So what's the consensus? How many DMs out there feel the feats from that book were just too much to allow into their 3.5 or Pathfinder games? As a side note, how many DMs out there limit their Pathfinder games to Pathfinder feats only?
Honestly, I've never even heard of that book before.
However, if a player brought it to me I'd approach it with the same methodology I approach every book. Go through it, power up the trap options (or flat ban them if I can see no meaningful purpose to them, or combine them into something meaningful), tone down the crazy feats (Like this one feat somebody was discussing that gave a character Init = to their int bonus, and stacked with everything else. Yeah... I'd hit that with the nerf bat) into a strong, reasonable balance point.
For the record I'm also not above homebrewing material as well, though feats are the easiest. (they were the hardest when trying to find a baseline to make them work as one of the Fighter's biggest class features, but once that was done they're easy to all bring into general alignment)
Well there's also the feat Two Handed Power Strike which gives a melee character 2x his Strength bonus instead of 1.5x when using a two handed melee weapon. Is that unbalanced? What about the one that gives an auto AoO everytime someone attempts to grapple them and whatever damage they deal with that AoO counts as a grapple check bonus against the grappler? Or the one (heavy prerequisites aside) that lets you take a point of Wisdom damage to totally negate all damage from a single attack? Or the one that lets you add your Cha or Wis bonus to all caster level checks to overcome SR and to counterspell? Or the one that allows you to use your round's AoO as an auto readied Counterspell? Are all the feats in the book that powerful? No, but enough of them are that a lot of DMs in my area don't like to allow the book at all just on principle.
Dork Lord wrote: Well there's also the feat Two Handed Power Strike which gives a melee character 2x his Strength bonus instead of 1.5x when using a two handed melee weapon. Is that unbalanced? What about the one that gives an auto AoO everytime someone attempts to grapple them and whatever damage they deal with that AoO counts as a grapple check bonus against the grappler? Or the one (heavy prerequisites aside) that lets you take a point of Wisdom damage to totally negate all damage from a single attack? Or the one that lets you add your Cha or Wis bonus to all caster level checks to overcome SR and to counterspell? Or the one that allows you to use your round's AoO as an auto readied Counterspell? Are all the feats in the book that powerful? No, but enough of them are that a lot of DMs in my area don't like to allow the book at all just on principle. Going to comment on them one at a time.
Two Handed Power Strike: Not a bad feat, one level of Exotic Weapon Master could get it for you from 3.5. Approved
The one that gives the Auto AoO actually was published by other people as well, in Dragon # 309, but more versatile. I would allow the other one, but certainly wouldn't call it overpowered. (If the damage grapple check were the avoid grapple check I would advocate using the other feat, but if it allowed them a bonus to make a grapple this one is the one.
Taking a single point of wisdom damage to negate damage from an attack is borked because some attacks can generate MASSIVE ammounts of damage and that's the only hit for the turn. (Charging smiting lance paladin of doom I'm looking at you.) I would probably modify it to burn 1 point of wisdom to negate damage equal to three times their character level, and let them burn as many at once for a given attack as they wished.
I approve the one that adds casting trait to casterlevel checks. Infact I think I may steal that one for my own campaign lol.
For the AoO counterspelling, I'd probably swap it to Immediate Action instead, but it's a good idea. (Perhaps a secondary feat they can take that lets them burn AoO's after using up their immediate action)
Honestly I've got no major problem with the feats presented, and if the bulk of the feats were significantly weaker they probably wouldn't make it into my campaign.
Well I mention those feats because what they give you is huge compared to say Weapon Focus or Dodge (+1 to something for an entire feat.... wheee). Some seem to feel that a feat should be something minor and that a feat that gives you a huge benefit with no prerequisite feats should be disallowed.
Dork Lord wrote: Well I mention those feats because what they give you is huge compared to say Weapon Focus or Dodge (+1 to something for an entire feat.... wheee). Some seem to feel that a feat should be something minor and that a feat that gives you a huge benefit with no prerequisite feats should be disallowed. Well, to put it into perspective, I've houseruled dodge and mobility into a single feat, and Weapon Focus scales with level (add the benefits of weapon specialization, greater weapon focus, and greater weapon spec at the appropriate BAB's as if fighter levels, and add an additional +1 attack at level 16 and +2 damage at level 20) To let fighter's still be special with it they take weapon focus in entire weapon training groups as opposed to a single weapon.
I use that book along with others
Tome of feats
Gryphons net book of feats
the netbook of feats
critical feats
rage feats
turning feats
and kalamars anti feats
im currently playing a duelest/swashbuckler that has feats from several sorces that i planed ahead of time as to which ones ill take when i progress in levels. if the feat is logical and doesnt unbalance the game then ya its good. if its over powered enough to throw the game off, nurf it.
vikking wrote: if its over powered enough to throw the game off, nurf it. Like this one?
"Irresistible Spell (Metagamagic)"
Take a spell that normally has a savings throw (think like Baleful Polymorph). That spell has no savings throw. This spell uses up a slot 4 levels higher.
Ouch.
its up to you as the GM to decide what you want to allow and what to nurf. if you think its not right for your game then don't allow it, its that simple. yes allot of the feats are out of control and need to be tweaked in order for them to be properly balanced.
Dork Lord wrote: vikking wrote: if its over powered enough to throw the game off, nurf it. Like this one?
"Irresistible Spell (Metagamagic)"
Take a spell that normally has a savings throw (think like Baleful Polymorph). That spell has no savings throw. This spell uses up a slot 4 levels higher.
Ouch. The really dirty thing about that spell, is that one of the big weaknesses of metamagicked spells is their reduced spell DC compared to normal spells of the level.
I think, if I were to allow that feat, it wouldn't apply to any instantaneous, only spells that generate an extended effect, and it would also reduce the duration by 1 category. (rounds per caster level to 1 round, minutes per caster level to 1 round, etc etc)
To be fair to the Dodge feat, it does directly increase your AC (vs. all opponents now) and dodge bonuses stack with themselves.
Arakhor wrote: To be fair to the Dodge feat, it does directly increase your AC (vs. all opponents now) and dodge bonuses stack with themselves. Yeah, it's still more of an entry feat than anything, but at least now it matters. In 3.5 it was the kind of thing you tended to forget about.
Arakhor wrote: To be fair to the Dodge feat, it does directly increase your AC (vs. all opponents now) and dodge bonuses stack with themselves. You're right, a whole +1 to AC. That's way broken. ;-)
I've always thought that feats giving you a bonus to something of +1 was way underpowered for what feats are capable of. I never take Dodge and I never take Weapon Focus for that exact reason.
In the games I run though, I've totally done away with Greater Weapon Focus and now Dodge and WF give cumulative bonuses every 4 levels... meaning at level 20 that Dodge feat gives you +6 to AC. -That's- worth a feat imo.
I agree that Dodge is an entry-level feat, so next time I run a campaign, I might consider beefing it up.
It seems I'm dreadfully late in this reply. No matter, I'm rather fond of conjuring dead things back. "Mutters Abra Cadaver under breadth."
Now; Mongoose, The publishers of Ultimate Feats are rather notorious for producing sourcebooks at an alarming rate. Much like a sex addicted bunny who's been awakened and converted to the faith of the goddess of pleasure and debauchery. This is due to a large staff of various writers who run the gamut of experience; from veterans to amateurs. Which, in turn, translates that Within any given Mongoose book, you'll find gems and treasures embedded in goblinoid fecal biscuits. (No offense to Mongoose I rather enjoy their supplements and own a few of them.)
Its also worth noting that the content within Ultimate feats has material from about seven other 3rd party publishers beside Mongoose itself.
And that many feats from Mongoose are reworked from their D20Conan setting. A setting that puts more emphasis on grittier and faster combat. So, many combat feats tend to be hardier. Other settings like modernD20 feats are incorporated into the book as well.
All in all. Not every feat will be compatible for your setting.
Its not a simple reference of Compatible feats u can inject into your game world. Its a an outline of what you want your feats to be. Of what they could be.
Like everything in Roleplaying. Take what is desired, tweak when needed or wanted..and toss those ever aromatic loafs of goblin excrement to the oozes you've been breeding.
Like the idea but not the wording? Word it differently.
In dealing with something you think is too powerful. Limit it, twist it, throw it on a unique villain to make him even more memorable. Attach it to a society or build a prestige class around it, or give it to epic play. Give it a draw back... Or simply make them work for it.
Whatever the case just enjoy it, and make it yours.
Dork Lord wrote: So what's the consensus? How many DMs out there feel the feats from that book were just too much to allow into their 3.5 or Pathfinder games? As a side note, how many DMs out there limit their Pathfinder games to Pathfinder feats only? As for the last part of this question.
I would have to say that every setting, Demands creativity and every setting is 3rd party friendly. Why else would they have unexplored continents... If not to have a way to introduce new races! New magical formulae and methods of casting, prestige classes, Class Variants, and feats?
I'd have to say that pathfinder itself encourages it. As every region is a setting unto itself. Never wholey defined but always hinted at. From Gothic horror campaigns of Ustalav. To the techno savvy wizardry of Numeria. Kingdom building in the River kingdoms?. Pathfinder was created to absorb 3.5 previous publications not dismiss them, and every region is a style of play; or simply an extension of your style. A way to introduce the 3rd party content pathfinder hasn't written anything for.
Before pathfinder my main setting was the Forgotten Realms. But across
the trackless sea, south of Maztica rested "the continent" a land of men and darkness. Where ancient evils walked just beyond mortal perception; and a little city of pirates called Freeport nestled off its cost. Zakhara become its Hamunaptra.
And so my realms joined with Green ronin's mythic vistas and Freeport setting. (A little tweak to the timeline and it fit effortlessly in)
I think every region had a style in mind. More D20modern/spelljammers would find Numeria more comfortable. While those lovers of Call of Cthulhu, Ravenloft, and Freeport settings would find Ustalav more to their liking.
the feats in Ultimate Feats were pretty redundant with Feats later published in most of 3.5's splat books. Some were in the PHB, some in later version that were basically better (Arcane Strike in UF is dreadful compared to either Arcane Strike in the Complete Warrior AND Smiting Spell in PHB2, which resembles the feat in UF).
Basically there's a lot of crap in the book with just a few gems hidden here and there amongst the 250+ pages. The worse part is the reprinting of most, if not ALL, of the 3.0 feats from the PHB that were updated with 3.5 but not in this book (Spell Focus in UF is still +2 to DC instead of +1). So you can't even look at this book as a giant collection of up-to-date feats or a one-shop source of them.
I mean, if someone were to ask me about a feat in there or a couple I'd look them over and then cross-reference them with actual feats in 3.5 to see if there were any reprints/errata then either OK it or ban it.
As for allowing feats from 3.5 into Pathfinder, were I to DM pathfinder then I'd probably allow it. In fact I even encourage some cross-contamination between the two, especially with some of the later feats like the Reserve ones from Complete Mage and most of the Tome of Battle (Path of War is good too though).
Recent threads in 3.5/d20/OGL
|
