A couple of things... that's the Editor your quoting, not the game developer. Second, you're talking to a lot of people who like 3.5, with it's various warts, but just want some fixes and a chance to get back to their games. Not to retool the whole concept behind 3.5 to make it more (or less) friendly to new players. It's been pretty popular. New players will learn and they'll find their style of play (role or roll playing if you will). Or, of course, find a game more to their liking.
As for min-maxing / players having to plan their builds vs. role playing, well that's always been in the game. I started in 1975 and then, as now, there were people who chose their class because of percieved (or real) advantages. The rest of us chose what we liked and had fun. The only games the min-maxers don't play is those that are so free form they don't have significant rules or so balanced that there are no significant differences in choice. The rest of us will just muddle along and have fun playing what we like.
|
Since backward compatibility is the #1 stated goal of PRPG, I foresee none of this changing. PRPG is going to look more like 3.5 than unlike it. I propose that is simply going to be a fact of life come August.
However, I will say that I don't understand why you're here. I'm not trying to be a smarty-pants or any of that; I honestly don't understand what you're trying to accomplish. From your post, you seem like a perfectly intelligent person that has ample experience with 3.5 to know what he's talking about. The thing I don't understand is, why you seem to hate it [the game] so. Maybe hate is too strong a word, but you really seem to be venting some rage here. At what point did the game [3.5] become so frustrating for you? When it came out? After a few splatbooks? When you realized there were flaws? When you read about how broken the whole thing is on a message board somewhere? When 4e was announced?
I'm not trying to be condescending here (there will probably be plenty of other posters who'll do that downthread); I'm trying to point out that at some point, you thought this game [3.5] was fun and you enjoyed it. You should hit the rewind button and go back to that point. You'll seriously enjoy gaming alot more.
-Skeld
|
However, I will say that I don't understand why you're here. I'm not trying to be a smarty-pants or any of that; I honestly don't understand what you're trying to accomplish. From your post, you seem like a perfectly intelligent person that has ample experience with 3.5 to know what he's talking about. The thing I don't understand is, why you seem to hate it [the game] so. Maybe hate is too strong a word, but you really seem to be venting some rage here. At what point did the game [3.5] become so frustrating for you? When it came out? After a few splatbooks? When you realized there were flaws? When you read about how broken the whole thing is on a message board somewhere? When 4e was announced?
Well, this guy with only one post reads just like Psychic Robot(passed through a profanity filter) and says exactly the same things that Psychic Robot used to say before he was banned for being disruptive. This little tempest in a chamber pot becomes much more understandable if you just assume that this really is just Psychic Robot again. Perhaps it was only a temp ban? Anyway, if he can keep it this civil, then welcome back... I guess.
Sam
That makes for easier discussion!
The point behind this is that the value of the goal is worth the cost of the prerequisite. So, if something is good enough to warrant picking an option that becomes weaker at higher levels, then your overall "worth" should be the same as if you had two things that were of normal value.
Also, this is a situation where the DM having control over the game, helps.
The most touted example of this situation is Prestige Classes. A Prestige Class requires a certain feat, and the player finds out he can get it and now he has to get a weak feat to enter the class.
If you read the DMG on the actual application of the Prestige Class, and handling class entry, it's really in the hands of the DM.
If, as a DM, I decided to spring a Prestige Class option on a player, I'd allow some altering of entry requirements to get in (as long as it's still thematically applicable).
Unearthed Arcana had rules on ignoring the requirements in favor "Test based" entry. Perform a task that is difficult or equivalent to the normal level for entry, and you can take levels in the class.
This is something I see as more a personal taste thing, than actual "bad" or "flawed" design.
This is actually a very good point. Fighters seem not meant for beginners... not if they want to remain viable at higher levels.
Nothing sours an experience more than finding out your "First character", the one you loved the most, becomes useless at a certain point.
There aren't as many complaints from the spellcaster about having useless lower level spells though, and the reason for that gives us a way out.
Spells can be interchanged for more useful ones later.
If we use the retraining concept from PHBII, your fighter could decide to swap out a now useless lower level feat for a more appropriate (read: requirement meeting) low level feat.
Yeah I know I just referenced two options that aren't in the Core 3.5e rules as proposed fixes to the issues presented. They are still useable though, and Unearthed Arcana at least is open content as far as I can remember.
I don't mean to defend Pathfinder reflexively, I have my own criticisms — but if you don't like what they are doing and you disagree with the designers philosophically, why are you here?
D20srd.org is still running, 4e is out. There are plenty of games out there. Life is too short to wait for designers you disagree with to make a game that's perfect for you.
If you decided to stick around, I suggest you:
That last part is pivotal, since they really don't have much flexibility to do the kind of things you ask, sandwiched as they are between player demands, OGL restrictions, page space in the book, and the little time they have left to finish before deadline.
However, given the nature of your post's claims about the designers and staff, I'm going to suggest that Pathfinder RPG just isn't for you. And that really is okay! I'm probably reverting to houseruled 3.5 when I'm done my PRPG playtest campaign. You should play the game you want to play instead of throwing in with designers you clearly disagree with.
I also think that non-scaling feats, feat chains, etc. are pretty crummy in general, but as long as I have a copy of the Tome of Battle close at hand I don't let it bother me too much.
There definitely needs to be a big caveat posted somewhere: If you're expecting lots of big changes, you're going to be disappointed. If you're expecting no big changes at all, you're also going to be disappointed.
The reason I am "here" is because I would like to see Pathfinder do better. Pathfinder has the potential to do better, but it won't with this kind of attitude. 4e is not a good game system. It is boring. 3e is a good game system, although it is broken. Pathfinder fixes some of the larger "bugs" in the system, but it leaves the rest to be made into house rules.
Pathfinder's artwork is amazing. I would like to see a product that lives up to that standard.
Smiteasaur is playing nice, and as long as he (and everyone else is) they should have the opportunity to be heard. I too agree thats feats should be tweaked. For the simple reason that feats don't and spells do. For instance Barkskin gives 2 AC +1 for every three levels, while dodge give you a static +1. I think feats should be as powerful as spells, if spells improve as your character does then so should feats.
|
|
I too agree thats feats should be tweaked. For the simple reason that feats don't and spells do.
I think feats aren't changing much because they directly affect the contents of a stat block. If you change Dodge for instance, to a +1 dodge bonus to Ac +1 for every 5 BAB (or whatever), then all existing stat blocks referencing Dodge have to change. The change to barkskin only affects a stat block if the character (as printed) is under the effects of barkskin.
Anything that significantly changes the stat blocks printed in existing material is probably going to be frowned upon.
-Skeld
I should probably ignore, but...
NOTE: Please read this entire post before responding. This thread is not about Weapon Focus; I am merely using it for illustrative purposes.
Alright - the post is only *half* about Weapon Focus. Quite simply, you're wrong. Weapon focus remains a useful feat up to any level - so long as that weapon is being used. The effect of it does not diminish, anymore than a d20 suddenly has more numbers on it. In every case but the extremes, you get one more of those numbers to equal a "yes, I hit!".
The Developer wrote:
That might be okay for some players, but it's not for others, and it's CERTAINLY not okay for GMs who don't have the advantage of growing used to a specific stat block's evolution and powers over the course of years of play.
Now the argument is vaguely about backwards compatibility...
... Backwards compatibility is loosely maintained, but not enough that one wouldn’t have to re-configure all the monsters in a module.
This quote had nothing to do with backwards compatibility. It has to do with a DM running a high level creature/character to its full capabilities from a stat block. Implementing things like scaling feats makes interpreting (and creating) a stat block much harder.
As for actual backwards compatibility - this is not about things being identical. It's about interoperability - being able to run one system using the others statblocks (in either direction) without great trouble. Reconfiguring monsters to match the new system has nothing at all to do with backwards compatibility. It has to do with the anal retentiveness of the DM running the module (and yes, I'd fall in this category).
Weapon Focus? It’s always weak. A +5% chance to hit is worth less than Toughness.
Strictly speaking, that entirely "depends".
For instance, for an elven wizard with 16 Dex and an 8 Con (just got one in my group), after first level Toughness represents approximately 37.5% more hitpoints (including favored class), where as Weapon Focus (Ray) lets him hit on a 6 instead of a 7 typically. That's only 7% more hits.
For a Human Barbarian with 16 con, Toughness represents an average of 10-11% more hitpoints, while Weapon Focus (Greatsword) when he normally needs an 11 to hit adds a solid 10% more hits.
Are # of hit points and # of hits equal measures? Probably not, but I'd say at least as many would call the hits more important.
The Developer wrote:
But [feats] don't all cost the same. Something like weapon focus costs one first level feat for some folk, but for others it costs one 2nd level feat, due to the prerequisite. Likewise, a lot of the more powerful feats have prerequisites that make it more difficult to pick.Incorrect. Natural Spell and Quicken Spell have no prerequisites. They’re the most powerful feats in the game.
Incorrect yourself. Natural Spell takes either a 5th level feat slot, or a 1st level slot and 3 levels of complete uselessness. Quicken spell takes the extremely valuable 9th level slot (11th for Sorcerers), or *8* levels of complete uselessness.
Only when constructing a character at 10th or 20th level do these feats not have a prerequisite.
The Developer wrote:
The alternate, that all feats are available at 1st level and are all equally powerful would make for a pretty anemic and dull system, I think.Strawman and false dichotomy. This is not an EITHER/OR situation. There’s a safe middle-ground.
Agreed actually. I would say the middle-ground has been achieved though.
[much stuff about how horrible Pathfinder design is, plus...]
In Pathfinder, little has changed.
*Good*
Keeping bad feats in the game is poor game design.
Agreed. I'll add this:
Creating feats that scale on non-scaling systems (i.e. d20 rolls) is poor game design.
Toughness works scaling, because it adds to something which is independent of the feat itself. Weapon focus (and spell penetration, etc.) affects a d20 roll, which never changes.
Simply put, scaling feats are usually bad, they create a geometric progression of power that gets out of hand immensely fast.
*salute*
Simply put, scaling feats are usually bad, they create a geometric progression of power that gets out of hand immensely fast.
I'm not sure if the Pathfinder developers agree with you, considering that they changed Skill Focus so that it scales (+3 if you have 0-9 ranks in the skill, +6 if you have 10+ ranks).
|
The reason I am "here" is because I would like to see Pathfinder do better. Pathfinder has the potential to do better, but it won't with this kind of attitude. 4e is not a good game system. It is boring. 3e is a good game system, although it is broken. Pathfinder fixes some of the larger "bugs" in the system, but it leaves the rest to be made into house rules.
Pathfinder's artwork is amazing. I would like to see a product that lives up to that standard.
I agree with a lot of your points. We've had some good discussions on feats in a couple of places.
Sorry, I had a nice long post that got eaten. :)
Creative Director
|
I'm about to head into work, so I'm gonna try to keep this post brief.
I'm the "developer" being quoted. Truth be told, although I DO develop the Pathfinder adventure paths, I'm not the developer/designer on the PF RPG. That's Jason Bulmahn, and he's doing a great job with it so far.
When I made that post about Weapon Finesse, I was sort of playing the devil's advocate and trying to see if Weapon Finesse really WAS broken. Personally, I'm not sure it is, and I wanted to make sure that the argument for bumping it up in power wasn't just an idle grab for more power.
We're still in playtest mode. When I comment to the boards and question some of the playtest feedback, I'm not trying to give out previews of how the game will run. In fact, I'm hoping for posts more or less like the OP's post... but perhaps with a little bit more accuracy in assigning "blame" to the proper person. My comments are not changes to the game, anymore than anyone else's comments. Whether or not Jason takes my advice into mind when he starts making the final choices to the game itself in a month or so after the playtest is over, who can say?
That said, the game WON'T appeal to everyone. We want it to appeal to as many possible customers as possible, but it's foolish to think we can please everyone even if we really try hard. If the final game doesn't work for someone, there's still 3rd edition and 4th edition and a host of other games. There's still house rules. And if, in the end, there's a rule in the PF RPG that I think is wonky, I'll houserule it in my own game.
Just don't confuse my comments and advice for Jason's design.
An interesting way for feats to truly scale in a feat chain, is to use the fibonacci sequence. (skipping the initial +1, +1)
So
feat 1 gives +1
feat 2 gives +2
feat 3 gives +3
feat 4 gives +5
feat 5 gives +8
epic feat 6 would give +13
this would work for dodge and weapon specialization feats...
I am not planning on playing or buying Pathfinder either. I guess I should be sure to not let the door hit me in the buttocks on the way out. Seriously? So…if you are not an adherent fan boy, STFU?
I do not agree with a lot of what the original poster said. I simply do not care enough to refute each of his points, but to say his opinion is invalid simply because it goes against current development is absurd. A bit hypocritical too, if you ask me.
And just so my post is a little more than STFU to all those saying STFU, I do not like feat trees either. They are needlessly complicated. Why scatter the tree across who knows how many pages? Why not just allow for ranked feats and keep the tree all together? Not to mention you do not have to come up with 10 different names for a single ability that just gets progressively better. Do we really need Better Improved No This Time We Mean It Grapple?
I too agree thats feats should be tweaked. For the simple reason that feats don't and spells do.I think feats aren't changing much because they directly affect the contents of a stat block. If you change Dodge for instance, to a +1 dodge bonus to Ac +1 for every 5 BAB (or whatever), then all existing stat blocks referencing Dodge have to change. The change to barkskin only affects a stat block if the character (as printed) is under the effects of barkskin.
Anything that significantly changes the stat blocks printed in existing material is probably going to be frowned upon.
-Skeld
That stat block change is minor...and I as a DM, would love to be able to give a +1 to +4 AC boost to my mobs as one of the modified bonus feats from the feat change.
I like feat chains though as well... I don't want a fighter with 20 scaling feats...now THAT is monstrous...
The solution is a combination of both...nuff said.
|
|
While I have issues with various decisions, some things should be noted:
NOTE: Please read this entire post before responding. This thread is not about Weapon Focus; I am merely using it for illustrative purposes.
And this rebuttal is for illustrative purposes as well.
Weapon Focus? It’s always weak. A +5% chance to hit is worth less than Toughness.
Mathematically, this is not correct.
Toughness adds 1 + 3/level hit point per level, recalculated every level. That is, it adds 4 hits points at 1st level, then replaces it with 5 hits points at 2nd level, 6 hit points at 3rd level, and so forth. It is important to note that the 3 hit point boost has a progressively diminishing return as you increase in level.Conversely, as average damage increases, the overall average damage done by a +5% chance to hit increases. If at some point your average damage done by a melee attack is 20, then weapon focus adds an effective 1 point of damage to your attacks every round. That nearly equals the effect of Toughness. If your average damage goes to say 40, which was more than possible with 3.5 Power Attack, then weapon focus adds 2 damage to every attack, which is always greater than the effect of Toughness.
If we were to add in the entire set of Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization to that feat, the effects would scale up even more dramatically. At 12th level, where Greater Weapon Specialization kicks in, the full effect is +10% to hit, +4 damage. This compares to Toughness now providing 1 + 3/12 = 1.25 hit points per level, or a total of 15 hit points. If you have absolutely 0 additional damage bonus from Strength, weapon, or otherwise, including the base weapon damage being 0 for some bizarre reason, the bonus damage from this single feat is 1.2 hit points per round because of iterative attacks. At 20th level, Toughness is providing you 1.05 hit points per level, while your Super Weapon Focus is doing an additional 1.6 hit points per level before Strength and magic bonuses and base weapon damage.
Incorrect. Natural Spell and Quicken Spell have no prerequisites. They’re the most powerful feats in the game. Feat chains are bad game design because they put a stop to organic character creation and force players to plan out their builds. Which is bad. (See below for more details.)
Incorrect back at you.
Natural Spell has no effect if you are not in wild shape, so it has a de facto prerequisite. (And in fact it requires both a Wis 13 and the ability to Wild Shape as written prerequisites.)Likewise Quicken Spell requires a minimum 4th level spell slot, so it also has a de facto prerequisite to be useful.
Assuming those prerequisites were removed for Natural Spell you could take it or Quicken Spell at 1st level. They would both be absolutely useless at that time, providing no benefit until you took the appropriate number of levels of druid (for Natural Spell) or any spellcaster (for Quicken Spell).
If you are going to attack design decisions and supporting commentary on those decisions, you should really clean up your own design basics first.
|
|
I like feat chains though as well... I don't want a fighter with 20 scaling feats...now THAT is monstrous...
This was mostly my point. If Dodge changed, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but if half or two-thirds or three-quarters of feats changed, updating a stat block would be more trouble than it was worth. And if feat requirements were to change.... You get the idea.
-Skeld
|
Majuba actually made the point I was going to make about Weapon Focus. However, I would just add that feats are supposed to provide a small bump, not a major one. Interestingly I have suggested making things like Mage Armor scale, only to have the idea poo-pooed by the same people who argue that Weapon Focus should scale. If anything, I think a feat should provide the exact same bonus at 1st level as it does at 20th. Weapon Focus does that, Toughness does that, most feats do that. Are some more powerful than others, yes they are. But does Natural Spell provided a better bonus at 20th level then it does at 5th, no it doesn't. And that is why I feel that the OP is making a sophic argument, because regardless of the individual power levels involved of the individual feats, for the most part they do the same thing regardless of the character level.
I'm not sure if the Pathfinder developers agree with you, considering that they changed Skill Focus so that it scales (+3 if you have 0-9 ranks in the skill, +6 if you have 10+ ranks).Simply put, scaling feats are usually bad, they create a geometric progression of power that gets out of hand immensely fast.
You have a point there - there has been some scaling introduced. And I'm quite wary of it.
However, two points here:
1. The only feat that actually scales in Pathfinder is Arcane Strike. The other examples (Dodge, Skill focus, etc.) simply have two values, the initial, and the 10th level value. However a single increase point is less of an issue. This is particularly true for Dodge, as the "cost" of using Dodge (the swift action) becomes increasingly an actual cost as level goes up. It's not that a +1 to AC becomes less beneficial (it remains *just* as beneficial), but that using up your swift action for the round becomes a larger cost. And I'm still hesitant.
2. Someone pointed out that at higher levels there is a tendency for "the bonuses to be more important than the die roll". This is *not* true for attack rolls or AC because these stay in the relevant range most of the time (partly due to Power attacking, etc.) But it is true for damage certainly.
Skills are in between though. If the DC of a skill check is fixed, and your bonus = that DC, then the roll is meaningless. If your bonus is 10 less than that DC and you can take 10, the roll is meaningless. However, if a) the roll is opposed/variable, b) not bonus isn't too high, and/or c) you can't take 10, then the roll does matter, and this is a bit more troubling to me.
Stealth is a good example. With Skill Focus (Stealth) and Stealth feats you can have +20 to Stealth at 10th level *before* class bonus or dexterity, or any of the myriad items that boost Stealth (shadow armor, elvenkind items, etc.) With an *easily* achieved +30, against anyone with +10 or lower there simply is no roll, and the boost at 10th was part of that, but by no means the majority. Against someone with no bonus, or a negative (8 Wis Fighter w/out ranks), you would never need the feats at all. But against someone where the roll matters though, that additional +5 is an enormous change in odds.
What does all that mean? I feel they've made what used to be feats that *were* 'bad' feats into decent ones, perhaps better than decent. They did need improvement - undoubtedly - but I don't think the method they chose is in general good for the system.
Edit:
Majuba actually made the point I was going to make about Weapon Focus. However, I would just add that feats are supposed to provide a small bump, not a major one. Interestingly I have suggested making things like Mage Armor scale, only to have the idea poo-pooed by the same people who argue that Weapon Focus should scale. If anything, I think a feat should provide the exact same bonus at 1st level as it does at 20th. Weapon Focus does that, Toughness does that, most feats do that. Are some more powerful than others, yes they are. But does Natural Spell provided a better bonus at 20th level then it does at 5th, no it doesn't. And that is why I feel that the OP is making a sophic argument, because regardless of the individual power levels involved of the individual feats, for the most part they do the same thing regardless of the character level.
EXACTLY! Mage armor should scale!!!
It should be maybe +2 at first, then +4, +6 and +8...since you can get bracer's of armor that come in increments up to 8th level...
Same as bulls, et al. +2 up to +8. +10 for epic level progression...
|
Creative Director
|
EXACTLY! Mage armor should scale!!!
It should be maybe +2 at first, then +4, +6 and +8...since you can get bracer's of armor that come in increments up to 8th level...
Same as bulls, et al. +2 up to +8. +10 for epic level progression...
The problem with scaling mage armor, of course, is that if it scales TOO well, bracers of armor become less and less cool. Of course, this might not be a problem if we don't want bracers of armor to be so commonplace.
Also, there's something to be said for keeping non-armor wearing characters like wizards from easy access to armor bonuses. Do wizards REALLY need more AC than they already do?
Meanwhile, the smart fighter--well, he can't be that smart, since he's playing a fighter, but bear with me--has taken...
Sorry, with Armor and Weapon training, plus 20 feats, this argument doesn't hold water any more...
The problem isn't with the fighter's lack of damage, it's the ultra effectiveness of high level casters....the longer cast times were removed in 3x...unless Pathfinder returns to that then the entire fighter versus wizard point remains moot...IMHO
GENERAL NOTE:let's try to keep everything civil here as well..."STFU" is not an appropriate response...since we pretty much all know what it means, it's not a "polite" way of speaking...it's an attack.
You choose the wrong example, again. Please calculate the damage for Vital Strike and especially Devastating Blow with and without the Weapon Focus -> Greater Weapon Specialization Feat chain. You'll see it makes a big difference.I'm not sure if you understand the concept of opportunity cost. Please check Wikipedia for an explanation.
Xaaon: No, fighters are not fixed. They are, in fact, far from fixed. Please don't try to argue this. What Pathfinder has done is given the fighter bigger numbers. This is not fixing the class. Even if the fighter can hit 100% of the time, he's still going to be junk. Why? Let's see. He has no skill points. He has no real class features. (Feats? Give me a break. Non-scaling junk. A few measly bonuses on attack and damage rolls? Yawn. The rogue laughs at him right before stabbing him in the face.) He's the most equipment-dependent class in the game.
Feat chains allow the Fighter to choose his own class features. They scale via the fighter taking the later feats.
You choose the wrong example, again. Please calculate the damage for Vital Strike and especially Devastating Blow with and without the Weapon Focus -> Greater Weapon Specialization Feat chain. You'll see it makes a big difference.I'm not sure if you understand the concept of opportunity cost. Please check Wikipedia for an explanation.
Xaaon: No, fighters are not fixed. They are, in fact, far from fixed. Please don't try to argue this. What Pathfinder has done is given the fighter bigger numbers. This is not fixing the class. Even if the fighter can hit 100% of the time, he's still going to be junk. Why? Let's see. He has no skill points. He has no real class features. (Feats? Give me a break. Non-scaling junk. A few measly bonuses on attack and damage rolls? Yawn. The rogue laughs at him right before stabbing him in the face.) He's the most equipment-dependent class in the game.
Actually I absolutely agree with the skill part of the Fighter, I have already house-ruled my game to have 4+int as the minimum, since the removal of the x4 modifier at first level destroys low level use of skills in an adventure.
It's not a matter of a single feat. It's a matter of the single or chain feats stacking with the Armor and Weapon Training...
The rogue has to HIT the fighter...how can the 20th level rogue...with his +15 BAB hit a fully armored 20th level fighter with regularity unless he's flat footed...
The 20th level fighter with Greater Weapon Focus, plus Greater Weapon Spec, plus Dodge, plus vital strike and Greater Vital Strike...in addition to increased critical can easily close the gap...so the fighter WITHOUT strength or magic bonuses....is at +27 to hit...and +9 damage per attack...If he hits with all 4 attacks...that's +36 dmg...average of +10d6 is 35, but the rogue has a caveat that he has to be flanking, or the fighter has to be flat-footed...if the fighter has Heavy Fortification...the rogue will do 0 extra dmg.
The fighter's achilles heel is not the rogue...it's the arcane and divine casting...
|
|
EXACTLY! Mage armor should scale!!!
It should be maybe +2 at first, then +4, +6 and +8...since you can get bracer's of armor that come in increments up to 8th level...
Same as bulls, et al. +2 up to +8. +10 for epic level progression...
The problem with scaling mage armor, of course, is that if it scales TOO well, bracers of armor become less and less cool. Of course, this might not be a problem if we don't want bracers of armor to be so commonplace.
Also, there's something to be said for keeping non-armor wearing characters like wizards from easy access to armor bonuses. Do wizards REALLY need more AC than they already do?
With the place of some spells, why even have them scale? Just make a superior replacement spell at a higher level. That is why spells have assigned power levels. Maybe the pre-req for the improved mage armor be that the wizard knows (but does not have memorized) the original Mage Armor. Also eats up a higher slot.
But then that starts to bring back good things - max spell knowledge limits per spell level, etc.Wizards need less things that scale, not more. I don't agree with P_R on most everything, and I know that it isn't about weapon focus....but why do casters gain open ended, creative scalable feats while other classes don't?
This thread has been locked. The OP is a previously perma-banned account that is not welcome here anymore. If non-OP folks wish to discuss aspects of this thread in another thread, please feel free. However, continuing this discussion as started by the OP serves no purpose.
Thread locked.