What is the point of defining these as feats, since no one will take them but Inquisitors, who remove the basic drawback? It's not likely two characters in a group are going to take matching feats, and what happens if one of them dies?
Well, they make very thematic feats for NPCs when building encounters. I know new feats are usually something you want to entice players with, but when I first saw those feats the DM part of my mind went into overdrive thinking about all the new options I can give the soldiers in the AP I'm running.
Overall, as a player I dislike feats that only give a bonus when others have the same feat as you. It means you have to make this a party concept, and no longer a single character concept.
What would be nice is if you could get a minor bonus for a semi-rare situation, and then inflate that bonus when someone else has that feat as well, or when certain actions are done (such as someone doing aid another with you, or succeeding a skill check like perform (oratory) to communicate with others, etc).
The summoner in my group looked at the feats and said ooh, those look awesome, and starting working them into his and Big E's builds. He died at lvl 1 though, so he didn't get a chance to use them.
Well they work really well with the inquisitor especially since they can change their last tactical feat they learned on the fly.
You could give them to a cohort or even an animal companion if you wanted.
I could definately see 2 PC's selecting some of these feats, since you are working together so often.
I could see a fighter and rogue (or fighter and barb, or barb and rogue, or really anyone nearly) taking the Precise Strike feat.
An extra 1d6 per attack when you are flanking isn't really a bad deal.
The same with Outflank and the other "flank for fun and profit" type feats, really. I mean lets face it- melee generally try to flank anyway.. why not add extra biscuits ontop of it?
The ones that require you to be adjacent to an ally, I found to be less useful.
PC's
"hey buddy lets group up for our feats"
BBEG with an IQ
"hey, look, they are grouped up nicely.. where did that fireball spell go?"
-S
I'm going to be making a rogue soon, a friend is making a ranger, i'm going to get him to grab all the flanking feats with me... we'll kill everything.
Does anyone eles find it a bit weird that you can gain the benefits of these feats, even if your partner is paralyzed, flat-footed, maybe even petrified or dead?
They are pretty sweet.
If you make your rogue with 2 levels of fighter and human you get three feats at first level, another feat at second level +2 BAB, full weapon proficiency, and access to the +1 BAB req feats. You can use 1 of those 4 feats for Precise Strike and keep your exact same sneak attack damage progression as a normal rogue when you fight with your ranger. Very tasty if you want to be a heavy combat rogue and not a skill monkey.
Or make a reflex save unconscious?
What is the point of defining these as feats, since no one will take them but Inquisitors, who remove the basic drawback? It's not likely two characters in a group are going to take matching feats, and what happens if one of them dies?
Me and a guy in my party are currently taking plenty, we think they rock. I guess it all depends on your play style.
Does anyone eles find it a bit weird that you can gain the benefits of these feats, even if your partner is paralyzed, flat-footed, maybe even petrified or dead?
I'd say that the other feat user has to be able to participate or it's a no go. It's explicit in the one feat where you switch places and, imo, intended in the others. Dead, paralyzed, unconscious people are not able to participate. I'm fairly certain that the final wording of these feats will reflect that. And, if not, that's why you have a DM. To rule out stupidity... even RAW.
I love the tactical feats, even if only inquisitors are the only one taking them.. which I do not think is true at all.
It is where they are described, outside Core, next to where the inquisitor is described.
I see plenty of room to use them with cohorts, animal companions, eidolons, familiars, other player characters.. sure why not, should one of the players withdraw from the campaign most DM's will allow you to pick another feat, maybe give him a backup feat for when the other player(s) are not there.
I have scanned them briefly, but I think they get even nastier with multiple players taking those feats, since you can have people adjacent and flanking at the same time on multiple occasions.
|
I like tactical feats, they really encourage players to play as a team instead of building their characters every man for himself. And even if they play them every man for themselves are we forgetting that special feat Leadership? There isn't a single class that can't benefit from having tactical feats even if no-one else in the party takes them.
So are each of these feats worth two other feats?
So are each of these feats worth two other feats?
Thats the thing. They aren't really. 1 feat for 1 character and 1 feat for annother character is quite the same as 2 feats. And both people get bennefit, and the benefitt for some of them is pretty damn good, so I see no reason why these aren't good feats.
So are each of these feats worth two other feats?
if you create a well balanced team of characters, and are playing with plaers who use teamwork (not the.."I don't heal" cleric who only buffs himself)then these feats are well worth it.
I agree they are mostly awesome as a DM tool, like the teamwork benefits in PHB II 3.5 and a few other sources.
Some relatively low level characters can really leave an impression on the PC's, ofcourse they will find ways to disturb these tactics if they have half a brain, but it does add an element to combat.
I myself like them and can so see groups taking them, I often have 2 fighters in my games so I can see this every easy
Hey, Jess, I took Lookout. Now maybe I can attack during the surprise round instead of getting attacked.
So are each of these feats worth two other feats?Thats the thing. They aren't really. 1 feat for 1 character and 1 feat for annother character is quite the same as 2 feats. And both people get bennefit, and the benefitt for some of them is pretty damn good, so I see no reason why these aren't good feats.
Hey, I agree with Caineach about something! There's hope for the world after all! :p
Yeah, some of the tactical feats are kinda meh, but there's enough good ones to prove the concept sound to me.
|
Personally, I think that they are a little underwhelming for the restrictions they impose. So you took a feat that only functions while you are really damn close to the other person in the party that also took the feat. I guess that pretty much means that you two are attached at the hip for the rest of the game, and one of you gets screwed over if the other dies; unless of course his next character has the same feat...
Some of them are neat, like Outflank and the Precise Attack one, but almost all of the other ones are lackluster. For the most part, unless you have completely twin characters, one person is going to be taking a feat that helps someone else more than it helps themselves (which isn't necessarily bad, but it's not a position I would want to be in). But I guess I'm just stuck on the "two or more characters must have this feat or it's useless" part. Break out the sovereign glue, 'cause you're not going anywhere without me if we both take one of these feats.
Where are you going without your group anyway?
I do realize that different groups do different things, but for us the first 5 rules of adventuring have always been 'Do not go off alone'. Whether or not you have these feats- why aren't you with the group?
I think they rather give bonuses for doing things you are already doing.
The fighter and rogue are /already/ setting up flanking. Why not take a feat to get extra benefits while doing it?
It'd be like wizards getting a feat that gives them extra spells per day but only when they memorize their spells. They are doing the action anyway- why not get extra benefit?
-S
|
|
Notice that I did say that the flanking ones are the only good ones (in my opinion). Every one of the feats (other than the flanking ones) only give you the benefit if you are glued to your team mate, and realistically (due to initiative being what it is) you and your ally will never act at the exact same time, meaning if you want to move you will only ever get this benefit half of the time (or abuse the Delay action and Ready action).
EDIT: please don't get snarky with me, Selgard. It's unbecoming.
Eh? I wasn't getting snarky, and if it came across that way I apologize as it was not my intent.
Different groups do play differently.. I've read of some who actively split up to do things. The groups I've been in just never, ever do so.
In a group that frequently split up to do things, I can see the tactical feats getting very very little use.
-S