Oh and in the game we just left behind we had a conjurer who didn't bother with spell focus because summoned creatures don't cause saving throws, granted he had augment summoning which is pretty much standard for conjurers, but I've never seen a non conjurer who had augment summoning so it wouldn't have worked.
Erm...Augment Summoning has Spell Focus (Conjuration) as a prerequisite
|
Erm...Augment Summoning has Spell Focus (Conjuration) as a prerequisiteOh and in the game we just left behind we had a conjurer who didn't bother with spell focus because summoned creatures don't cause saving throws, granted he had augment summoning which is pretty much standard for conjurers, but I've never seen a non conjurer who had augment summoning so it wouldn't have worked.
Yeah I found that out, it wasn't my character and I didn't know he had it because he litterally never made an enemy make a saving throw ever. My bad
I can say that if it wasn't a pre-req he wouldn't have taken it though lol.
what Pathfinder Cleric won't choose Selective Channeling? I mean, you may put it off for a level or three, but who doesn't pick it at some point in time? That's the kind of Feat I think the system could do without, the automatic, no-sense-not-having-it kind of choice.
Agreed -- some feats are so much better than others that it's a no-brainer; they're less options than requirements ("Well, I can choose not to take them," people might say. Yes, and you can choose for your character to be blind and without the use of his legs as well, but, honestly, who does? And please nobody tell me that "it's all about role playing!" because I totally disagree that only fundamentally crippled characters can provide RP opportunities).
There are two ways of fixing that disparity: (a) nerf the better feats so that they're no longer as good (much as Pathfinder did with Power Attack), or (b) improve with worse feats so that they're on a par with the better ones (as Pathfinder started to do with Dodge, but ultimately dropped the ball IMO). Given that wizards and clerics are awesome with or without feats, and that fighters don't have anything at all going for them except feats, I'm firmly in the camp of option (b), especially with respect to combat feats. Make 'em all scale with BAB, says I! So Dodge might give +1 AC, +1/4 points of BAB -- a 20th level fighter would be getting a +6 AC bonus out of it, whereas a 20th level wizard gets only +3.
|
|
You know on wizards boards in Regdar's Repository about a week before they shut it down I wrote an entire article about ways in which you can keep feats, but turn their effects into skill and stat based checks that would allow you to get the results of the feat, then the feat represented the training that allowed you to do the action without the feat.
This meant that the only feats you couldn't get through skill and ability checks were flat bonus feats (say a +1 or +2 to a specific action or skill etc.)
It works really well in my game, spellcasters love being able to metamagic prepared spells on the fly if neccessary and they feel it's worth the risk (failure means they loose the spell and a roll of a 1 one a spellcraft check to metamagic is a fumble from the deck).
I especially love how fighters and monks take advantage of it.
What's nice is it answers your question, no we don't, but it allows people to train in something so that they don't risk checks and failures. (it also helped that I told people I wanted them to show me in game attempting to do things before they took the feat so that the character didn't suddenly get new powers from nowhere they actually attempted and trained for things in game.)
I totally disagree that only fundamentally crippled characters can provide RP opportunities.
Agreed.
So Dodge might give +1 AC, +1/4 points of BAB -- a 20th level fighter would be getting a +6 AC bonus out of it, whereas a 20th level wizard gets only +3.
I'm seriously considering making Weapon Focus (and even Weapon Specialization) work this way in my campaigns as a house rule; i.e., Weapon Focus would grant an attack bonus with the selected weapon of 1/5 BAB (minimum of +1). It also really helps combat-oriented roguesl, clerics, and even gishes. They'll never be as good as the fighter in martial prowess (as it should be), but their attack bonus will be competative with the ACs of the opponents they face (read: make those character options more enjoyable and therefore viable).
My? Concerning this idea of no feats is what would you do with item creation feats?
In second the wizard and cleric got them as they leveled and that was fine when they were the only two games in town, now that you have the magic slinging mutants(sorcerers) and the warlocks and a whole lot of other pseudo casters do they get wands, armor and all the other magic creations feats too?
I can see different paths a wizard could take he's either a city incinerating firball machine or the party’s best friend because he can make anything at anytime. Taking away feats would be very confusing in that aspect. My casters go middle of the road. Low lvl take the item ones and then when you get enough spell levels that you can start moving the new levels around then you maximize and admix. It works for clerics too
My? Concerning this idea of no feats is what would you do with item creation feats?
Just replace 'em with Craft skills?
My? Concerning this idea of no feats is what would you do with item creation feats?Just replace 'em with Craft skills?
Or just have a "secret recipe" for each magic item that any spellcaster can follow, as long as they can cast the right spells.
|
I am sure that feats were heavily influenced by GURPS which used Advantages and Disadvatages. The idea behind those was to have a wide range of interesting choices to flesh out your character and get a better unique feel. Yes, they had game related mechanics associated with them, but you could take things like Attractive and Near Sighted. These really were ways to customize the feel of your character.
Personally I would prefer to see Feats turned into Class Ability Trees. These would be class abilities fleshed out and the Player could choose to either follow an entire tree or to split up to different trees for versitility.
With Unearthed Arcana they introduced Traits and Flaws. Everyone LOVES Traits, but oddly no one embraces Flaws. These really do try to achieve the Advantages and Disadvantages from GURPS, and seem to keep more of that flavor.
Get rid of Feats and make them Class Ability Trees, embrace Traits and Flaws and actually use them to build character flavor.
As for power gamers spoiling the fun for others, that will always happen. Every game system can be manipulated to produce uber powered characters. It is up to the GM and players to keep that in check.
|
I am sure that feats were heavily influenced by GURPS which used Advantages and Disadvatages. The idea behind those was to have a wide range of interesting choices to flesh out your character and get a better unique feel. Yes, they had game related mechanics associated with them, but you could take things like Attractive and Near Sighted. These really were ways to customize the feel of your character.
Personally I would prefer to see Feats turned into Class Ability Trees. These would be class abilities fleshed out and the Player could choose to either follow an entire tree or to split up to different trees for versitility.
With Unearthed Arcana they introduced Traits and Flaws. Everyone LOVES Traits, but oddly no one embraces Flaws. These really do try to achieve the Advantages and Disadvantages from GURPS, and seem to keep more of that flavor.
Get rid of Feats and make them Class Ability Trees, embrace Traits and Flaws and actually use them to build character flavor.
As for power gamers spoiling the fun for others, that will always happen. Every game system can be manipulated to produce uber powered characters. It is up to the GM and players to keep that in check.
Ummm people tend to take flaws to get the extra feat. Even on CO boards people recommend taking flaws... And I hate Class Ability trees they tend to pigeon hole certain classes. I want to take power attack on my fighting cleric, nope but you can take this lovely healing tree.
Personally I would prefer to see Feats turned into Class Ability Trees.
I'd hate that. The game should not be moving closer to a strict class system.
The reason 3e works is because it doesn't shoehorn you into a role depending on your class.
Get rid of Feats and make them Class Ability Trees, embrace Traits and Flaws and actually use them to build character flavor.
I'm not a friend of disadvantages really. Too much open to powergaming (since we're talking about things to fight powergaming) as you pick something that won't come up and spend the points.
The only time I saw something I liked was nWoD, where you don't get the points before the disadvantage was a disadvantage.
a "secret recipe" for each magic item that any spellcaster can follow, as long as they can cast the right spells.Secrecy.
Ur doin it worng!
Huh? Why should one feat tell me how to create every magic item in existence without doing any research beforehand (even if they require spells that I've never even heard of in order to create)?
That makes about as much sense as saying "Researching spells: Ur doin it worng!"
Oh, let me translate it for you:
LOL FAIL! DO NOT WANT!
LOL FAIL! DO NOT WANT!
"You guys are made of suck." ;)
I see the feats and skills developing out of the proficiencies, traits and flaws section of the skills chapter of 2nd edition D&D.
what Pathfinder Cleric won't choose Selective Channeling? I mean, you may put it off for a level or three, but who doesn't pick it at some point in time? That's the kind of Feat I think the system could do without, the automatic, no-sense-not-having-it kind of choice.Agreed -- some feats are so much better than others that it's a no-brainer; they're less options than requirements ("Well, I can choose not to take them," people might say. Yes, and you can choose for your character to be blind and without the use of his legs as well, but, honestly, who does? And please nobody tell me that "it's all about role playing!" because I totally disagree that only fundamentally crippled characters can provide RP opportunities).
There are two ways of fixing that disparity: (a) nerf the better feats so that they're no longer as good (much as Pathfinder did with Power Attack), or (b) improve with worse feats so that they're on a par with the better ones (as Pathfinder started to do with Dodge, but ultimately dropped the ball IMO). Given that wizards and clerics are awesome with or without feats, and that fighters don't have anything at all going for them except feats, I'm firmly in the camp of option (b), especially with respect to combat feats. Make 'em all scale with BAB, says I! So Dodge might give +1 AC, +1/4 points of BAB -- a 20th level fighter would be getting a +6 AC bonus out of it, whereas a 20th level wizard gets only +3.
Yeah, about what I feel. I hope the final is better than what it is looking like in beta.
I'm in the camp of "make the combat feats do special things just for fighters" and "Remove the prerequisites for fighters only for these feats"
After all if a Monk with a Dex of 7 can figure out how to dodge or spring attack a fighter should be able to as well.
Since everyone else gets something in addition to the ability to take the feats.
Personally I agree that feats have become too reliant on making characters more powerful than anything else. Truthfully I wish that most of the feats would simply provide non-combat or non-power abilities (such as the track feat, being able to track a foe is hardly overpowering and the ability to do so makes the character mroe interesting).
My advice to fix feats would be:
(1): Remove bonus feats as class features...seriously, if feats are meant to represent character's being unique, how does taking levels in fighter make you more "unique"?
(2): Make feats less combat focused and more focused on granting the character unique options. If someone does a hard-hitting barabrian with a great weapon, I'd rather the excessive damage came frmo a combination of class feautres, weapon choice and a high strength score, not from simply taking the Power Attack feat (a feat which I feel can still be too powerful despite the nerf Paizo made).
(3): Make more general feats. I can't count of number of times I pick up a splat-book to look for an interesting feat and find half of them require levels in this class or that class or even two or three seperate classes. Remember that if classes are taken equally and a feat has "Rage" as a prerequisite, only 1 in 11 characters will ever take that feat (and thats assuming core-only classes).
I'm in the camp of "make the combat feats do special things just for fighters" and "Remove the prerequisites for fighters only for these feats"
After all if a Monk with a Dex of 7 can figure out how to dodge or spring attack a fighter should be able to as well.
Since everyone else gets something in addition to the ability to take the feats.
I can see the idea of removing some of the requirement for feats for fighters. That is a great idea. However making feats just for fighters, if that is what your suggesting, I don't know.
You don't need anything in a game, really. Why I want feats is because I like a certain amount of mechanical complexity in my games and because I like my characters to be mechanically distinct from one another and from other characters of the same class. In addition, there's a feeling of exploration, of play, in figuring out how to make a character concept work. Finally, they're a vehicle for DMs to pull surprises on PCs, without the myriad dangers of DM fiat and unfairness.
Huh?
I guess the implication was that if everybody knows the secret recipe, it's not really secret.
(1): Remove bonus feats as class features
I like the idea of bonus feats selected from a list. It is better than fixed class abilities (since it allows more customisation of the classes) and better than character ability trees (because it doesn't limit those abilities to certain classes), but still supports the class-ical archetypes without overdoing it.
Besides, removing bonus feats as class features would have to wait for PF2.0, anyway.
(2): Make feats less combat focused and more focused on granting the character unique options. If someone does a hard-hitting barabrian with a great weapon, I'd rather the excessive damage came frmo a combination of class feautres, weapon choice and a high strength score, not from simply taking the Power Attack feat (a feat which I feel can still be too powerful despite the nerf Paizo made).
Why instead of? Why not in addition to?
Plus, again, classes need to be more open, not less open.
(3): Make more general feats. I can't count of number of times I pick up a splat-book to look for an interesting feat and find half of them require levels in this class or that class or even two or three seperate classes. Remember that if classes are taken equally and a feat has "Rage" as a prerequisite, only 1 in 11 characters will ever take that feat (and thats assuming core-only classes).
Feats like that could indeed become class talent trees, because they basically are already.
I guess the implication was that if everybody knows the secret recipe, it's not really secret.
Huh?
Huh? Why would everyone know how to create (say) an Apparatus of Kwalish? Why shouldn't it require some research?