|
I was wondering what people think of these feats that I made.
Ignore the "Epic Feats" section as that's more musing than reality. The "Modified Feats" are my house-ruled feats. I really only care about feedback on the "New Feats" section.
Redundant Link To The Feats
Some of these feats and rules associated with them are things I saw elsewhere, but didn't remember where (at least a couple cases I suspect are from these forums) so I recreated them from scratch.
Practiced Spellcaster from the Complete Arcane increases caster level by +4 (up to character level). It requires 4 ranks of Spellcraft.
Compare Lighten Weapon to Monkey Grip from Complete Warrior. Monkey Grip requires a +1 BAB, gives a -2 to your attack, and the weapon counts as a size lower. (So, the large longsword counts simply as a normal sized longsword, for no further penalty.)
Lighten weapon imposes a -2 penalty then cancels the penalty. This seems redundant. If you take a -2 for the size, then -2 for the feat, then cancel the -2... you're at -2, as if you aren't using the feat. It would be clearer if it just canceled the increase in the number of hands needed, so, while the large weapon would still be at -2, you can wield it in one hand. The effect is the same, but you no longer need to subtract 2 then add 2 back into your attack.
I like Pole Arm Agility.
I dislike Pole Arm fighting (as I would allow this without a feat), and Efficient Design (Again, cause in my world you can do this with just an appropriate craft item). Plus, adding a limit onto a magic item just makes it harder to steal, and would make it harder to make. I mean, if I can guarantee my holy avenger can never fall into evil hands, that's not a limitation, that's an additional power for the sword.
|
|
The Arcane Strike change COULD get bad when used with 4-level casters.. hadn't thought of that. I'll have to muse on how to deal with that without screwing things like Battle Clerics from being able to be effective martial-focused caster.
I'm aware of practiced spellcaster from Complete Arcane, but thought the 4 was a bit much because of all the side benefits that the 4 gives you (reducing many of the drawbacks of multiclassing out of your main caster class). PFS doesn't even allow the +2CL trait. I figured +3 with lower (read: essentially no) requirements is a good compromise.
Lighten Weapon is identical to monkey grip (assuming you didn't apply inappropriate size modifiers in 3.5) in the "large two-hander" case, but can also be used to wield a one-hander as a light (acting as Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting). The idea was to make a feat useful for more that one type of "big weapon" build. The second feat removes the penalty for the "large two-hander" case and allows wielding normal two-handers as light weapons (dual-wield scythes). Considering all you gain out of a bigger weapon is style and a few points of damage, I didn't figure this to be unbalanced.
Pole Arm fighting is a feat that I could see letting people do without it, but at a penalty. You're using it completely differently from how it would normally be used, which implies a different proficiency. I wrote it this way to also allow a way for a player to invest in a more advanced/versatile Pole Arm style without feeling like they were relying on a "gimme" ability.
Those restrictions from Efficient Design can be bypassed by UMD, which gets really easy at high levels (the DCs never go up, but the modifier for the user does). Sure, not everyone has UMD, but plenty do which means it's not even CLOSE to a fool-proof protection. The reason I made these feats is because item crafting was making the item crafters were just special-making stuff for the party at practically nothing for cost.
I love Evocation Thouroughness. It puts evocation back as a viable alternative for specializing, and it makes blasting if not viable as a major focus, at least as a minor focus. Now it's not a waste of time to throw that fireball.
Unique Weapon Training is nice too, makes simple weapons at least a little more useful to fighter-types.
There are some good ideas in there. Some are clearly re-worked feats from other sources, but others are ... different. I am not so sure about the Lighten Weapon feats, though. TWF is already a very good option.
|
It's 5am, I'm not trying to be rude just as honest as I can possibly be. I in no way think you are an idiot or a terrible dungeon master. Every DM's table is there game and my opinion is useless at any table but my own. That said...
Evocation Thoroughness seems like it should be a meta-magic feat and also not cancel out class abilities like evasion to negate damage. Improved is ridiculous, why you think a feat that effectively removes the saving throw entry on an entire school of magic is something non-epic feat should do is beyond me.
Spell-Strike is kind of a blah feat. It's so specific in who can use it you'd have to build for it completely. Your better just off allowing people to be Duskblades instead of recreating them through feats. You don't lose a charge touch spells by missing with them either, just as a point of reference.
Lighten Weapon. Oversized Two-weapon Fighting with confusing description and what also appears to be Monkey Grip. You do know you can just use the 3.5 stuff, right? Pathfinder is totally backwards compatible.
Pole arm fighting. Short Haft.
Improved Extended spell. I can't 10th+ level spell caster needing or taking a feat like this. The difference between rounds and minutes aren't really useful in combat situations and any of the buffs you'd get a lot of benefit out of could just be Permanencyed for money instead of a feat and spell levels, or they could just spend some coin on researching spells with longer durations. This is a typical problem for lower levels, at 10+ Extend Spell would be more then enough.
Swift seems to be just discount Quicken. I don't see a lot of non-instantaneous spells get quickened, even if it's a free quicken from a magic item or some divine blessing. Spells like Swift Fly, Swift Invisibility and the like are probably much more attractive options to a player.
Most of these feats honestly just look other pre-existing feats that maybe changed something on here or there. Sorry that I'm a little harsh, but house rules are something that really easy to get out of control in a game and it should be your players that your discussing this kind of thing with since they'll be the ones most influenced by your game's varied rules. I do have to give you props for how you display them though, very nice wiki.
Evocation Thoroughness seems like it should be a meta-magic feat and also not cancel out class abilities like evasion to negate damage. Improved is ridiculous, why you think a feat that effectively removes the saving throw entry on an entire school of magic is something non-epic feat should do is beyond me.
Since it's for the single worst school, and only affects the worst spells of that school, and requires three feats - how is that so extremely overpowered? You could probably see it as how Uncanny Dodge stops Sneak Attack, but in reverse. The offensive feat stops the extremely powerful defensive ability (or reduces the value of it).
And note that it's not the saving throw entry of an entire school - in total, it's 10 of 45 evocation spells on the sor/wiz list. Burning hands, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Cone of Cold, Chain Lightning, Freezing Sphere, DB Fireball, Prismatic Spray, Sunburst, and Meteor Storm.And as you see, most of these spells are sub-par by a quite large amount. Sunburst and Prismatic Spray have their uses, but mostly because of the effects that don't have reflex for half.
Right now, blasting is an "i've got nothing better to do" option almost all the time. With these two feats, it will be at least somewhat viable - though still, even with the improved feat, you'd probably do more good casting Tentacles (or haste, or fly) than Fireball or Cone of Cold.
I was going to suggest this earlier but my browser ate my post.
Why not have Evocation Thoroughness cause such spells to deal a minimum of 1 damage per die. So, if you cast a 10d6 fireball, and roll 15 damage, someone who saves takes 10, someone with improved evasion takes 10. If you roll 35 damage, someone with evasion who saves still takes 10.
The improved version would deal a minimum of 2 damage per die. So, the same 10d6 fireball where you rolled 35 damage on, would deal 20 damage to someone on a successful save.
This makes them most useful against someone with evasion, but still useful if you roll poor damage on your dice. It also makes them more then "you can't evade this".
|
|
There are some good ideas in there. Some are clearly re-worked feats from other sources, but others are ... different. I am not so sure about the Lighten Weapon feats, though. TWF is already a very good option.
Lighten Weapon. Oversized Two-weapon Fighting with confusing description and what also appears to be Monkey Grip. You do know you can just use the 3.5 stuff, right? Pathfinder is totally backwards compatible.
TWF is a very good option that is already a feat-heavy one. If you take these two feats you can go from 1d4 to 2d4 (kukri to falchion) gaining only 2.5 damage for 2 feats. It's not really a *good* TWF option to take these unless you have spare feats. I left the option there for those who wanted the "cool" factor.
The way I wrote it was to allow it to be useful for TWF (wield two one-handers), sword and board (one-hand a two-hander) AND THF (wield a bigger two-hander). It mostly amounts to style and a small increase in damage roughly equivalent to weapon specialization.I can see how the description might be somewhat confusing, so I'll see about clearing that up a bit.
Evocation Thoroughness seems like it should be a meta-magic feat and also not cancel out class abilities like evasion to negate damage. Improved is ridiculous, why you think a feat that effectively removes the saving throw entry on an entire school of magic is something non-epic feat should do is beyond me.
I was also worried about negating the importance of the class ability, but I figured for the quantity of feat investment and the fact that those with evasion are still better off than those without, it would probably be okay. There are so many other ways to resist these kinds of spells (energy resistance on enemies) that I almost feel the option is underpowered for the caster. I've considered removing the GSF requirement off the second tier one.
As for making them metamagic, I guess I can see that. Doing that would also allow them to be taken at the wizard bonus feat levels which I originally wanted and forgot they couldn't.Spell-Strike is kind of a blah feat. It's so specific in who can use it you'd have to build for it completely. Your better just off allowing people to be Duskblades instead of recreating them through feats. You don't lose a charge touch spells by missing with them either, just as a point of reference.
It is pretty specific, but I had a particular character in mind when I wrote it. Basically, they used a whip to deliver touch spells at range. I thought it was interesting so I wrote in a way to make it happen.
I realize that you don't lose a charge when you miss. The "preserving the spell" line wasn't meant to imply that you would lose the spell otherwise, so that's careless wording I need to fix. The reason I added the "store it in the spell-storing weapon" bit was so that if you missed but decided you wanted to cast a different spell when your next turn came, you could use the weapon as a sort of battery.Also, I didn't want people releasing two spells at the same time with the same attack, which is why I put the "can't release from spell storing weapon at the same time" bit.
Lastly, it gives the gish builds a way of doing gish things with touch spells without needing to be a class that doesn't exist yet (I wrote that feat a few months ago, now) in pathfinder. Easier to add a feat then convert a class from 3.5e. I may add a bit about being able to deliver ranged touch spells through it as well.
Pole arm fighting. Short Haft.
See my point at the end of the post about recreating old feats.
The pole arm fighting version also lets you use it as a double-weapon, and doesn't take your swift action. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not sure yet.Improved Extended spell. I can't 10th+ level spell caster needing or taking a feat like this. The difference between rounds and minutes aren't really useful in combat situations and any of the buffs you'd get a lot of benefit out of could just be Permanencyed for money instead of a feat and spell levels, or they could just spend some coin on researching spells with longer durations. This is a typical problem for lower levels, at 10+ Extend Spell would be more then enough.
That 10m/level freedom of movement just went from about 2 hours, to 10 hours. That's pretty useful. Same with other buffs like Resist Energy and Barkskin that are at that 10m/level mark. Definitely sub-par for the 1m/level (Bull's Strength) but going from 10 minutes to an hour and 40 is still very nice for longer dungeon crawls.
Swift seems to be just discount Quicken. I don't see a lot of non-instantaneous spells get quickened, even if it's a free quicken from a magic item or some divine blessing. Spells like Swift Fly, Swift Invisibility and the like are probably much more attractive options to a player.
Yeah, I didn't necessarily have an application in mind for this one, I just kind-of wrote it. The only thing I can think of is having something like resist energy as a swift and casting it as the right type of resist for an enemy you face without losing a turn for it. The fight won't last long enough for it to run out anyway, and you won't have to worry about guessing.
Other applications include Obscuring Mist, Fog Cloud and Protection from EnergyMost of these feats honestly just look other pre-existing feats that maybe changed something on here or there. Sorry that I'm a little...
In many cases they are, but not all people I play with know all (or in many cases, any) of those old sources, and even then there are many feats I wouldn't allow from many sources (making the act of reading them only somewhat fruitful). Remaking them in a way I feel works better while giving them visibility to my players is what I was going for.
I didn't make this post to be redirected to old feats as though writing similar feats is a useless endeavor. Old feats being "backwards compatible" doesn't mean "perfectly balanced and meant to be used." Any time you use old material you have to take a second look at it to be sure it's okay, and rewriting it is exactly what you do to make that happen.I like the feedback you gave for the most part, but the "Pole Arm Fighting. Short Haft." was both short and useless to me. If I didn't already know about that feat I wouldn't know what the hell you were talking about. Even though I do, the fact that a similar feat has existed isn't the point.
|
|
I'm glad my advice wasn't too mean, writing at 5am is really something I should stop doing. I'm starting to yell at the internet when it gets past 3ish.
I'm not sure if a 10 hour Freedom of Movement or Barkskin spell is something I'd want my players to have access too, but to each DM has a different power level the game operates at. I'd mention a ring of freedom of movement but who doesn't know about that already.
Yeah, my your Polearm Fighting is just the Short Half feat was more the 5am thing. I'd already said "this is just a 3.5 feat" a few times so it was faster to write that. The main point behind what I was saying is that you weren't really bringing anything new for the amount of work you were putting into it. If your not happy with exactly how those old 3.5 feats work I can understand wanting to tweak them.
Since it's for the single worst school, and only affects the worst spells of that school, and requires three feats - how is that so extremely overpowered? You could probably see it as how Uncanny Dodge stops Sneak Attack, but in reverse. ...
Right now, blasting is an "I've got nothing better to do" option almost all the time.
I respect your opinion and find it interesting, but also disagree with it and the opinions of people who share it in that regard. I've never seen anyone have trouble killing things with evocation spells from either side of the DM screen, and there are more then just blaster spells in the evocation school so it's said.
Also, Uncanny Dodge doesn't stop Sneak Attack. It could stop a surprise round sneak attack, but you'd still take damage from the attack itself. Improved Uncanny Dodge even wouldn't make you sneak attack immune.
I'm not responding to any comments made about my comments on evocation magic or uncanny dodge. Sorry for the slight thread nudge away from the topic at hand.
|
|
I wrote improved stave recharging last night (after making this thread) so it's more there as a "I had this thought" than anything. I just didn't like the fact that a wizard would spend three days of investing a slot for some high level spell and get one cast out of it since most staves have the highest level spell as 3 charges (or at least 2). Staves add a little versatility to a wizard or sorcerer, but at a rather high cost.
The epic feats are, likewise, more thought experiment than reality. I mean, who plays epic levels? The only reason I even drafted epic rules was as a "just in case" scenario and because I was really bored for a couple of weekends (I really need to get out more).
As far as poor Serius, the thing about examples is that the higher level the feat is the harder it is to come up with simple examples that illustrate their usage. Thus, you end up with simplified scenarios for which there are likely better answers, but at least it shows a possible use for it. If Serius were to roll 2 nat 20s that balor would have a very bad day. Otherwise, I hope he has back-up.
@Morgen: It may not make you outright immune, but it would certainly make it very very difficult to sneak attack the character. When you have to make the person helpless in some manner or be way higher level than them and flank to get a change at it, you're pretty close.
Also, 10 hour versions of those spells require decently high spell slots, and by the time they can use those slots they could probably invest in an item to do the same thing. Some characters would rather invest in one feat to support a handful of buffs then buy items to do the same thing. The active buffs are weaker as well, since once dispelled they don't return 1d4 rounds later. This feat is especially nice for buff-based gish builds (like a buff-based druid, cleric or oracle).