan calculate with this idea in mind)

i like your proposal for lighting reflexes and i am sure something similar can be done for Great Fortitude & Iron Will

i disagree with mixing all the simple weapon with all light armor, or giving all weapons to everyone, most races and classes give enough weapons...

ok but if we need to solve the Weapon Proficiency: just one weapon... i would say:

Weapon Proficiency: Simple (All) (most clases has this anyway)
Weapon Proficiency: Martial (1 category: ranged, piercing, slashing, bludgeoning, polearms, firearms)
Weapon Proficiency: Exotic (1 weapon, or a group of weapons: varisian, tien, mwangi, vudrani, elven, etc)

this is how i see it

yesterday during our game my cleric's only martial weapon is the longsword, but from my angle i would never hit the mosnter without the posibility of killing my cleric's husband....

so i took the MW Ranseour i found earlier (the Paladin said to leave it alone before knwoing it was MW) and with all my paini used it to kill the creature from my position (-4 to rolls and using the 1 weapon i wanted to have as just token throphy since its suboptimal for me to use it)

now i would think twice andwoth interest if taking a featwould let me learn to use all polearms

Dark Archive

Hey, that's pretty passionate. While I agree that some feats are simply sub-par, I don't agree with you on which feats suck.

Feats like the newest version of Toughness, Improved Initiative, Skill Focus, Rapid Shot, Point Blank Shot, Spell Focus, Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Shield Focus, and the like are good feats. Obvious ones that my players often choose.

Weapon Focus is a +1 to hit, and it's okay. It's not horrible, not amazing, just okay. Same with Lightning Reflexes or Great Fortitude.

Feats that are clearly sub-par are things like the new form of Cleave, and Endurance clearly need work.

SKR has a great article on his website about "Feat Points" which basically score the various feats and their usefulness. It's worth a look at to see what one of the Paizonians think (although he might have been a WOTCite at the time).

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Montalve wrote:

mmm epic meepo

partially i agree, partially i disagre

Huh? I didn't even say anything. :)


Archade wrote:
SKR has a great article on his website about "Feat Points" which basically score the various feats and their usefulness. It's worth a look at to see what one of the Paizonians think (although he might have been a WOTCite at the time).

Take it with a grain of salt, though -- I believe that I've seen Mr. Reynolds passionately defending the "+3 hp" version of Toughness on his website, too.

Scarab Sages

Archade wrote:
While I agree that some feats are simply sub-par, I don't agree with you on which feats suck.

Yeah. One man's loss is another man's gain. Improved Initiative, Weapon Focus and even weapon specialization are workhorses and feats that I think should be the benchmark for what constitutes a good feat. That is they are always a net positive. Just because some other feats in other circumstances are better or sometimes too good does not mean that these feats are 'bad.'

Liberty's Edge

Epic Meepo wrote:
Montalve wrote:

mmm epic meepo

partially i agree, partially i disagre
Huh? I didn't even say anything. :)

ups

i meant :P Psychic_Robot

me bad


JoelF847 wrote:

PR, it seems that your criteria for what makes a feat good are much, much higher than what feats are currently designed towards. Are there any 3.5 PH feats or PRPG Beta feats that you think are good as is? I read this and get the sense that you think all feats are too weak.

I fully admit that some feats are not equal to others, but think that a) there are many standard feats that are at a good power level as is, and b) that the gap between good feats and poor feats is relatively small. In fact, there is only one feat that I would never take (Combat Casting.)

Quicken Spell is awesome.

Jim Callaghan wrote:
Yeah, broken. And the guy with Combat Expertise still deals out a respectable amount of damage.

No. You don't know what you're talking about. At all. If it would be so broken to put all armor/weapon proficiencies in a single feat, then why can I gain all of that and get a bonus feat with a single dip into another class?

Furthermore, I must reiterate:

Monsters will ignore unhittable targets. They will move on to squishier things, greener pastures, all that jazz.

In addition, the guy who takes a -5 penalty on his attack rolls with Combat Expertise fails because he could be using that -5 to get +10 damage. A swing. And +20-30 damage on a crit.


This is a reply to:
"Good Game Design: No Feats Should Suck
3 hours, 15 minutes ago by Psychic_Robot"
For some reason the messageboard does not allow me to reply to opening post or add a new post.

Psychic_Robot (solution proposals) wrote:

1. 1.1Merge feats. [...]

1.2[...]Would it break the game if there was a feat called "Improved Combat Maneuvers" that let you use combat maneuvers without provoking an AoO? No. No, it wouldn't break the game at all.[...]

1.3As a final example, suppose we merged the martial and simple weapon proficiency feats with all the armor proficiency feats and all the shield proficiency feats. [...]

These three paragraphs are actually separate since they cover different areas. Addressing them one by one:

1.1 Very bad idea. You mix different abilities together making them hard to remember. The best designed feats provide one straight ability.

1.2 Combat Maneuvers Mastery, Improved and Combat Maneuvers Mastery, Greater would be a great way to respond to nerf of maneuvers in general (see Defensive combat training is unfair by lastknightleft for good insights). However both feats should require high BAB+ (tentative estimate for prerequisite is +12 and +16) and offer good bonuses (+4 unnamed and then +8 unnamed, to account for high level nastiness of BAB/Str/Monster size inflation).

1.3 Definitely agreed on this. Nobody bothers with single proficiences (single level dip in appropriate class is much more beneficial).

Psychic_Robot (solution proposals) wrote:
2. Make numbers bigger. [...] Unfortunately, if the fighter takes it, it's only going to exacerbate a problem with high-level D&D: the "don't roll a 1" syndrome. As in, the only way you can fail your Fort save is by rolling a 1. That's lame. The feat works for the wizard. It doesn't work for the fighter.

Yes, it's a very serious issue for high level gaming. It's a result of stacking save bonuses from different sources, cheap resistance items and higher ability bonuses. My campaign does not suffer from this since:

- resistance items are Rare with capital R
- ability (DC) boosting items beyond +2 are also Rare

However, in vanilla d20 game we are unlikely to encounter GMs who houserule this problem in the same manner. Therefore fixing the problem would require:
- changing save scaling formula (tentative proposal: my post on formulas),
- removing save bonus stacking whatsoever (i.e.:
Save Total = Base save + Ability Bonus + One highest bonus)

In order to preserve relevancy of d20 roll, the difference between save DC and save bonus must remain within 16 points, as anything below 20% of chance of failing, loses meaning in 3-round combat setup of 3.5.
- drastic fix: you always fail save on a "natural" roll of 4- (four or less on d20)
- 3-round combat setup of 3.5: most d20 combats revolve around 3 meaningful rounds with other rounds being lost to positioning or clearing the battlefield. The rounds needn't be consecutive. For combats involving high level spellcasters this is often decreased to 1-2 rounds (until they succeed at one of their "I win" spells).

Psychic_Robot (solution proposals) wrote:
3. Make feats scale to level. This is probably the best solution out of the three, combining feat-merging with a slight power boost.

Agreed provided that "level scaling feat" does not stack with another feat of the same type, and does not stack with any other "level scaling" statistic.

Slowing down progression of "level scaling feat" does not solve this issue, since creative rules lawyers quickly find ways around it.

For example:
- Weapon Focus with attack bonus of level/5
Problem: stacks with BAB (level scaling ability).
Resolution: does not stack with weapon attack bonus.
Note: should be fine in Epic range, too, up until level 50 (maximum weapon attack bonus is +10, if I remember correctly)
Problem #2: provides significant boost to 3.5 Power Attack and 3.5 Combat Expertise while nerfing magic weapon attack bonus.
Resolution: Working as intended. And people tend to ignore magic weapon attack bonuses in favor of additional damage abilities, anyway. Also, this nicely nerfs Magic Weapon, Greater spell.
- Great Fortitude with save bonus of level/5
Problem: stacks with numerous save boosting bonuses.
Resolution: only one, highest, save bonus allowed (see above).

Regards,
Ruemere


I would disagree with your assessment of most of the combat feats. I have seen most of those feats used to great effect, and the spiked chain fighter with the right feats can really push things too far.

I think you might be right about the save bonus feats.
Do people think it would be too powerful for these feats to change your save from poor to good? There are a few levels where this would be VERY good (e.g. the jump from a +4 to a +9 at 14th level), but for most low to mid level, you are seeing a +2 or +3 bonus.


1. 1.1Merge Feats.
Exactly. The MANEUVERS aren't being merged, you're just requiring less Feats to use Maneuvers.
I know P_R advocates making ALL Maneuvers able to be Improved with one Feat, but I think separating them into "Power Attack Maneuvers", "C. Expertise Maneuvers", and maybe "Unarmed Maneuvers" works. The Maneuvers stay distinct, each Feat just gives you a BROADER usage.

And to P_R's preference, please read the 2nd part of this. If AoO's are taken away from non-Improved Maneuvers, they're no longer "insanely stupid" to use for non-Improved characters, and the (consolidated) Improved Maneuver Feats can then offer better usages, like consolidating the Greater Maneuver effects WITH the +2 bonus.

1.3As a final example, suppose we merged the martial and simple weapon proficiency feats with all the armor proficiency feats and all the shield proficiency feats.

But it's still barely worth a Feat when you can take one level of Fighter (and gain a BONUS Feat too).
As an alternative, the equipment themself could offer better benefits, such as:

  • ALL martial weapons don't provoke AoO's with Maneuvers
  • ALL martial weapons can attempt ALL Maneuvers
  • Medium & Heavy Armor introduces DR.
  • Medium/Heavy/Tower Shields introduce Miss Chance%.

    Those would be worthwhile taking a Feat for. (Those MissChance%/ DR should STACK with any DR/MissChance source)


  • I disagree with the points in the OP.

    It just isn't that much of a problem. Most players are casual and don't over-scrutinize balance. Even many players who do scrutinize balance don't necessarily think all of the feats mentioned are underpowered.

    The power level has been ratcheted up high enough in Pathfinder already. "Improving" a large number of feats to make them "worth it" will only exacerbate that problem.

    It isn't bad design to have variance in feats: not everyone plays this game with a combat focus, in fact, I would imagine that Pathfinder has a larger number of players with a lower volume of combat implied by the APs and Modules.

    One thing I do agree with: no feats should suck. I think our definitions of suck are different, though.


    If we compare feats with long-duration spells, almost all feats "suck" by that rubric. And clerics and wizards get more spells than melee characters get feats.

    I believe that, unless (a) combat rules are changed to favor melee characters, or (b) combat feats are given a major overhaul, then warrior-types are doomed to irrelevance at higher levels, as they have been since 3.0.


    I would have to say that "balancing" the Feats by consolidating the "weaker" ones has it's own merit:

    it reduces the space spent on these Feats, which is a major consideration in putting a final product together. Multiple Weak Feats that depend on each other is silly in it's own right, and ultimately a waste of space if they could be consolidated into fewer Feats (that then "measure up" better against stronger Feats)


    Kirth Gersen wrote:


    I believe that, unless (a) combat rules are changed to favor melee characters, or (b) combat feats are given a major overhaul, then warrior-types are doomed to irrelevance at higher levels, as they have been since 3.0.

    If you give combat feats a major power boost, they'll still be better when a cleric/druid/eldritch knight takes them instead of a fighter/paladin/commoner. That's why I'd rather see good class features for warrior-types than more powerful feats which benefit all classes. (Fighter-only feats count as a fighter class feature, essentially.)

    The idea of consolidating some of the wimpier feats has merit, though.


    Why would making a feat give multiple different abilities be any different than making several feats give one ability each? If characters got about ten more feats, I'd say that most things were peachy as-is. However, the majority of characters AREN'T getting bonus feats, so they might as well be merged.

    Improved Combat Maneuvers: You can execute combat maneuvers without provoking attacks of opportunity, and you get a +2 bonus to your CMB.

    That's a lot for one feat, I agree. However, what you must consider is that a) it's roughly 10% of a character's feats to take this, and b) why on Earth does it take a special feat to perform combat maneuvers without sucking? Personally, I think that the AoO should be removed entirely, but that's just me.

    Quandary: It would be worth a feat for casters who don't want to lose a caster level.


    Well, if improvements were made to Armor/Shields along the lines I suggested, it would be worth it. (one Feat)

    As is, the heavier physical Armor doesn't really compare when there's multiple sources (Natural Armor, Armor Enchant (to cloth), Rings, Blur, etc...) that all don't have Encumbrance/Armor Penalty repurcusions....

    But sure, even with the improvements I suggested, it should just be ONE Feat for all Weapon Proficiency and ONE Feat for all Armor & Shield Proficiency. (So take my suggestions not as an ALTERNATIVE to Proficiency Feat consolidation, but as corollary)
    (all Armor & Weaponry in 1 Feat seems too much. There's one level of Fighter for that)


    What makes a feat good or bad?

    1) The effect provided by the feat must scale, to a limited extent, with the character, or be binary enough to not require scaling.

    Examples: Skill Focus turns the selected skill into a class skill, effectively, and gives a scalar bonus, as well.

    While Power Attack is still Scalar, the dual scale, and binary change, mess it up.
    To fix PFRPG Power Attack, at the minimum it must be made variable again. A 16th Level THF will loose roughly +12 or so to Power Attack damage between PFRPG and 3.5, but will have +6 to hit. This damage is part of the damage assumed with 16th level monster challenges, and can/should be able to come from other sources, assuming approximately Str 30.

    2) The feat must be effective for a character when it is available.
    Example: Wind Stance may be able to be good, as it almost duplicates a 2nd level spell, blur, at a level when the spell will be available 4 times a day. Concealment allows stealth, and 20% miss chance is *always* effective barring effects which nullify, as it is binary. However, it is unlikely that a level 16 wizard will be casting blur, instead of mirror image.

    3) The circumstances for use of the feat must not be needlessly prohibitive.
    Example: Shield Slam is good, as it gives a free Bull Rush, with no opportunity cost except hitting an opponent with a shield bash. There are synergies earlier in the chain which make it easier to do this.

    Counter Example: Cleave and Whirlwind Attack. Neat ideas, too circumstantial to be worth the feat slot. Both the issue with being Full Round Actions and requiring specific circumstance to be better than the normal I hit it with a stick actions make these stinkers.

    In order for Whirlwind Attack to be better than a full round attack, there need to be 2 or more high AC opponents around you who can be significantly hurt by a single attack, with no critical. Good luck using it at level 18.

    4) The feat must provide a better use of the action that it replaces.
    Examples: Step Up replaces the 5' step with a superior option. Vital Strike replaces an unlikely to connect attack with damage on other attacks within the full round attack, although it might be too good with certain weapons.


    Quandary wrote:
    But it's still barely worth a Feat when you can take one level of Fighter (and gain a BONUS Feat too).

    This doesn't make any sense at all. Taking a level of fighter is much more costly than using a feat, the benefit should be much greater than taking a feat. If someone is willing to dip a level of fighter for weapon proficiencies then let them. If they really want to use a longbow for their character concept then they have the option without suddenly gaining access to every other martial weapon.

    In general martial weapon proficiency is not broken. Martial characters are supposed to be better with weapons.


    Quandary wrote:

    Well, if improvements were made to Armor/Shields along the lines I suggested, it would be worth it. (one Feat)

    As is, the heavier physical Armor doesn't really compare when there's multiple sources (Natural Armor, Armor Enchant (to cloth), Rings, Blur, etc...) that all don't have Encumbrance/Armor Penalty repurcusions....

    But sure, even with the improvements I suggested, it should just be ONE Feat for all Weapon Proficiency and ONE Feat for all Armor & Shield Proficiency. (So take my suggestions not as an ALTERNATIVE to Proficiency Feat consolidation, but as corollary)
    (all Armor & Weaponry in 1 Feat seems too much. There's one level of Fighter for that)

    Then perhaps a third feat to upgrade a character to Full BAB? You are suggesting giving away the class features of the martial classes to the rest of the classes for a pittance.


    Psychic_Robot wrote:

    Why would making a feat give multiple different abilities be any different than making several feats give one ability each? If characters got about ten more feats, I'd say that most things were peachy as-is.

    Pathfinder has enough power-creep.

    Making one feat count for three-plus will just raise the baseline and won't solve any balance problems.

    Adding power is creating problems, not fixing them. Especially in feats, because they are all available to the "overpowered" characters as well as the "underpowered".

    Really, I would welcome an authentic nerf across the board if people really feel that there is such an imbalance. Otherwise we will end up with a rulebook that describes first level as "see 20th level."


    Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will
    Benefit: Your base fortitude, reflex or will save equals 2 + 1/2 your level.
    Special: You can take this feat up to three times. Each time you do, it applies to a different base save.

    TS

    The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

    The +2 save feats are plenty good, and are popular choices to shore up a weak save. Weapon focus is in fact one of the better feats, despite being a small bonus - anyone who crunches the numbers knows that bonus to hit is the way to go for most combat characters (rather than bonus to damage), and WF is a bonus you can't get any other way.


    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
    Tequila Sunrise wrote:

    Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will

    Benefit: Your base fortitude, reflex or will save equals 2 + 1/2 your level.
    Special: You can take this feat up to three times. Each time you do, it applies to a different base save.

    TS

    how about this:

    prerequisite- the save that the chosen feat applies to must be a weak save for your class.
    benefit- the save becomes a strong save for your class.

    that way, a fighter can't take great fortitude, a rogue can't take lightning reflexes, etc.

    :-)

    messy

    Sovereign Court

    hogarth wrote:


    If you give combat feats a major power boost, they'll still be better when a cleric/druid/eldritch knight takes them instead of a fighter/paladin/commoner. That's why I'd rather see good class features for warrior-types than more powerful feats which benefit all classes. (Fighter-only feats count as a fighter class feature, essentially.)

    You screw the barbarian and other meleers, with fighter-only feats. The faster fighter feat progression is enough, for my money (and will eldritch knight really spend feats on combat rather than metamagic?). As for Druids and Clerics, BAB is a more sensible restriction on feats, meaning they'll get it later than meleers.


    Bagpuss wrote:
    hogarth wrote:


    If you give combat feats a major power boost, they'll still be better when a cleric/druid/eldritch knight takes them instead of a fighter/paladin/commoner. That's why I'd rather see good class features for warrior-types than more powerful feats which benefit all classes. (Fighter-only feats count as a fighter class feature, essentially.)
    You screw the barbarian and other meleers, with fighter-only feats. The faster fighter feat progression is enough, for my money (and will eldritch knight really spend feats on combat rather than metamagic?). As for Druids and Clerics, BAB is a more sensible restriction on feats, meaning they'll get it later than meleers.

    Sure... but don't Barbarians get things fighters don't? Rangers, likewise. Fighter only "feats" should really be reclassified as Fighter class features to eliminate this sort of confusion.

    A barbarian isn't screwed out of fighter only feats any more than a fighter is screwed out of Rage.

    RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    If they really want to use a longbow for their character concept then they have the option without suddenly gaining access to every other martial weapon.

    But why should I take a martial weapon proficiency when I can take an exotic weapon proficiency instead and get to use a cooler weapon for no additional cost? (While MWP has no pre-reqs and EWP does, the +1 BAB ((and Str 13+ for b. sword or dwarven war axe)) is not really much of a barrier to entry.)


    Vigil wrote:
    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    If they really want to use a longbow for their character concept then they have the option without suddenly gaining access to every other martial weapon.
    But why should I take a martial weapon proficiency when I can take an exotic weapon proficiency instead and get to use a cooler weapon for no additional cost? (While MWP has no pre-reqs and EWP does, the +1 BAB ((and Str 13+ for b. sword or dwarven war axe)) is not really much of a barrier to entry.)

    So your logic seems to be that since Exotic Weapon Proficiency is better than Martial Weapon Proficiency, Martial Weapon Proficiency needs to be made an order of magnitude better? Sorry, I don't buy that.

    If you have two feats and one is 25% better than the other does it make sense to double the power of the lesser?


    Heheh. So many posts with good points to comment. I will try to be as concise as possible.

    Quandary wrote:

    1. 1.1Merge Feats.

    Exactly. The MANEUVERS aren't being merged, you're just requiring less Feats to use Maneuvers.
    I know P_R advocates making ALL Maneuvers able to be Improved with one Feat, but I think separating them into "Power Attack Maneuvers", "C. Expertise Maneuvers", and maybe "Unarmed Maneuvers" works. The Maneuvers stay distinct, each Feat just gives you a BROADER usage.

    I think this separation is not necessary. You may instead provide two or three parallel feats, improving Maneuver mastery in general:

    (skipping possible prerequisites in favor of presenting ideas)
    - Combat Maneuver Offense - +4 to CMB when attacking
    - Combat Maneuver Defense - +4 to CMB when defending
    - Combat Maneuver Brutality - also may deal damage with wielded weapon upon success
    - Combat Maneuver Riposte - gains free AoO upon successful maneuver resist
    - Combat Maneuver Follow-up - once per round, if succeeds at maneuver and ends it adjacent to opponent, may immediately use another Combat Maneuver.
    - Combat Maneuver Fatality - [warning: ultimate power] - if target of the maneuver: loses to first maneuver, loses to second maneuver (from CM Follow-up above), then: target is stunned for one round and you may Coup De Grace target as a free action.

    Quandary wrote:
    [...] If AoO's are taken away from non-Improved Maneuvers, they're no longer "insanely stupid" to use for non-Improved characters, and the (consolidated) Improved Maneuver Feats can then offer better usages, like consolidating the Greater Maneuver effects WITH the +2 bonus.

    In my opinion, free AoO should occur only if CM user fails disastrously (natural one). So, I agree with just this condition.

    Quandary wrote:
    [...]But it's still barely worth a Feat when you can take one level of Fighter (and gain a BONUS Feat too).

    Not for everyone, fortunately. Otherwise, ability to multiclass and gain something is good for the system in general.

    Quandary wrote:

    As an alternative, the equipment themself could offer better benefits, such as:

  • ALL martial weapons don't provoke AoO's with Maneuvers
  • ALL martial weapons can attempt ALL Maneuvers
  • Medium & Heavy Armor introduces DR.
  • Medium/Heavy/Tower Shields introduce Miss Chance%.

    Those would be worthwhile taking a Feat for. (Those MissChance%/ DR should STACK with any DR/MissChance source)

  • See above about fewer AoOs.
  • This is utter nonsense. Martial weapons are, in general, simply better at hurting people, instead of gaining positional advantage. You'd also need to adjust for Monkish weapons.
  • Agreed provided this is not exempted from DR-DOES-NOT-STACK. Introduce too much stacking and all physical damage will be nerfed even further.
  • One more roll, this one independent of actual competence. No thanks.

    Psychic_Robot wrote:
    [...]Why would making a feat give multiple different abilities be any different than making several feats give one ability each?

    Because it's good clean design of a rule. It's also good for mnemotechnic reasons, more newbie-friendly and finally, easier to adjudicate with regard to balance and usefulness.

    Feats are limited, that's granted, however that's why one does want to allow them broader applicability.

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    [...]This doesn't make any sense at all. Taking a level of fighter is much more costly than using a feat, the benefit should be much greater than taking a feat.[...]

    Untrue for most cases. You get one feat per two levels in PFRPG. Also

    you gain additional class related abilities thanks to class dipping.
    Also, to be frank, not many people are going to care about 20 level powers they may lose.

    toyrobots wrote:

    [...]

    Pathfinder has enough power-creep.

    Yes and no. Unfortunately, Pathfinder BETA nerfed a lot of useful stuff for warrior classes. Combat Maneuvers in general, for example.

    The suggestions above bring back some love to CMs. Remember, to make burning feats on CM worthwhile, CM must be better than straight damage options. And the "better" requires, that expenditure of 1 round out of 3 round combat, is a reasonable thing to do. As opposed to bashing with a heavy item.

    Vigil wrote:
    [...]But why should I take a martial weapon proficiency when I can take an exotic weapon proficiency instead and get to use a cooler weapon for no additional cost?[...]

    1. It's optional.

    2. Some GMs do not pander to needs of the fighter/cleric and do not hand away suitable weapons. You just need to make living with stuff you loot.
    3. Sunder.
    4. It's logical. All martial classes get full array of Martial and Simple and Armor proficiences. It would stand to a reason to make it available for a feat. Remember: feats are very limited.

    Regards,
    Ruemere

  • Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

    [I merged Ruemere's thread into this one.]


    ruemere wrote:

    Dennis da Ogre Said

    [...]This doesn't make any sense at all. Taking a level of fighter is much more costly than using a feat, the benefit should be much greater than taking a feat.[...]

    Untrue for most cases. You get one feat per two levels in PFRPG. Also
    you gain additional class related abilities thanks to class dipping.
    Also, to be frank, not many people are going to care about 20 level powers they may lose.

    ??? I'm just going to disagree with you on this one. It's not the 20th level power but the lack of progression in other class abilities.

    Regardless, so what? If a player wants to multi into fighter to pick up MWP, a +1 Attack Bonus and a feat, big deal. It's not going to break the game. The opportunity cost is loss of progress within the characters primary class. I don't think you can compare the two.

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

    I think merging feats is a bad idea. As PF is granting more feats across the board, so some feats should be made slightly less powerful. I can see why Jason split some feats into two like 3.5 Improved Trip; one feat negates AoO and gives bonus to attempts and defense, one allows free AoO.

    --Vrocknrolla!

    RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:

    So your logic seems to be that since Exotic Weapon Proficiency is better than Martial Weapon Proficiency, Martial Weapon Proficiency needs to be made an order of magnitude better? Sorry, I don't buy that.

    If you have two feats and one is 25% better than the other does it make sense to double the power of the lesser?

    I never offered a fix. Nor do I support PR's initial suggestion of one feat to know how to use every armor, simple weapon or martial weapon.I just pointed out that MWP "as-is" is a really poor choice. Why should a cleric take MWP (longsword) when he can take EWP (bastard sword).

    My logic is that one feat is better than another for no real additional cost (tougher prereqs). Either EWP should have a higher cost, or MWP should do more.


    messy wrote:
    Tequila Sunrise wrote:

    Great Fortitude/Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will

    Benefit: Your base fortitude, reflex or will save equals 2 + 1/2 your level.
    Special: You can take this feat up to three times. Each time you do, it applies to a different base save.

    TS

    how about this:

    prerequisite- the save that the chosen feat applies to must be a weak save for your class.
    benefit- the save becomes a strong save for your class.

    that way, a fighter can't take great fortitude, a rogue can't take lightning reflexes, etc.

    :-)

    messy

    That's exactly what I wrote.

    TS

    Liberty's Edge

    Vigil wrote:
    Dennis da Ogre wrote:

    So your logic seems to be that since Exotic Weapon Proficiency is better than Martial Weapon Proficiency, Martial Weapon Proficiency needs to be made an order of magnitude better? Sorry, I don't buy that.

    If you have two feats and one is 25% better than the other does it make sense to double the power of the lesser?

    I never offered a fix. Nor do I support PR's initial suggestion of one feat to know how to use every armor, simple weapon or martial weapon.I just pointed out that MWP "as-is" is a really poor choice. Why should a cleric take MWP (longsword) when he can take EWP (bastard sword).

    My logic is that one feat is better than another for no real additional cost (tougher prereqs). Either EWP should have a higher cost, or MWP should do more.

    i agree in this last remark

    Arcana evolved does something simiñar for spells... they are divided in simple, complex and exotic

    only the magister (their wizard) has full access to simple and complex spells

    if someone else from the spellcasting classes wanted to learn complex spell he needed a feat... each time he took the feat he could chose 1 level of complex spells (all complex 2nd level spells, for example)

    and both them and the Magister could leatn 1 exotic (a very rare or powerful spell) using 1 feat: exotic spell, but will give them ONLY ONE spell from any level, any school, etc


    Dennis da Ogre wrote:
    ruemere wrote:

    Dennis da Ogre Said

    [...]This doesn't make any sense at all. Taking a level of fighter is much more costly than using a feat, the benefit should be much greater than taking a feat.[...]

    Untrue for most cases. You get one feat per two levels in PFRPG. Also
    you gain additional class related abilities thanks to class dipping.
    Also, to be frank, not many people are going to care about 20 level powers they may lose.

    ??? I'm just going to disagree with you on this one. It's not the 20th level power but the lack of progression in other class abilities.

    Regardless, so what? If a player wants to multi into fighter to pick up MWP, a +1 Attack Bonus and a feat, big deal. It's not going to break the game. The opportunity cost is loss of progress within the characters primary class. I don't think you can compare the two.

    1 level of Fighter (gains):

    - 1 feat
    - multiple proficiences
    - +1 BAB
    - +2 Fortitude
    - 1d10 hp
    1 level of Fighter (disadvantages):
    - 2 skill points (make it 4, please)
    - loss of a single in original class

    Feat: Martial Weapon Proficiences
    Prerequisite: BAB 1+, proficiency in all Simple Weapons.
    Benefit: Gain proficiency in all Martial Weapons.

    I think the feat is viable and usable by classes lacking the feature (Clerics, Monks, Druids).

    Regards,
    Ruemere

    Sovereign Court

    Dennis da Ogre wrote:


    Sure... but don't Barbarians get things fighters don't? Rangers, likewise. Fighter only "feats" should really be reclassified as Fighter class features to eliminate this sort of confusion.

    Well, if they should be fighter-only, sure. But the new fighter-only feats just shouldn't be fighter-only, is my point, as they're part of fixing the problems with combat (particularly at higher levels) and so should be open to all.


    Jim Callaghan wrote:
    Yeah, broken. And the guy with Combat Expertise still deals out a respectable amount of damage.

    No. You don't know what you're talking about. At all. If it would be so broken to put all armor/weapon proficiencies in a single feat, then why can I gain all of that and get a bonus feat with a single dip into another class?

    No, you can't. Tell me what class gives you proficiency with every single exotic weapon.


    Bagpuss wrote:
    Dennis da Ogre wrote:


    Sure... but don't Barbarians get things fighters don't? Rangers, likewise. Fighter only "feats" should really be reclassified as Fighter class features to eliminate this sort of confusion.

    Well, if they should be fighter-only, sure. But the new fighter-only feats just shouldn't be fighter-only, is my point, as they're part of fixing the problems with combat (particularly at higher levels) and so should be open to all.

    Precisely. We just need enough high level (high BAB prerequisites: 12+, 14+, 16+, 18+) powerful feats.

    Regards,
    RUemere

    Scarab Sages

    Jim Callaghan wrote:
    No, you can't. Tell me what class gives you proficiency with every single exotic weapon.

    I think he was referring only to simple and martial weapons.

    (And, did you used to be the British Prime Minister 1975-1979?)

    Maybe, a compromise could be to have the feats teach broad weapon groups?

    One-Handed Blades
    One-Handed Concussion
    Two-Handed Weapons
    Spears and Polearms
    Bows, etc?

    And these groups should include the likes of kukris, siangham, tonfa, etc. I would be glad to see the end of certain weapons being classed as 'exotic', simply because they have an 'oriental' name, despite being, in design, technique, and intent, virtually the same as their 'western' counterparts.

    Leave the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to cover truly difficult techniques.


    Snorter wrote:

    (And, did you used to be the British Prime Minister 1975-1979?)

    Maybe, a compromise could be to have the feats teach broad weapon groups?

    One-Handed Blades
    One-Handed Concussion
    Two-Handed Weapons
    Spears and Polearms
    Bows, etc?

    And these groups should include the likes of kukris, siangham, tonfa, etc. I would be glad to see the end of certain weapons being classed as 'exotic', simply because they have an 'oriental' name, despite being, in design, technique, and intent, virtually the same as their 'western' counterparts.

    Leave the Exotic Weapon Proficiency to cover truly difficult techniques.

    In fact, no one in THIS family of Callaghans would ever be a LABOR PM. (Thank you, I haven't heard a comment like that since college.) And I disagree that "Exotic" is a euphamism for "Oriental". Of the weapons you list, the tonfa does not appear in either the SRD or Pathfinder, the kukri is a martial weapon, and the siangham... Well the siangham is an exotic weapon. On the other hand: bastard sword, dwarven waraxe, hand crossbow. Exotic weapons fall into that category because they have a little something extra that makes them better than a martial weapon. Really, what is a bastard sword besides a long sword that does more damage?

    Sovereign Court

    Snorter wrote:


    Maybe, a compromise could be to have the feats teach broad weapon groups?

    One-Handed Blades
    One-Handed Concussion
    Two-Handed Weapons
    Spears and Polearms
    Bows, etc?

    Sweet, one more (thrown, I think, from memory) and it's Rolemaster!


    Psychic_Robot wrote:

    Uh...no. People becoming proficient with weapons and armor is hardly broken. They're wasting a feat to become proficient in these things. For many classes, that's 10% of their feats.

    The player who makes himself impossible to hit with Combat Expertise is going to be ignored by the monsters. The monsters will move on to squishier targets. The character with Combat Expertise can't keep up with the damage output of someone using Power Attack, especially not with the Pathfinder versions.

    Your arguement is flawed. You are basing it one what happens in your play style. Let me expand on the combat expertise example for this one, to show how a different play style can make this very useful.

    'Adam' has set up a campaign in Taldor, based around the university educations of four young aristocrats(the characters), after a slight against his family name by a romantic rival, john's character, Menas Albercroft has angerly challanged the rival to a duel. In his temper, he has forgotten that the rival is a favoured cronnie of Stavian the 3rd. Despite being the better swords man, menas cannot risk pressing his advantage for fear of the reprocusions and cannot back down without a smeer on his honour. The party plan quickly, sending Lorenz, the groups bard to quickly fetch the city watch to split up the duel. In the mean time, Menas must fight, holding his rival off, while making it look like he is winning, without killing his opponent and keeping his temper against the vocal jibes of his opponent. Both combat experties and iron will would be good investementsin a scene such as this.

    It is far better to have a variaty of feats which behave in different ways, because people play styles vary greatly. What is to you an ungodly feat, might to me be Meh.


    Your example is an extremely specific example that is wholly contrived. Mine involves, you know, dragons and sh*t.

    1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Skills and Feats / Good Game Design: No Feats Should Suck All Messageboards