Blind Fight
Combat Expertise
Mounted Combat
Mounted Archery
Mobility
Improved Unarmed Strike
Far Shot
Fleet
Rapid Reload
Quick Draw
Two-Weapon Defense
Enlarge Spell
Heighten Spell
Maximize Spell
Widen Spell
Endurance
Run
Wow. Gods, no.
Ok, so the point of a trait is to a) provide a flavorful background for the character and b) provide a small amount of mechanical support to make sure this background isn't simple fluff. I'm not arguing that *some* of those feats aren't worth their feat slot, but they're certainly not traits.
For starters, metamagic should *never* be a trait. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make any sense. I also struggle to see how metamagic feats are situationally useful. Heighten spell is practically a staple for Sorcerers (and probably Oracles now) for use with their higher level spell slots that don't quite have enough spells known to be made use of. 1st level characters aren't even capable of using widen, enlarge, or maximize spell.
Moving on to combat feats: Blind Fight is awesome at the mid to high levels for melee combatants. Ghosts, casters, darkness spells, blindness, etc. all provide uses for the feat. Combat Expertise is great for characters who eschew a shield or really want to pump up their AC to play "tank". Paladins, Eldritch Knights, & certain fighters all jump to mind. Mounted Combat/Archery may seem like "situational" feats, but any character who takes them plans to make *full* use of them. Far Shot is almost required for throwing weapon experts who generally get stuck with short range increments (10'). Entire builds are based on Quick Draw (the switch hitter), and Two-Weapon Defense, while generally on the useless side, doesn't make any sense to give to a character who doesn't have the two-weapon fighting capabilities.
Looking at the rest of them, I'm inclined to say "sure." Mobility, Improved Unarmed Strike, Fleet, Rapid Reload, Endurance, and Run all seem like third tier feats that don't belong in a build save for requirements. I would absolutely say each feat would have its name changed so that it couldn't be used to qualify for prestige classes or other feats.
Well, I do disagree with some of the things on your list (which I'll explain later) but I completely agree with things like "Run" and "Endurance". I'd also say any of the feats that give "+2 to X and Y" should be traits. None of them are prerequisites for anything else so you can't pull the "feat tax" argument that I am going to in a moment.
To add to your list:
Agile Maneuvers (should be a level 1 option)
Alignment/Elemental/Whatever Channel (should be level 1 ACFs)
Improved Counterspell (counterspelling is already too weak)
To rebut some of the things on your list:
Blind-fight makes fighting invisible or stealthed creatures much easier. Lots of rogues rely on an unaware foe or flanking to deal damage in combat. Of relevance is this text:
An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.
So no sneak attack for the invisible rogue. If your GM isn't throwing creatures with class levels at you, then you are missing out on a lot of fun combat.
While Combat Expertise itself isn't that great of a feat, improved trip, improved disarm and even improved feint (and their greater versions) are. Some might even argue that they are slightly better than an average feat (though I wouldn't). They, however, need some prerequisite for them. Combat Expertise works as that prerequisite. I give the same argument for Improved Unarmed Strike. Grappling is a good combat tactic and the Scorpion Style chain is very nice. I've used it to great effect.
I don't think the metamagic feats you listed are too weak for a feat. They may be overpriced as far as the spell cost, but Widen and Enlarge would be useful as +0 metamgics and Maximise should probably only be a +1 or +2 meamagic.
I've got a couple of reworked feats elsewhere, namely Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defense (which scales with level).
I think Mounted Combat and Mounted Archery could be rolled into a single feat, but I don't think they are that useless.
If I didn't comment, then I probably agree with you. Some of the feat/traits would be more powerful with a slight bit of rewording or by rolling them into another feat. Some of them are still loser feats and should probably be traits or ACFs.
Creative Director
|
Not all feats need to be mechanically equal in power. Part of the attraction of the feat system is that they're NOT all exactly equal in power... that kind of restriction would make for a small selection of boring feats, I fear.
Which feats are boring or underpowered depends more upon the theme of the character or NPC that they're being applied to, I think.
And also... don't lose sight of the fact that PCs aren't the only ones who use feats. Monsters and NPCs do as well, and it's often VERY useful to have "boring" feats like Run, Endurance, or the skill adjusting feats for monsters who, thematically, are not going to be taking most other feats (particularly in the case of low-intelligence monsters and feats that require tactical minds to use).
And for the record, I don't feel that any of the OP's original list of feats are underpowered at all. In fact, some of them are QUITE powerful when used by the right type of character. (Anyone who's been shot by a Maximized enervation or tried to fight a mounted archer in melee will agree, for example.)
|
Enlarge Spell
Heighten Spell
Maximize Spell
Widen Spell
While I would agree that the Metamatic feats might be a lot more appealing using some other mechanic than as feats (ideally, some sort of skill-based spellcasting system would just add them as DC increases to the spellcraft check to cast, but that's not something we do here in d20-land), I don't think making them Traits would at all be the right way to go.
You don't have to kill the target to get the extra swing. You just have to hit it.
Is it for those times when a character needs to take a move action to get a single swing at a target that happens to have an additional target adjacent to it, all the while hoping that I'm going to do enough damage with that first swing to kill the target to get the Cleave swing in? On top of all that I get to enjoy a -2 penalty to my armor class for the effort? Just typing this I'm smirking because it doesn't sound like it could really be a feat.
+1
In my opinion, it's more powerful at 1st-level, as it gives most fighters another attack, provided he hits on the first go.
You don't have to kill the target to get the extra swing. You just have to hit it.
Is it for those times when a character needs to take a move action to get a single swing at a target that happens to have an additional target adjacent to it, all the while hoping that I'm going to do enough damage with that first swing to kill the target to get the Cleave swing in? On top of all that I get to enjoy a -2 penalty to my armor class for the effort? Just typing this I'm smirking because it doesn't sound like it could really be a feat.
+1
In my opinion, it's more powerful at 1st-level, as it gives most fighters another attack, provided he hits on the first go.
And the additional attack is at your full BAB so your 6th level fighter can either go +6/+1 and not cleave or +6/+6 with a cleave. I know what I would be doing....
As a certified Evil DM (tm), I wholeheartedly approve of anything that involves the PCs not concentrating all their damage on a single target at a time and thus increasing the amount of damage they take in return.
The new Cleave sucks. The two targets must be adjacent to each other, it cannot be used on a charge, and it becomes useless once you get your second attack unless you know your first target will die in one hit, and totally obsolete once you get your third attack (either through BAB or other feats/spells/etc). Oh yeah, and there's an AC penalty added in for no apparent reason. Feats that become obsolete simply because the character levels up are absolutely awful in a system where you can't change previous choices.
|
Creative Director
|
The new Cleave sucks. The two targets must be adjacent to each other, it cannot be used on a charge, and it becomes useless once you get your second attack unless you know your first target will die in one hit, and totally obsolete once you get your third attack (either through BAB or other feats/spells/etc). Oh yeah, and there's an AC penalty added in for no apparent reason. Feats that become obsolete simply because the character levels up are absolutely awful in a system where you can't change previous choices.
I'm not sure we're reading the same rules. In Pathfinder, Cleave does not require you to kill your target in one hit; you need only hit the target. If you use Cleave and hit the target, you can immediately take an additional attack at any foe adjacent to the first target struck who is also in reach (letting you attack foes behind the first target if you have reach). Whether or not your initial target dies doesn't matter at all. And since this second attack does NOT "consume" any of your iterative attacks for having a base attack bonus above +5, since the additional attack granted by Cleave is in fact a free additional attack, it does NOT become obsolete as you gain levels. In fact, since in theory at higher levels you'll be hitting more often when facing multiple foes, Cleave actually starts to become MORE useful at higher levels.
The AC Penalty is modeling the fact that you're essentially throwing caution to the wind to take advantage of your weapon's momentum and follow your swings through to strike at adjacent foes, a tactic that leaves you open to counterattacks and such. Hence the AC reduction. Basically, the same logic that gives rage or charge an associated AC penalty.
And since this second attack does NOT "consume" any of your iterative attacks for having a base attack bonus above +5, since the additional attack granted by Cleave is in fact a free additional attack, it does NOT become obsolete as you gain levels.
Uh, yes, actually, it does. Cleave is a standard action. You cannot use a standard action and use iterative attacks at the same time. The only advantage in using Cleave from BAB +6 to BAB +10 is that your second attack will be at a higher attack bonus; the disadvantage is that you're taking more damage in return in two different ways: you're not focusing all your firepower on one target (explained below) and you're decreasing your AC. Once you get a third attack, you've actually got a net decrease in damage potential, especially if that third attack is at your highest attack bonus already (ie, haste, a speed weapon, or whatever other similar ability applies).
As for taking more damage by spreading out your damage output, that's quite simple. In D&D, there are no penalties associated with being at low health until you hit 0 hit points or below. Two ogres with 1/30 hit points are MUCH more dangerous and will do much more damage than one ogre with -10/30 hit points and a second ogre with 30/30 hit points. Attacking each ogre once is stupid unless you're absolutely certain that the first ogre will die in a single hit EDIT2: or you're absolutely certain they'll both get finished off before they get to act again. Don't forget that you can choose the targets of your iterative attacks after the previous one resolves, so you don't have to commit to attacking the second ogre with an iterative attack until you know whether your first attack killed the first ogre.
EDIT: And the "you can attack an opponent behind the first if you have reach" is very questionable. You can ALWAYS attack an opponent behind another opponent as long as you have reach to that opponent. They might get a cover bonus (which still applies with Cleave!) but it's doable. Also, a normal PC with a reach weapon cannot attack one opponent that is directly behind another because they only have reach to a one square wide strip of squares. If they can attack the first guy, the one behind him is out of reach. If they can attack the rear fellow, the one in front of him is too close to attack.
I'm not sure we're reading the same rules. In Pathfinder, Cleave does not require you to kill your target in one hit; you need only hit the target. If you use Cleave and hit the target, you can immediately take an additional attack at any foe adjacent to the first target struck who is also in reach (letting you attack foes behind the first target if you have reach). Whether or not your initial target dies doesn't matter at all. And since this second attack does NOT "consume" any of your iterative attacks for having a base attack bonus above +5, since the additional attack granted by Cleave is in fact a free additional attack, it does NOT become obsolete as you gain levels. In fact, since in theory at higher levels you'll be hitting more often when facing multiple foes, Cleave actually starts to become MORE useful at higher levels.
there seem to be an error here, or im reading the rules different..
the cleave feats stats that you are using a standard action to make the attack, and if it hits you may follow up and attack a 2nd target.
You can strike two adjacent foes with a single swing.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single
attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within
reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make
an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus)
against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within
reach. You can only make one additional attack per round
with this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty
to your Armor Class until your next turn.
that would seem to prevent you from using iterative attacks ...right since "as a standard action you can make a SINGLE mele attack"
ofc there is one huge benefit of the feat, if you have to make a move action it will alow you to make a 2nd attack(instead of just one attack)
I'll agree that certain feats are lack luster but I think certain modifications can be made to improve them. Here are a couple suggestions of what I'd do for a few:
Endurance: Change it so you can just sleep in armor, no penalties no matter what category it is. This would make it attractive to armored classes as you wouldn't have to choose between putting your armor on or fighting when the DM throws those night attacks at you.
Mounted Combat: Simply change it so your mount gets its full range of actions in addition to yours, just like a animal companion, familiar, or cohort would. If you and the horse get to act at full effect, the feat becomes much more attractive. Maybe put in that, if the horse charges, the rider counts as charging as well and is limited to the one attack.
Running: Playing rogues, I've taken advantage of the rule that you loose your Dex bonus when running if you don't have this feat, which does make it useful to have but not exciting. What if the Run feat also gave you 2.5 times your base movement when you make a double move or charge rather the 2 times in addition? This means you could move 60ft with a 20ft base movement or 90ft with a 30ft base movement on a double move or charge.
ofc there is one huge benefit of the feat, if you have to make a move action it will alow you to make a 2nd attack(instead of just one attack)
Only if there are two guys standing side-by-side and you're not charging.
Pathfinder's Cleave is only really better than 3.5's Cleave for a character with only one attack per round.
ofc there is one huge benefit of the feat, if you have to make a move action it will alow you to make a 2nd attack(instead of just one attack)Only if there are two guys standing side-by-side and you're not charging.
Pathfinder's Cleave is only really better than 3.5's Cleave for a character with only one attack per round.
you might be right, but still its to good to be a trait.
and combined with wildshap and a single powerfull attack it still have some use.
Here we go again... think I'll go pop some popcorn and get ready, this is gonna be interesting :)
Cleave.
Dear lord what happened to poor Cleave? It used to be a great addition to a melee toon's repertoire, now, as part of a standard action that ALSO incurs a -2 penalty to AC upon use (?!?!), it will likely never be taken by our gaming group again. In its current form I'd consider taking it as a trait. Not as a feat. The rest of my four person gaming group agrees.
I agree COMPLETELY! I hounded them in beta that this was a POS as is, and was fine the way it was. Apparently they thought they NEEDED to mess with it to keep it from stacking with other stuff. I saw this BS happening where things were given actions, instead of automatic and free. It was so they could up the classes but gut them of their primary good feats.
I'd rather just roll Mobility, Run and Fleet into a single feat.
Heh. Yep, just made a whole pot. Extra salty too, though the entertainment factor I was hoping for has yet to arrive. I was expecting a lot of back and forth on one of the subjects above and so far it seems to have dropped off. Too bad, I was really looking forward to it!
Heh. Yep, just made a whole pot. Extra salty too, though the entertainment factor I was hoping for has yet to arrive. I was expecting a lot of back and forth on one of the subjects above and so far it seems to have dropped off. Too bad, I was really looking forward to it!
This is where my Big Book of Random Trolling comes in handy.
*rolls some dice*
Your mother was an <aquatic troll> who <stole the prince's jewels> after <a fight on a goblin airship>! Also, <FATAL> is the worst roleplaying system in existence, and I bet you have to drink <lemonade> to get yourself to sleep at night!
Heh. Yep, just made a whole pot. Extra salty too, though the entertainment factor I was hoping for has yet to arrive. I was expecting a lot of back and forth on one of the subjects above and so far it seems to have dropped off. Too bad, I was really looking forward to it!This is where my Big Book of Random Trolling comes in handy.
*rolls some dice*
Your mother was an <aquatic troll> who <stole the prince's jewels> after <a fight on a goblin airship>! Also, <FATAL> is the worst roleplaying system in existence, and I bet you have to drink <lemonade> to get yourself to sleep at night!
Dammit Boxy310 only losers sleep at night!
Narf :-)
"Cleave is a fun little feat until level 6."
?
6th level fighter, full attack: full round action, +6/+1 (plus perks: no movement beyond 5')
6th level fighter, cleave: standard action, +6/+6 (plus perks: -2 AC)
Yes, cleaving requires adjacent foes. It's situational (it's the Mook Killer) but it's extremely useful in that regard. You've got to sniff pretty hard to sniff at +5 attack at 6th level.
Consider full attack critically. It requires you to be a punchbag, which predicates certain builds. Mr 6th level fighter can do that, possibly, but what about Ms 6th level rogue? Improved feint, Cleave, double sneak attack, 5' step...
What about those times, too, when Mr fighter realises going toe to toe he's going to be overwhelmed in about 6 seconds? +6/+6 and tumble away is a viable option - situationally much better than +6/+1 and being out of the fight, or worse.
If Spring Attack is erratad to allow a standard attack (as it did in 3.5) then the new Cleave becomes even more desirable for skirmishers.
I like the new version; I appreciate the various attempts to move fighters away from full attacks as the only serious option*, and to my mind it works even better for Str 13 secondary meleers.
* though I think the use of 'Attack Action' to define one of those attempts is a mistake, as I've said elsewhere
|
Creative Director
|
I think that it's a good idea for EVERYONE who's knee-jerk hating on the new Cleave to try it out in play. I've seen it in play and it's actually pretty good. In fact, it seems to actually be used more often since it's no longer tied to the requirement of dropping an enemy in combat.
For the record, I have seen both the new Cleave and the new Great Cleave in play. Neither one gets used now that the characters are level 11 -- Cleave because it's usually a very stupid idea or just plain not possible (fighting only one enemy, or fighting enemies that don't conveniently line up), Great Cleave because it has never once in the entire campaign been possible. Cleave did get some use in the lower levels, and I've already said that it is better than 3.5 Cleave then.
Of course, I always called 3.5 Cleave and Great Cleave godawful feats back then, so being better than 3.5 Cleave in earlier levels and much worse in later levels isn't a stirring endorsement.
Cleave:
I like the new cleave. Sure, it doesn't work with iterative attacks (meaning that at level 6, there are situations where it can be better to use regular attacks, and at level 11, it's probably more or less better to use regular attacks when you get the chance), but it's nice for those situations where you cannot have those iterative attacks, anyway.
Maybe the game just needs a "standard attack action", Which is not the same as "one attack" (i.e. the thing you can use to trip somebody) and not the same as "standard action" (i.e. the thing you use for casting spells and all that). A standard attack action is a standard attack where you attack with a weapon.
If you had something like this, you could use it to combine things that require that one attack as a standard action. You could have stuff like spring attack and cleave with that.
Feats to traits:
I can see a few:
Endurance is something I'd consider as a trait, but as a feat, it's too weak.
Run could be on that list, too, but I'm not so sure about it.
I know that not all feats need to be equal and that there are killions of NPCs around, but still, endurance smacks of trait. I think it would fit with both power level and flavour.
Anyway:
Blind Fight: No. This one's a feat. Darkness, stealth and invisibility are prevalent enough to warrant this as a feat, as it makes you a lot more competent in situations you cannot see something important.
Combat Expertise: Not only is this a starting feat for several other things, it's also a decent tactic. Sometimes you want a better AC.
Mounted Combat: Another start-up, and also quite useful. Make sure your mount isn't hit. It may be "situational", but the situation is "fight on horseback", and since only mounted characters will take this, it's a pretty common situation for those interested. Mounted archery is similar.
Mobility: Man, that can be a useful feat. With the new tumble rules (Acroboatics DC = target's CMD, maybe with modifiers), you cannot rely on making tumble checks the way you used to. Getting a better AC when getting in position can be very valuable. Many won't need it, but for those who do need it, it will come in handy a lot of the time!
Improved Unarmed Strike: Grey area. I'm not sure I would ever select it (if I play a monk, I get it for free). Maybe strengthen it a bit, so you get unarmed damage as if you were one size category larger (this is, of course, already subsumed in the monk's abilities)
Far Shot: Sure, it's not for everyone, but if you're not using a bow (or other weapon with huge range), this can be quite handy (never assume only one kind of character will take this, like bowmen in this instance)
Fleet: Are you kidding? Extra speed is quite nice. Especially the way speed works in Pathfinder, you can really mess up someone's tactics by being able to go 7 squares instead of 6, and without outward sign of being faster (no foam at the mouth, not wearing jammies, etc.)
Rapid Reload: Nah, that one's useful enough. Makes you use light crossbows with longbow fire rates (and with crossbow mastery, you'll do the same with heavy crossbows!)
Quick Draw: Very useful. Want to draw your weapon while standing in front of someone and start hacking away in earnest right away? Guess what will be useful.
Two-Weapon Defence: Another "situational" feat that isn't really situational - it's just specialised to a certain character type - two-weapon fighters. And for those, extra AC is quite useful!
Metamagic: I'd probably rewrite the system to have some effects included automatically with spellcasting, a bit like Monte did for AE.
Run: If you're keen on speed, this one's quite nice. Means you can run away from a lot of stuff (or catch a lot of stuff). Again, this is less situational and more specialised.
Feats aren't meant to be generally applicable. Some are useful for most characters, sure (Toughness is almost never a bad idea, for example), but just because not everybody will find a feat extremely useful doesn't mean it's worth a feat slot to anyone...