Question of balance etc for a new feat


Homebrew and House Rules


what do you all think about this as a feat

Dauntless
You have faced many dangers and are able to steel yourself from fear
Prerequisites:, Iron Will, Wisdom 14
Benefit: You are immune to fear (magical or otherwise)

any thoughts on balance, proper prerequisites etc

thanks in advance


Looks good to me, though I would reduce the wisdom requirement to 13, it falls into line with most of the other stat requirements.


With Iron Will as a prerequisite feat, I would probably go with a Wis 15 rather than 13. Outright immunity is pretty generous for a feat a character can (theoretically) start a campaign with.


Turin the Mad wrote:
With Iron Will as a prerequisite feat, I would probably go with a Wis 15 rather than 13. Outright immunity is pretty generous for a feat a character can (theoretically) start a campaign with.

Outright immunity to a single item my friend. Devoting two feats to that is a big investment during early levels.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I absolutely hate ability score prereqs. Make it require that much Wis and rare is the Fighter that will take it, while you will suddenly have many more fearles Clerics and Druids.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
With Iron Will as a prerequisite feat, I would probably go with a Wis 15 rather than 13. Outright immunity is pretty generous for a feat a character can (theoretically) start a campaign with.
Outright immunity to a single item my friend. Devoting two feats to that is a big investment during early levels.

True - and I agree with TriOmegaZero's counterpoint as well.

However, with Iron Will/Wis 13 and this feat - your character fears nothing. If fear effects are going to play heavily in a campaign I can see the potential for this as a campaign trait though...

Pondering this further (in rambling fashion) I do believe that kyrt-ryder's suggestion is the best one: Wis 13, Iron Will are sufficient pre-requisites for the feat.

Maybe "live test" it during a character build session some time and see how many players glomp onto it - preferably across several (dozen) groups - to perhaps get a better feel for it?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:

However, with Iron Will/Wis 13 and this feat - your character fears nothing. If fear effects are going to play heavily in a campaign I can see the potential for this as a campaign trait though...

Pondering this further (in rambling fashion) I do believe that kyrt-ryder's suggestion is the best one: Wis 13, Iron Will are sufficient pre-requisites for the feat.

I could bear those prereqs. I do agree that it will be either better or worse depending on how often fear effects come into play in the campaign.


My only real thought in making this feat was that virtually the only character who can shrug off fear effects is the Paladin and they get it at the lowly level of 3. It just seemed to me that either those with a fierce will or battle hardened veterans would at some point would overcome their fear or simply lack that emotion.

I agree with all the posters that it does depend on the prevalence of fear inducing effects.

It looks like Wisdom 13, and Iron will would probably suffice as prerequisites. To me that Wisdom score is above average showing a strong force of personality and Iron Will is that choice to steel yourself against fear.

However, what about instead of 'immunity' the character would apply their half their level to their Will save vs fear effects such as:

Dauntless
You have faced many dangers and are able to steel yourself from fear
Prerequisites:, Iron Will, Wisdom 13
Benefit: You may add 1/2 your level to your Will saves verses fear effects

thanks again for all the input


Personally, I absolutely DESPISE absolutes.

Immune to fear.. Buddy.. I'm sure if a god stares you down, you're gonna s@!@ yourself.


Eyolf The Wild Commoner wrote:

Personally, I absolutely DESPISE absolutes.

Immune to fear.. Buddy.. I'm sure if a god stares you down, you're gonna s~*# yourself.

You have a point, that is why I suggested the level based modifier. however, apparently paladins at third level can stare down a god ;)


to reflect battle hardening etc here is what I'm going to go with unless there are any more suggestions

Dauntless
You have faced many dangers and are able to steel yourself from fear
Prerequisites:, Iron Will, Wisdom 12, Base attack bonus +7
Benefit: You are immune to fear (magical or otherwise)

I think this is fair it fulfills all the motivations I had in creating it now and i think it preserves enough balance. Besides NPC's can take the feat too

thanks again for the input


Kaliban Gabriel wrote:
Eyolf The Wild Commoner wrote:

Personally, I absolutely DESPISE absolutes.

Immune to fear.. Buddy.. I'm sure if a god stares you down, you're gonna s~*# yourself.

You have a point, that is why I suggested the level based modifier. however, apparently paladins at third level can stare down a god ;)

Yeah, well they soon won't in my campaigns.

Absolutes will probably not exist in my campaigns when I'm done.

Think certain protection from evil spells are gonna stop a Demon Lord.. Uhm... I don't think so, sit the f$+~ down and prepare to have your soul reaped little level 6 cleric.


Eyolf The Wild Commoner wrote:

Personally, I absolutely DESPISE absolutes.

Immune to fear.. Buddy.. I'm sure if a god stares you down, you're gonna s@#@ yourself.

I agree. Immunities are a no-no in my campaign worlds, apart from some apparent, rare exceptions (a skeleton IS immune to most poisons, a fire elemental IS immune to fire and so on).

I'd say remove the wisdom requirement, and make the effect "whenever saving against fear, roll 1d20 two times and keep the best result". That's how the paladins ability works in my campaign, and it makes it far harder to fail.


stringburka wrote:
Eyolf The Wild Commoner wrote:

Personally, I absolutely DESPISE absolutes.

Immune to fear.. Buddy.. I'm sure if a god stares you down, you're gonna s@#@ yourself.

I agree. Immunities are a no-no in my campaign worlds, apart from some apparent, rare exceptions (a skeleton IS immune to most poisons, a fire elemental IS immune to fire and so on). A vampire isn't immune to poison, and a fire giant would have high fire resistance - but not immunity.

I'd say remove the wisdom requirement, and make the effect "whenever saving against fear, roll 1d20 two times and keep the best result". That's how the paladins ability works in my campaign, and it makes it far harder to fail.


stringburka wrote:


I'd say remove the wisdom requirement, and make the effect "whenever saving against fear, roll 1d20 two times and keep the best result". That's how the paladins ability works in my campaign, and it makes it far harder to fail.

I like that, you may have changed my mind on this, and Paladin immunity


Why in the nine hells did no one suggest IMPROVED IRON-WILL as a prerequisite for such a feat yet?

I'm doing it now, in fact, I DEMAND that it be a prerequisite.

Reads the quote in the post above mine

Why not just make the Paladin's ability give +10 against fear instead of giving him the Improved Iron Will feat.

Then he would have a +10 vs fear, and could go and take the Imp Iron Will if he wanted.

It appears that all of you forgot about the PF Core feat IMP Iron Will.


Eyolf The Wild Commoner wrote:

Why in the nine hells did no one suggest IMPROVED IRON-WILL as a prerequisite for such a feat yet?

I'm doing it now, in fact, I DEMAND that it be a prerequisite.

Reads the quote in the post above mine

Why not just make the Paladin's ability give +10 against fear instead of giving him the Improved Iron Will feat.

Then he would have a +10 vs fear, and could go and take the Imp Iron Will if he wanted.

It appears that all of you forgot about the PF Core feat IMP Iron Will.

And then there are those of us who think the core IMP Iron Will feat is a piss poor feat.

It eats a FEAT slot, and it gives you a chance to reroll (without even knowing for a fact if you fail) once per day in a very limited area.

(I've houseruled it to rerolling one failed save, after the DM declares it failed, one per encounter. I'd wanted to go 3 times per day, but that's a problem when you can hand it over to monsters that can bust them all out in their only fight.)


Actually, I didn't read it like that in core.

I interpreted it as

You may reroll, so long as you've not revealed to the DM or players what the result was.

Meaning.

-In your head- Sh... a 5.. that's a 9... probably won't make it.
-Out Loud- I'm going to use my Imp Iron Will to reroll
-DM- Okay.
-Out Loud- Alright, my save is 8+4, that's 12. Do I make it?

Aside from that, I think that house ruling the Paladin gets a +10 vs fear is better than an additional reroll. That's my opinion.

Personally, I'm against absolutes.

So what ends up happening for me, is that in a generally rough area what I'm thinking is immune creatures depending on type and stuff will instead have resistances varying from 50-150.


Aside from that, if people would post in my threads, we could probably get this feat point system flowing.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/communityContent/houseRules/pATHFINDERFEATPOINTSYSTEMPROJECT

Then it wouldn't be a waste.

I should go hunt down Sean >.>


I've got no problem with your houserule Eyolf, 99% of the time that functions as immunity to fear for the Paladin against level appropriate enemies (especially considering his good will save and cha bonus to saves)

You read the feat the same way I did, I just don't feel that's worthwhile for a feat, especially one with a prerequisite.

Like I said, I houseruled the feat to work after the roll's been declared a failure, and to function once per encounter (Though I'm not really a fan of encounter powers... Once per day per adversary might be better..)


I have no problem with characters who are appropriately invested featwise to gain immunity to fear. I think for prerequisites I'd use: Level 8+, Wis 13+, and Iron will OR Bravery +2 class ability.

As the feat obviates a flavorful fighter ability, it only seems fair to make it easier for them to take the fearless route.

To those of you can't stomach the idea of being immune to fear: What this feat represents is immunity to rules-based fear effects. These effects typically remove some degree of player control of their character, so all the feat does is restore it. A fearless fighter would still rightly quake in the face of a god - they just wouldn't be compelled to do so by a die roll, and suffer specific in-game penalties for doing so.

And honestly, replacing a Paladin's immunity to fear with a +10 to checks? You may as well say "You're immune to fear until you roll a 1 on the will save". That makes a lot *less* sense from a roleplaying perspective than complete immunity. Like suddenly, the 14th mummy you run into *really* creeps you out more than the others. Ugh.


In his defense, it's +10 AND roll two d20's and take the better result.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
In his defense, it's +10 AND roll two d20's and take the better result.

At that point, I have to say it's kind of silly to even be keeping book on the roll. If they only fail 1 in 400 times, why clutter up the game with rolling at all?

I mean, dice are fun, but really?


Maeloke wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
In his defense, it's +10 AND roll two d20's and take the better result.

At that point, I have to say it's kind of silly to even be keeping book on the roll. If they only fail 1 in 400 times, why clutter up the game with rolling at all?

I mean, dice are fun, but really?

You do have a point, but I think he's going that route because he wants significantly higher CR fears to still be failed sometimes.

It's fine, in his mind, for the 13th level Paladin to be virtually immune to fear against the CR 13ish Dragon, but he wants there to be a very real risk of failure vs the CR 20 Dragon's frightful presense that he was too foolish (or reckless, some Paladins I've seen played tended towards recklessness) to avoid.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
It's fine, in his mind, for the 13th level Paladin to be virtually immune to fear against the CR 13ish Dragon, but he wants there to be a very real risk of failure vs the CR 20 Dragon's frightful presense that he was too foolish (or reckless, some Paladins I've seen played tended towards recklessness) to avoid.

Honestly though, what's wrong with Paladins being left to their reckless devices? So what if he's immune to the fear aura - a CR 20 dragon obliterates a 13th level paladin in 1 round anyhow. If the player roleplaying the paladin can't be bothered to acknowledge that, then the character deserves to die anyhow.

And for the record, it's still a pretty moot effort.

Base 13th pally will save is around +17 (8 base + ~4 cha + ~2 wis + ~3 cloak of resistance). Tack on the extra 10 for the fearless bit and the paladin needs to roll a 3 on two dice to beat the DC 30 (which is where such dragons sit). He fails once for every hundred dragons he charges idiotically.


Maeloke wrote:
Honestly though, what's wrong with Paladins being left to their reckless devices? So what if he's immune to the fear aura - a CR 20 dragon obliterates a 13th level paladin in 1 round anyhow. If the player roleplaying the paladin can't be bothered to acknowledge that, then the character deserves to die anyhow.

I think it's simply a matter of flavour. I like Paladins being exceptional characters (compared to commoners and other NPC's), but I don't like them being immune to a very rational feeling. It's unnatural, and something I'd keep to only mindless creatures. First of all, in my opinion absolutes generally makes for a more boring world. When a 3rd-level paladin cannot be affected by a gods frightful presence, it feels wrong. And I like "immune to fear" to mean "immune to fear", not some "immune to fear but only the statistical effects, not the feeling". It feels weird.

It's a matter of taste, but that's how I like it. And I go by 2d20 keep one, without the +10.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Question of balance etc for a new feat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules