I will make this short.
I've started to read the APG and I'm slowly getting a bit worried.
Some of the stuff really seem broken.
Point-Blank Master is too good and really breaks the game and game tactics. It's the same as giving spellcasters Improved Combat Casting.
Improved Combat Casting
Benefit: You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when casting spells or use spell-like abilities.
Is this just bad or really bad?
I could see Point-Blank Master being acceptable if it was usable 3 times per day or something, but always on? This need to be fixed.
Point Blank Master (Combat)
You are adept at firing ranged weapons in close quarters.
Prerequisite: Weapon Specialization with selected
ranged weapon.
Benefit: Choose one type of ranged weapon. You do not
provoke attacks of opportunity when firing the selected
weapon while threatened.
Normal: Using a ranged weapon while you are
threatened provokes attacks of opportunity.
Special: Starting at 6th level, a ranger with the archery
combat style may select Point Blank Master as a combat
style feat, but he must have Weapon Focus instead of
Weapon Specialization in the selected weapon.
And if I got it right Shadow Strike + Greater Blind-Fight makes it possible to sneak attack invisible creatures.
It's fine.
The only ones that raised an eyebrow from me were Bouncing Spell and Persistent Spell (although it's probably the cheap metamagic rods that concern me more than the actual feat, per se). I wouldn't use the word "broken", though; maybe "too good to be true".
So a feat letting spellcasters cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity is OK?
Sure it's broken. I guess now you have no choise but to sunder the bow. I guess all Game masters will be forced to use this tactic.
edit: and the Prerequisites (Weapon Specialization with selected ranged weapon) are just silly.
I think we're generally being a little too generous with the term 'broken'. :)
So a feat letting spellcasters cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity is OK?
You're comparing apples to martians. Spells are more powerful than arrows by an order of magnitude, and it's not like every single character can pick up Point Blank Master, either. ONLY Fighters and Archer Rangers can take it, and a Fighter would just take the Archer or Crossbowman archetype and get the ability for free. So, really, only one subtype of one class will even use the feat.
Your histrionics over this are amusing.
Why would you have to sunder the bow?
Point Blank Master is a high-prereq perk that costs multiple feats to use to any benefit. Yes, you can fire in melee or range. So? You're paying a lot to get there, and you're still not likely to match melee damage anyways. An archer can already hit hundreds of squares without penalty. What's adding eight more gonna matter?
Yes, it changes counter-archer tactics. So what? If you can't get over a need to shift tactics, you're the one who's failed, not the rules.
So a feat letting spellcasters cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity is OK?You're comparing apples to martians. Spells are more powerful than arrows by an order of magnitude, and it's not like every single character can pick up Point Blank Master, either. ONLY Fighters and Archer Rangers can take it, and a Fighter would just take the Archer or Crossbowman archetype and get the ability for free. So, really, only one subtype of one class will even use the feat.
Your histrionics over this are amusing.
I meant the ability is broken. So If the the Archer or Crossbowman archetype gets it that is broken too.
If you find it amusing so be it. Pointing it out qon't make me less upset, it is just provoking and you know it. Not that I care. I've read to much of your posts to really care. That don't mean I don't like your post :-)
You've done nothing to prove your assertion, "This ability is broken" except to make a truly terrible straw man of a comparison to a nonexistent feat that modifies an entirely different system and has dramatically fewer and easier to attain pre-requisites.
I also do not see improved combat casting , I however see nothing wrong with point blank mastery
|
The only feat I have issue with is Crossbow Mastery. Not because it's broken, necessarily. More because it takes verisimilitude by the throat, drags it out behind the woodshed, rips off it's head, has it's way with the body and then throws all of the remains into a wood chipper.
Yeah, I'm all for the crossbow getting some help in this game, but it should make a little more sense.
But I can't find Improved Combat Casting in my APG.
That was a hypothetical example. Zark's claim is that Point Blank Master is as bad as Improved Combat Casting would be if it did exist.
The only feat I have issue with is Crossbow Mastery. Not because it's broken, necessarily. More because it takes verisimilitude by the throat, drags it out behind the woodshed, rips off it's head, has it's way with the body and then throws all of the remains into a wood chipper.
heh me to, I want to see those "fights can't have nice things" yahoos explain how this feat is anything but superhuman and magical :)
But I can't find Improved Combat Casting in my APG.That was a hypothetical example. Zark's claim is that Point Blank Master is as bad as Improved Combat Casting would be if it did exist.
Ah mis read what he was saying them. But really point blank mastery is not a huge deal IMO
Why would you have to sunder the bow?
Why not. Usually It won't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Point Blank Master is a high-prereq perk that costs multiple feats to use to any benefit.
high-prereq perk? Level 4 fighter or level 6 ranger.
Most archers are ranger or fighters anyway.
Yes, you can fire in melee or range. So? You're paying a lot to get there, and you're still not likely to match melee damage anyways.
No they are much more powerful. Check out the DPR thread.
Most melee characters have the problem that the can't always use a full attack. Archers never, or seldom, have that problem.
An archer can already hit hundreds of squares without penalty. What's adding eight more gonna matter?
adding eight more? I'm not sure we are talking about the same feat.
The feat makes you able to fire into melee without attacks of opportunity.
Yes, it changes counter-archer tactics. So what? If you can't get over a need to shift tactics, you're the one who's failed, not the rules.
Don't insult me. I didn't say I can't get over a need to shift tactics.
And saying I fail because I don't like rules I find broken is just rude.|
|
But I can't find Improved Combat Casting in my APG.That was a hypothetical example. Zark's claim is that Point Blank Master is as bad as Improved Combat Casting would be if it did exist.
Ah, I see.
I guess the hypothetical Improved Combat Casting would be pretty powerful. Maybe if you limited it to preventing one AoO a round or something it would be better -- hypothetically.
|
Add me to the list of those who dont see this as being overpowered.
adding eight more? I'm not sure we are talking about the same feat.
The feat makes you able to fire into melee without attacks of opportunity.
You can always fire into melee w/o provoking, unless you were in someone's threat range of course. I think you meant to say you can fire while IN melee without provoking. I just dont see it as that big of an issue. Once people realize this, prepare to get targeted for quick removal from the fight.
Archers already have this ability against anything without reach. It's called "taking a 5' step".
|
Why would you have to sunder the bow?Why not. Usually It won't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Point Blank Master is a high-prereq perk that costs multiple feats to use to any benefit.high-prereq perk? Level 4 fighter or level 6 ranger.
Most archers are ranger or fighters anyway.
Yes, you can fire in melee or range. So? You're paying a lot to get there, and you're still not likely to match melee damage anyways.No they are much more powerful. Check out the DPR thread.
Most melee characters have the problem that the can't always use a full attack. Archers never, or seldom, have that problem.
An archer can already hit hundreds of squares without penalty. What's adding eight more gonna matter?
adding eight more? I'm not sure we are talking about the same feat.
The feat makes you able to fire into melee without attacks of opportunity.
Yes, it changes counter-archer tactics. So what? If you can't get over a need to shift tactics, you're the one who's failed, not the rules.
Don't insult me. I didn't say I can't get over a need to shift tactics.
And saying I fail because I don't like rules I find broken is just rude.The eight more is the eight that an opponent is threatening.
I'm a bit meh. One of the advantages of archery is that they don't risk the damage of taking a full attack back. With this feat, they'd probably be tempted to stay close for the point blank advantages, which will likely end badly when a fighter full attacks them.
Sure it's nice, but it's not horrifically broken in my opinion.
Zark, I'm still confused exactly why you think these feats are broken. All of the Improved (Combat Maneuver) prevent characters from taking AoOs. Would you say that that those core feats are broken too?
*I'm worried a little about balance issues too, mainly cause my group is just really creative so I'm not really arguing with you, just curious of your reasoning.
So a feat letting spellcasters cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity is OK?You're comparing apples to martians. Spells are more powerful than arrows by an order of magnitude, and it's not like every single character can pick up Point Blank Master, either. ONLY Fighters and Archer Rangers can take it, and a Fighter would just take the Archer or Crossbowman archetype and get the ability for free. So, really, only one subtype of one class will even use the feat.
Your histrionics over this are amusing.
+1
You can do a lot more damage, and a lot more types of damage with spells. With arrows, you can damage, and that's about it. Comparing the two is a very flawed argument. Also, keep in mind that one of the things that are attractive about archery is that you don't HAVE to close into melee.
My pick for most broken feat is Dastardly Finish. You can coup de grace people who are stunned or cowering. It's way too easy to stun people to make it a death sentence.
IF you can get them stunned or cowering, which isn't the easiest thing in the world at the level at which one can take Dastardly Finish.
The only feat I have issue with is Crossbow Mastery. Not because it's broken, necessarily. More because it takes verisimilitude by the throat, drags it out behind the woodshed, rips off it's head, has it's way with the body and then throws all of the remains into a wood chipper.Yeah, I'm all for the crossbow getting some help in this game, but it should make a little more sense.
I agree.
What I would have wanted is some kind of armor-piercing ability for crossbow users. That's one of the things that actually made medieval crossbows good in warfare; their ability to pierce the armor of the opposing force.
|
|
I think we're generally being a little too generous with the term 'broken'. :)Could not agree more! I'm actually growing to hate the term.
As for the feats in question ... I also don't see a problem. They are feats for mid and higher level characters and are balanced pretty well in my opinion.
+1
Too many gamers these days are quick to toss out the term "Broken". Its become a kneejerk word. We might as well be saying "Terrorist".
If you veiw something as broken, "fix it" in your game. Or just don't allow it. In the words of the great Stan Lee, "Nuff Said".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only feat I have issue with is Crossbow Mastery. Not because it's broken, necessarily. More because it takes verisimilitude by the throat, drags it out behind the woodshed, rips off it's head, has it's way with the body and then throws all of the remains into a wood chipper.Yeah, I'm all for the crossbow getting some help in this game, but it should make a little more sense.I agree.
What I would have wanted is some kind of armor-piercing ability for crossbow users. That's one of the things that actually made medieval crossbows good in warfare; their ability to pierce the armor of the opposing force.
Ooooh realism and D&D. I love this one. What happens, if I cast a lightning bolt underwater and my buddies are 5ft of me ?
So, that's much for realism arguments in D&D rules convo. APG finally fixes one of the most glaring examples of 3.5 devs going "realistic" about crossbows and not noticing that they set sail for fail with it.
|
|
What I would have wanted is some kind of armor-piercing ability for crossbow users. That's one of the things that actually made medieval crossbows good in warfare; their ability to pierce the armor of the opposing force.
Yeah, I think the Crossbowman should reduce the armor bonus of his opponent, the max armor bonus of his target scaling down as the Crossbowman gains levels, until at a high level there is no armor bonus at all.
This would not apply to natural armor or deflection or any other bonuses.
|
|
What I would have wanted is some kind of armor-piercing ability for crossbow users. That's one of the things that actually made medieval crossbows good in warfare; their ability to pierce the armor of the opposing force.
Yeah, I think the Crossbowman should reduce the armor bonus of his opponent, the max armor bonus of his target scaling down as the Crossbowman gains levels, until at a high level there is no armor bonus at all.
This would not apply to natural armor or deflection or any other bonuses.
That would still mean that crossbows have herpes and are on fire, while bows are cool and shiny.
You can reduce armor, DR, have crossbow bolts scream "BAZZINGA !" while flying thru the air, but the longbows (completely unrealistic) reload time still makes you look silly.
I agree.
What I would have wanted is some kind of armor-piercing ability for crossbow users. That's one of the things that actually made medieval crossbows good in warfare; their ability to pierce the armor of the opposing force.
Ooooh realism and D&D. I love this one. What happens, if I cast a lightning bolt underwater and my buddies are 5ft of me ?
So, that's much for realism arguments in D&D rules convo. APG finally fixes one of the most glaring examples of 3.5 devs going "realistic" about crossbows and not noticing that they set sail for fail with it.
I actually don't care if D&D Crossbows are realistic or not.
However, even with the new feat, regular Bows are still far better than Crossbows in virtually all situations. What I want is for Crossbows to be better than Bows in some situations. An armor-piercing feature would do that (and the fact that some realism would be added by that isn't exactly an awful thing in my opinion).
|
|
That would still mean that crossbows have herpes and are on fire, while bows are cool and shiny.
You can reduce armor, DR, have crossbow bolts scream "BAZZINGA !" while flying thru the air, but the longbows (completely unrealistic) reload time still makes you look silly.
I would also raise the damage that crossbows can inflict. Bows would get a high number or attacks; crossbows would get more accuracy and damage.
|
The only feat I have issue with is Crossbow Mastery. Not because it's broken, necessarily. More because it takes verisimilitude by the throat, drags it out behind the woodshed, rips off it's head, has it's way with the body and then throws all of the remains into a wood chipper.Yeah, I'm all for the crossbow getting some help in this game, but it should make a little more sense.I agree.
What I would have wanted is some kind of armor-piercing ability for crossbow users. That's one of the things that actually made medieval crossbows good in warfare; their ability to pierce the armor of the opposing force.
Ooooh realism and D&D. I love this one. What happens, if I cast a lightning bolt underwater and my buddies are 5ft of me ?
So, that's much for realism arguments in D&D rules convo. APG finally fixes one of the most glaring examples of 3.5 devs going "realistic" about crossbows and not noticing that they set sail for fail with it.
Cartigan?
Usually archers can just take that 5' step and nail you, so no, it isn't broken even if 99% of the archers can take it (because 99% of the archers are fighters or rangers).
[rant]
That said, this feat stinks. My friends and me no longer play D&D 4th Edition thanks to feats/powers/features like that feat. An archer that fires arrows at you while being in melee? Trying to flank an archer is a waste of time? That's BS imo, use acrobatics, do that 5' step if you can, but don't take that bloody feat.
Feats should make characters different, instead of neutralizing their differences. What's next, a feat that allows a melee fighter to cast his melee damage to a foe 100' away? or a feat that allows a sorcerer to learn as many spells as he wants? Rogues that can use a 30 Dexterity Ability Score while wearing a full plate would be a nice adition too.
The good thing is: I can just ban this feat and everything will work fine, at least it is not an important part of any rules subsystem.
[/rant]
|
|
I would also raise the damage that crossbows can inflict. Bows would get a high number or attacks; crossbows would get more accuracy and damage.
That would still mean that crossbows have herpes and are on fire, while bows are cool and shiny.
You can reduce armor, DR, have crossbow bolts scream "BAZZINGA !" while flying thru the air, but the longbows (completely unrealistic) reload time still makes you look silly.
That still puts bows light years ahead, because every attack you do gets feat/enchantment/deadly aim/Str bonues. And it's those bonuses that matter, because later on base weapon damage is just a flavor, with all the little "plinks" from various sources being the main source of ooomph.
More attacks = more bonuses.
|
|
However, even with the new feat, regular Bows are still far better than Crossbows in virtually all situations. What I want is for Crossbows to be better than Bows in some situations. An armor-piercing feature would do that (and the fact that some realism would be added by that isn't exactly an awful thing in my opinion).
Not really. Crossbows are 19-20, 17-20 with Imp Crit or Keen. Pathfinder has a whole host of Good Things for high crit range weapons (maybe even too many Good Things).
So a feat letting spellcasters cast spells without provoking attacks of opportunity is OK?
Sure it's broken. I guess now you have no choise but to sunder the bow. I guess all Game masters will be forced to use this tactic.
edit: and the Prerequisites (Weapon Specialization with selected ranged weapon) are just silly.
Spell Casters from 1st level can make a skill check that allows for this so its not that bad
So its a fighter only feat is that bad?
|
|
That still puts bows light years ahead, because every attack you do gets feat/enchantment/deadly aim/Str bonues. And it's those bonuses that matter, because later on base weapon damage is just a flavor, with all the little "plinks" from various sources being the main source of ooomph.More attacks = more bonuses.
Yes, and I'm saying that I would create mechanics and bonuses that would make the crossbow and Crossbowman relevant in a more realistic, interesting and fun way without merely turning the crossbow into a horizontal bow.
With Crossbow Mastery, crossbowmen are quite relevant, thankyouverymuch. In Pathfinder, expanded crit ranges trump higher crit multipliers by a very significant degree.
|
|
[rant]
That said, this feat stinks. My friends and me no longer play D&D 4th Edition thanks to feats/powers/features like that feat. An archer that fires arrows at you while being in melee? Trying to flank an archer is a waste of time? That's BS imo, use acrobatics, do that 5' step if you can, but don't take that bloody feat.
Feats should make characters different, instead of neutralizing their differences. What's next, a feat that allows a melee fighter to cast his melee damage to a foe 100' away? or a feat that allows a sorcerer to learn as many spells as he wants? Rogues that can use a 30 Dexterity Ability Score while wearing a full plate would be a nice adition too.The good thing is: I can just ban this feat and everything will work fine, at least it is not an important part of any rules subsystem.
[/rant]
/facepalm
So many things about this... first and foremost it doesn't prevent them from being flanked by any means. They just don't provoke AoO by firing while in melee. And your feats for fighters, sorcerers, and rogues are such hyperbole its not even funny. Those aren't even CLOSE to what this feat is doing, nor are they a logical "next feat" in the slightest.
Archers already have this ability against anything without reach. It's called "taking a 5' step".
A goe with the Step up feat and the archer has big problem.
And as you pointed out. Some have reach.The archers we've had in our group have always been very powerful because they can alwasy, or at least always, full attack.
But I can't find Improved Combat Casting in my APG.That was a hypothetical example. Zark's claim is that Point Blank Master is as bad as Improved Combat Casting would be if it did exist.
Thanks for clearing that out.
Sorry for the ending of reply to you. I was a bit cranky. I hope your cool with my apology.Two shots of ice cold Metaxa has fixed my bad mood.
Not really. Crossbows are 19-20, 17-20 with Imp Crit or Keen. Pathfinder has a whole host of Good Things for high crit range weapons (maybe even too many Good Things).
One minor point, Keen cannot be applied to ranged weapons. The spell Keen Edge can be applied to ammunition however.
Spell Casters from 1st level can make a skill check that allows for this so its not that bad
No, not in Pathfinder. That's 3.5.
Spell Casters from 1st level can make a skill check that allows for this so its not that badNo, not in Pathfinder. That's 3.5.
Ok, so it's not a skill check anymore, but it can still be done.
Feats should make characters different, instead of neutralizing their differences.
+1