APG - Broken feats?


Product Discussion

101 to 150 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Before the APG came out, I allowed a player to take a similar homebrew feat (to avoid a dip into Order of the Bow Initiate)--the feat prerequisites were different (point blank shot amongst some other things I don't remember at the moment). This is based on my personal experience only, but I have never found it to be game breaking. Indeed, I run a high level game (players just hit 18th) and it helps the archer character contribute effectively in tricky combat situations where he otherwise would be perhaps unfairly stymied.

That you have to qualify for and buy the feat I think is balanced enough (especially since there are a lot of cool ranged combat feats, and choosing between them is sometimes hard).

In fact, I don't like the APG version because I personally feel it is too restrictive to qualify for, that it's essentially fighter and ranger only, and I think it should be viable for a number of specialized ranged builds. OTOH, I suppose that is to prevent pure rogues from doing nasty ranged sneak attack tricks, but I'd have to think about how problematic that would be before outright declaring it....

The Exchange

Cold Napalm wrote:
Zark wrote:
Zurai wrote:
stuff

well some multi class some don't

Zurai wrote:


All of them also lose access to their capstones and near-capstones, too, of course.

Edit:

How many campaigns go to level 20. Most players and game masters don't go for high level games. Paizo actually asked us about this. And most of their AP stop at level 17 or earlier.
Umm...ONE AP didn't reach level 20 (or near 20 depending on how effecient you went through it). Council of thieves. All the other AP do have the option to reach 20 with the characters...even kingmaker, the first offical PF one reaches 20.

Sorry, but NONE of the APs are designed to go to level 20. They could be stretched that far with some work on the GMs part, but 20th level PCs would walk through most of the final battles as written. The only complete AP that comes close is Kingmaker with it's 18th level target, and Serpent's Skull should end at the same range.


Faulty assumption. Not everyone uses APs. In fact, based on how well the core book is selling in my home town, i'd say most are not using them in my area.


Just throwing it out there that OotBI wasn the only want to prevent AoOs with a bow in 3.5, there were a few other classes that did it, too. I think the Justice of Weald and Woe did, and I know in most groups I played with, fighter-archers went into Exotic Weapon Master and used a Greatbow so they didnt draw AoOs.


Cold Napalm wrote:
Zark wrote:
Zurai wrote:
stuff

well some multi class some don't

Zurai wrote:


All of them also lose access to their capstones and near-capstones, too, of course.

Edit:

How many campaigns go to level 20. Most players and game masters don't go for high level games. Paizo actually asked us about this. And most of their AP stop at level 17 or earlier.
Umm...ONE AP didn't reach level 20 (or near 20 depending on how effecient you went through it). Council of thieves. All the other AP do have the option to reach 20 with the characters...even kingmaker, the first offical PF one reaches 20.

CoT was the first official PF one. The others used the 3.5 ruleset. I think they should have pushed CoT to or at least 16. Taking on a pit fiend or something higher up would have been fun.

Don't look if you are playing CoT:

I mean a real Pit Fiend, not that watered down atrocity disguised as a Pit Fiend


DeathQuaker wrote:

Before the APG came out, I allowed a player to take a similar homebrew feat (to avoid a dip into Order of the Bow Initiate)--the feat prerequisites were different (point blank shot amongst some other things I don't remember at the moment). This is based on my personal experience only, but I have never found it to be game breaking. Indeed, I run a high level game (players just hit 18th) and it helps the archer character contribute effectively in tricky combat situations where he otherwise would be perhaps unfairly stymied.

That you have to qualify for and buy the feat I think is balanced enough (especially since there are a lot of cool ranged combat feats, and choosing between them is sometimes hard).

In fact, I don't like the APG version because I personally feel it is too restrictive to qualify for, that it's essentially fighter and ranger only, and I think it should be viable for a number of specialized ranged builds. OTOH, I suppose that is to prevent pure rogues from doing nasty ranged sneak attack tricks, but I'd have to think about how problematic that would be before outright declaring it....

Can you tell me how ....

in case deathquaker's player's are here:
cleric and his maralith buddy did

I meant to ask about that, but it slipped my mind.


sieylianna wrote:
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.

I actually feel that it is a sub-par feat. If you manage to get a target stunned or cowering, they are already in a really bad hole. All this feat does is allow you to finish them off slightly sooner. I'd spend my feat on something else personally.

Liberty's Edge

mdt wrote:
Faulty assumption. Not everyone uses APs. In fact, based on how well the core book is selling in my home town, i'd say most are not using them in my area.

Sorry ... I'm not sure what that means ...


anthony Valente wrote:
sieylianna wrote:
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.
I actually feel that it is a sub-par feat. If you manage to get a target stunned or cowering, they are already in a really bad hole. All this feat does is allow you to finish them off slightly sooner. I'd spend my feat on something else personally.

It is a very situational feat, but the issue is that it can kill you very easily, no matter how many hp you have. Using the dust of sneezing and coughing(cursed item) is a good way to set this up. You summon an elemental(I think they are immune to stunning) to finish the enemy off.


wraithstrike wrote:
anthony Valente wrote:
sieylianna wrote:
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.
I actually feel that it is a sub-par feat. If you manage to get a target stunned or cowering, they are already in a really bad hole. All this feat does is allow you to finish them off slightly sooner. I'd spend my feat on something else personally.
It is a very situational feat, but the issue is that it can kill you very easily, no matter how many hp you have. Using the dust of sneezing and coughing(cursed item) is a good way to set this up. You summon an elemental(I think they are immune to stunning) to finish the enemy off.

Yeah, I don't deny that the feat can kill you very easily. But speaking from experience: I haven't been cowering as a PC to date, but I have been stunned from time-to-time. And EVERY time I've been stunned, I was pretty much dead meat anyway, especially if the stunned effect lasted more than one round. It is likewise for the monsters when I'm the GM: if they're stunned or cowering, the PCs pretty much had those foes "in the bag" so to speak. That's where I derive my personal opinion from.


Zurai wrote:

But you just got done saying that EVERY ARCHER WOULD BE DUMB NOT TO TAKE 4 LEVELS OF FIGHTER OMG BROKEN!.

Lies. I never said that. I said most archer are fighter or rangers.

If you're a Paladin you can pick 4 levels figher. You will win some and lose some. I never said they would be dumb not to take 4 levels figher.
Zurai wrote:


That's why I tacked it on at the end instead of in the specific bullet points. "Most" is not "all", however, and you can't say it's not a valid point.

Fair enough.


anthony Valente wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
anthony Valente wrote:
sieylianna wrote:
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.
I actually feel that it is a sub-par feat. If you manage to get a target stunned or cowering, they are already in a really bad hole. All this feat does is allow you to finish them off slightly sooner. I'd spend my feat on something else personally.
It is a very situational feat, but the issue is that it can kill you very easily, no matter how many hp you have. Using the dust of sneezing and coughing(cursed item) is a good way to set this up. You summon an elemental(I think they are immune to stunning) to finish the enemy off.
Yeah, I don't deny that the feat can kill you very easily. But speaking from experience: I haven't been cowering as a PC to date, but I have been stunned from time-to-time. And EVERY time I've been stunned, I was pretty much dead meat anyway, especially if the stunned effect lasted more than one round. It is likewise for the monsters when I'm the GM: if they're stunned or cowering, the PCs pretty much had those foes "in the bag" so to speak. That's where I derive my personal opinion from.

Just being stunned means you lose an action, and depending on your hit points you might survive the next round or so. With this feat your HP don't matter. Now being stunned is just as bad as being put to sleep. Being stunned is not pleasant, but it is a lot better than being unconscious. I would not use this on the players if they don't try it first though.

I do understand what you mean, but I guess we gave different views on how much being stunned hurts your chance to survive.


Not sure if it was mentioned before (I only read the first page) but one thing that was a problem for archers was enclosed spaces like dungeons or urban settings. In a way they still are since the allies of the archer might block their lines of fire but at the same time, if a group is attacked by a hoard of undead/goblins/animated objects/etc from both sides in a narrow hallway the archer can shoot as much as he likes without those AoO. So it doesnt penalize him for his specilization

Thats a healthy balance that I can live with for characters that are so specialized.

Personally I dont see the feat as broken, archers still have weaknesses with an without it and you're required to give up a lot to get the feat (imagine how hard a rogue or bard or dare I say a cleric of Erastil would have to work for this).

Overall its a really good feat but not broken in the slightest

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

wraithstrike wrote:


Can you tell me how ....** spoiler omitted **

I meant to ask about that, but it slipped my mind.

OT reply

Spoiler:

The party has kept changing their minds on which area they are going to tackle first, so they haven't fought her yet--but oh, they will. They will.

If you want to see how it's going, check out Lathiira's "To Slay The Immortal" thread in the campaign journals subforum. The particular chapter you helped me with are the last several entries. Lathiira plays the party cleric.

Unfortunately due to summer insanity and some RL issues, we've only met a couple times, but your templates have and will come in handy. We're due to play Saturday so there should be an update to the journal shortly after that.

On topic:

Windcaler touches on the main point about archer builds--if you're running a "typical" campaign where you are going to have a lot of tight spaces/underground environments, archer builds hit a lot of problems. You can try to help archers in a way that isn't insanely broken--and I don't feel the feat is since you have to build up to it--or you can say, "Don't play an archer," which personally is not the answer I want to give.


DeathQuaker wrote:


Windcaler touches on the main point about archer builds--if you're running a "typical" campaign where you are going to have a lot of tight spaces/underground environments, archer builds hit a lot of problems. You can try to help archers in a way that isn't insanely broken--and I don't feel the feat is since you have to build up to it--or you can say, "Don't play an archer," which personally is not the answer I want to give.

OK, So I agree the feat isn't insanely broken, but I still think the Prerequisites are just silly. If they hade been greater weapon specialization or ranger with the Quarry ability I could see it as balanced. At higher levels casters alters reality anyway, so at higher levels this feat might be fine, but level 4 figher or level ranger level 6, no way.


Zurai wrote:
ZappoHisbane wrote:
If you're talking about published adventures, sure, they won't have APG stuff in them yet.
He's wrong there, too. There's APG material in Souls for Smuggler's Shiv, which released simultaneously with the APG.

Sigh. The book was out two weeks ago.

How much do you actually know about publishing? I admit I don't know much but enough to know that there is a long time between writing and publishing.
I order to get all the APG stuff in an AP you first have to read it AGP. Then you have to read it again and again. Then you have to play test it, then you have to start writing and then you have to plan publishing and then you have to start plan marketing and then you have to organize logistics, etc, etc.
Sure some adventures will have some stuff from the APG, but not all adventures and not all stuff.
Also the core book got a lot of fans hook on Paizo stuff so a lot of us haven't even played all AP. I'm not sure all old Paizo fan have.


Zark wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:


Windcaler touches on the main point about archer builds--if you're running a "typical" campaign where you are going to have a lot of tight spaces/underground environments, archer builds hit a lot of problems. You can try to help archers in a way that isn't insanely broken--and I don't feel the feat is since you have to build up to it--or you can say, "Don't play an archer," which personally is not the answer I want to give.

OK, So agree the feat isn't insanely broken, but I still think the Prerequisites are just silly. If they hade been greater weapon specialization or ranger with the Quarry ability I could see it as balanced. At higher levels casters alters reality anyway, so at higher levels this feat might be fine, but level 4 figher or level ranger level 6, no way.

Well there's nothing wrong with you running it that way in your game. If your players are level headed and resonable they should be able to understand where you're coming from but before you rule it that way I would suggest playing with it as is. Look at the strengths and weaknesses and then if you still feel its overpowered for your game then by all means rule it takes more to get it.

Just make sure you playtest it first, far to many people go off of theory craft instead of real gameplay examples


Windcaler wrote:


Just make sure you playtest it first, far to many people go off of theory craft instead of real gameplay examples

Best post in this thread so far. Your point is excellent.

Perhaps the feat is OK. I just acted on my gut feeling. It's been wrong before. We'll have to try it and if I still think it's too good next year I come back and let you know :-)


Marc Radle wrote:
mdt wrote:
Faulty assumption. Not everyone uses APs. In fact, based on how well the core book is selling in my home town, i'd say most are not using them in my area.
Sorry ... I'm not sure what that means ...

Sorry, I was typing on my droid at the airport, so it was a bit brief.

FAULTY ASSUMPTION: It's no big deal that you don't get your capstone ability because APs don't reach level 20. The reason it's faulty is that the assumption is that everyone is using Paizo APs. In fact, based on the sales anecdotes from my local store owner, they are selling the core/bestiary off the shelf regularly. The are selling more Paizo published stuff than anything else (even most other things combined), but the core is outselling the APs per the anecdote by a large proportion. So, my statement above, which is to say that most of the PF gamers in my local area are using PF, but the majority (may be a slim majority, won't argue that because I only have anecdotal evidence) are using the PF rules without the APs.


Zark wrote:
I just acted on my gut feeling.

Ooh, yeah, you gotta be careful about that. Last time I acted on my gut feeling, I threw up. :(


mdt wrote:
stuff

FAULTY ASSUMPTION.

In a game with 5 player and 1 DM you might sell 6 core rule books but only 1 AP.
Also as a GM you might actually find it smarter to subscribe directly from Paizo. That's even true in you live in Europe.
Also as a DM you might find it more necessary the get the core book, bestiary, etc as printed books since you will use them again and again. But might find it enough to get the AP as a PFD.


Zark wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:


Windcaler touches on the main point about archer builds--if you're running a "typical" campaign where you are going to have a lot of tight spaces/underground environments, archer builds hit a lot of problems. You can try to help archers in a way that isn't insanely broken--and I don't feel the feat is since you have to build up to it--or you can say, "Don't play an archer," which personally is not the answer I want to give.

OK, So I agree the feat isn't insanely broken, but I still think the Prerequisites are just silly. If they hade been greater weapon specialization or ranger with the Quarry ability I could see it as balanced. At higher levels casters alters reality anyway, so at higher levels this feat might be fine, but level 4 figher or level ranger level 6, no way.

As a level 6 Ranger, I still think I'd prefer Improved Precise Shot over this feat.

Liberty's Edge

Zark wrote:
Windcaler wrote:


Just make sure you playtest it first, far to many people go off of theory craft instead of real gameplay examples

Best post in this thread so far. Your point is excellent.

Perhaps the feat is OK. I just acted on my gut feeling. It's been wrong before. We'll have to try it and if I still think it's too good next year I come back and let you know :-)

Well, I said pretty much the exact same thing a page ago, but hey, who's counting? ;-)


Glad to see you listening to reason Zark, feel free to let us know how your playtest goes and we may have further advice to assist you

Jeremiziah wrote:
Zark wrote:
Windcaler wrote:


Well, I said pretty much the exact same thing a page ago, but hey, who's counting? ;-)

Its cool, we can share the credit


Kyle Baird wrote:
Zark wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:


Windcaler touches on the main point about archer builds--if you're running a "typical" campaign where you are going to have a lot of tight spaces/underground environments, archer builds hit a lot of problems. You can try to help archers in a way that isn't insanely broken--and I don't feel the feat is since you have to build up to it--or you can say, "Don't play an archer," which personally is not the answer I want to give.

OK, So I agree the feat isn't insanely broken, but I still think the Prerequisites are just silly. If they hade been greater weapon specialization or ranger with the Quarry ability I could see it as balanced. At higher levels casters alters reality anyway, so at higher levels this feat might be fine, but level 4 figher or level ranger level 6, no way.

Edit:

As a level 6 Ranger, I still think I'd prefer Improved Precise Shot over this feat.

Well you can get it al level 7.

My points was:
A) I don't like it
B) I think it should be accessible at later levels. Fighter 4 is too early..and so is ranger 6. But to me fighter 4 is the big problem. Even if you play cleric,paladin or rogue you can dip and pick 4 levels fighter. Perhaps not the best option if you want to focus on your main class, but still a great option if you want to focus on archery.


There are just so many other feats I'd rather take for an Archer-style character that it really can't be that overpowered; Weapon Focus, Deadly Aim, Improved Critical, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Vital Strike.. And there would be even more if the Archer is a Fighter :)

Essentially, this would be a useful feat once I had everything else I'd want, but until then all of the others are simply better. They apply more often, and actually increase the damage potential of the archer.


Are wrote:

There are just so many other feats I'd rather take for an Archer-style character that it really can't be that overpowered; Weapon Focus, Deadly Aim, Improved Critical, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Vital Strike.. And there would be even more if the Archer is a Fighter :)

Essentially, this would be a useful feat once I had everything else I'd want, but until then all of the others are simply better. They apply more often, and actually increase the damage potential of the archer.

Perhaps you are right, ...but I still don't like the prerequisites

Sovereign Court

Zark wrote:


My points was:
A) I don't like it
B) I think it should be accessible at later levels. Fighter 4 is too early..and so is ranger 6. But to me fighter 4 is the big problem. Even if you play cleric,paladin or rogue you can dip and pick 4 levels fighter. Perhaps not the best option if you want to focus on your main class, but still a great option if you want to focus on archery.

How can you get it at Fighter 4 again? Isn't the prereq Weapon Specialization, which itself has a prereq of Fighter 4?

As an aside, I'd never dip 4 levels into fighter if it meant losing 4 caster levels (2 whole spell levels for THIS??), 2-3 sneak attack dice, etc etc.

I've seen a similar ability in several prestige classes and I have run campaigns with characters having had this ability and it's peanuts. Most archers I've seen are glass cannons and will avoid combat like the plague.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Twowlves wrote:


How can you get it at Fighter 4 again? Isn't the prereq Weapon Specialization, which itself has a prereq of Fighter 4?

If you are multiclassing, and your Fighter 4 level is your 5th (or other odd numbered) character level, you could take Weapon Spec as your bonus feat and Point Blank Master as your regular class feat at the same leveling.

If you are a 4th level Fighter who is also a 4th level character, you are right, you would have to wait until 5th level to take the next feat.

Quote:
As an aside, I'd never dip 4 levels into fighter if it meant losing 4 caster levels (2 whole spell levels for THIS??), 2-3 sneak attack dice, etc etc.

I might do it if I was building an Arcane Archer. Which is probably the biggest reason why someone would be building an archer-spellcaster to begin with. Otherwise, you're right, it's not a good tradeoff.

And if I was building a swashy/fighty rogue where sneak attack is not my sole priority, I would do it with that kind of build. Fighter-rogue builds are very varied and complex and can be made to be effective in a number of ways. It may not be the most optimized way, but it depends on what your goals are with the character, I suppose.


DeathQuaker wrote:
Twowlves wrote:


How can you get it at Fighter 4 again? Isn't the prereq Weapon Specialization, which itself has a prereq of Fighter 4?

If you are multiclassing, and your Fighter 4 level is your 5th (or other odd numbered) character level, you could take Weapon Spec as your bonus feat and Point Blank Master as your regular class feat at the same leveling.

If you are a 4th level Fighter who is also a 4th level character, you are right, you would have to wait until 5th level to take the next feat.

Actually, at 4th level any Fighter (even a single classed, 4th-level character) can take Weapon Specialization through his Fighter bonus Feat.

From PRD -> Feats:

"Prerequisites:
Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite."

So, at 4th level, a Fighter gains the prerequisite of 'being a 4th level Fighter' and can subsequently take Weapon Specialization with his bonus feat. He doesn't have to wait to be a 5th-level Fighter to take it.

These rules were not changed by Pathfinder by the way, they were exactly the same in 3.x too.
Maybe you are confusing Feats prerequisites with Prestige Class prerequisites:

From PRD -> Prestige Classes:

"Prestige classes allow characters to become truly exceptional, gaining powers beyond the ken of their peers. Unlike the core classes, characters must meet specific requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before gaining any benefits of that level, that character cannot take that prestige class. Characters that take levels in prestige classes do not gain any favored class bonuses for those levels."

Basically, for a Feat your prerequisites are considered valid the very moment you have it (basically, as soon as you gain your level and distribute your skill points and your other feats, if allowable - a 5th level single-classed Wizard, for example, gains a Wizard bonus Feat and a 5th-level character Feat, and one of these two feats can have as a prerequisite the other one, as per the 'Feats Prerequisites' rule above); for a Prestige Class, you have to wait the following level.


wraithstrike wrote:


Just being stunned means you lose an action, and depending on your hit points you might survive the next round or so. With this feat your HP don't matter. Now being stunned is just as bad as being put to sleep. Being stunned is not pleasant, but it is a lot better than being unconscious. I would not use this on the players if they don't try it first though.
I do understand what you mean, but I guess we gave different views on how much being stunned hurts your chance to survive.

Being DAZED you lose an action. Being stunned means lose dex to AC 8and lose the action). Stunned adjacent to a rogue = dead already. Stunned adjacent to a deadly stroke fighter = if not dead, very near.

This feat brings a quick finishing move to a rogue, is not so overpowered. It's indeed, at least in my opinion, a very good feat to take. Coupled, the fighter with crit feats and deadly stroke, and a rogue with this feats, could dispatch enemies quickly!

Sovereign Court

The Wraith wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Twowlves wrote:


How can you get it at Fighter 4 again? Isn't the prereq Weapon Specialization, which itself has a prereq of Fighter 4?

If you are multiclassing, and your Fighter 4 level is your 5th (or other odd numbered) character level, you could take Weapon Spec as your bonus feat and Point Blank Master as your regular class feat at the same leveling.

If you are a 4th level Fighter who is also a 4th level character, you are right, you would have to wait until 5th level to take the next feat.

Actually, at 4th level any Fighter (even a single classed, 4th-level character) can take Weapon Specialization through his Fighter bonus Feat.

Both Weapon Specialization and this new feat have essentially the same prereq, namely 4th level fighter. You can't take both at the same level unless your 4th fighter level is also an odd level, thus giving you two feats to spend.

But I think Zark's problem was how fast you could get the feat, and no one can get it at 4th character level (5th for fighters, 6th for rangers).


Twowlves wrote:

Both Weapon Specialization and this new feat have essentially the same prereq, namely 4th level fighter. You can't take both at the same level unless your 4th fighter level is also an odd level, thus giving you two feats to spend.

But I think Zark's problem was how fast you could get the feat, and no one can get it at 4th character level (5th for fighters, 6th for rangers).

Ah, you are right, I was merely speaking of the Weapon Specialization feat itself, not the combo Weapon Specialization + Point Blank Master.

Regarding the 'too soon, too powerful' I wholeheartedly agree with Are's post above:

Are wrote:

There are just so many other feats I'd rather take for an Archer-style character that it really can't be that overpowered; Weapon Focus, Deadly Aim, Improved Critical, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Vital Strike.. And there would be even more if the Archer is a Fighter :)

Essentially, this would be a useful feat once I had everything else I'd want, but until then all of the others are simply better. They apply more often, and actually increase the damage potential of the archer.

A 4-Fighter-levels dip can be an investment, but it also precludes (or at least delays) higher level class abilities in other classes. Do you really want to be able to shoot in melee without fearing AoO with your Paladin ? Well, your friends would never (or almost never) gain the almighty Aura of Courage for that :D (Paladin 11th/Fighter 4th is a 15th level character... and the majority of people quit playing characters a couple of levels later at best).


Zark wrote:

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.

I would say that Dazing spell is likely too powerful in that it dazes for multiple rounds. It likely needs to be errata'd down to dazing for 1 full round.

As to point blank master.. it's a trap in a sense. Just like OotBI, and before that the requirement to be within 30' to get weapon specialization (back in 3.0). It encourages archers to be where they shouldn't.

If the PC simply uses it as an oh crap feat for when something gets close then they will be alright.. but an archer in melee is looking to lose his/her bow... at best they can hope to be tripped.

As to the feat itself be over-powered.. bah not in the least. Archery requires enough feats as it is.. someone getting this early is doing without for another feat.

There are far more worrisome feats in the APG if you want to look for them.

-James

Grand Lodge

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Being DAZED you lose an action. Being stunned means lose dex to AC 8and lose the action). Stunned adjacent to a rogue = dead already. Stunned adjacent to a deadly stroke fighter = if not dead, very near.

No. The only difference between being flanked by a rogue and being stunned next to a rogue is a couple points of AC and I would never consider someone flanked by a rogue to be "dead already".

Let's just say that I'm involved in two home campaigns and the rogues in both are already talking about picking up this feat, although they have a couple of levels to go before they qualify.


As for the gang up feat, this ones balance or lack there of is very dependant on party size and composition.

Take a rogue in 2 groups

Group1
Melee Fighter
Rogue
Battle Cleric(melee)
Summoner Wizard

Group2
Archer Fighter
Rogue
Caster cleric
Blaster Wizard

The thing is for gang up to work, the target has to be flanked, that means you need 2 other party members in melee. In group 1, that is going to be ridiculously easy. In group 2, that is going to be a lot harder.

In short
More melee -> gang up becomes much better
Larger group size -> gang up becomes better

I can see this feat being ridiculously good in a 6 or 8 man melee heavy party, while being a joke in a 3 man melee light party.


Twowlves wrote:
Both Weapon Specialization and this new feat have essentially the same prereq, namely 4th level fighter. You can't take both at the same level unless your 4th fighter level is also an odd level, thus giving you two feats to spend.

*

You can, with the fighter's retrain option. You only need to forget an other feat.

Sovereign Court

Stéphane Le Roux wrote:
Twowlves wrote:
Both Weapon Specialization and this new feat have essentially the same prereq, namely 4th level fighter. You can't take both at the same level unless your 4th fighter level is also an odd level, thus giving you two feats to spend.

*

You can, with the fighter's retrain option. You only need to forget an other feat.

True, I had forgotten that. But it can't be Weapon Focus: Bow or Weapon Specialization: Bow, leaving only one other candidate feat (only bonus fighter feats can be retrained) to be swapped out.


sieylianna wrote:
Kaiyanwang wrote:
Being DAZED you lose an action. Being stunned means lose dex to AC 8and lose the action). Stunned adjacent to a rogue = dead already. Stunned adjacent to a deadly stroke fighter = if not dead, very near.

No. The only difference between being flanked by a rogue and being stunned next to a rogue is a couple points of AC and I would never consider someone flanked by a rogue to be "dead already".

Actually, there's several differences. One, stunned creatures cannot move, so they cannot escape the Rogue. Two, stunned creatures cannot make AoOs, so it's incredibly easy to set up a flank. Three, stunned creatures drop everything they're holding, including their shield. Four, they get -2 AC, lose any Dex bonus, lose any AC bonus from their no-longer-held shield, and can still be flanked. Considering that the only reason Rogues do less damage than the full BAB characters is that they miss a lot more often, +2-10 to hit is a major damage increase to the Rogue.

Grand Lodge

Zurai wrote:
Actually, there's several differences. One, stunned creatures cannot move, so they cannot escape the Rogue. Two, stunned creatures cannot make AoOs, so it's incredibly easy to set up a flank. Three, stunned creatures drop everything they're holding, including their shield. Four, they get -2 AC, lose any Dex bonus, lose any AC bonus from their no-longer-held shield, and can still be flanked. Considering that the only reason Rogues do less damage than the full BAB characters is that they miss a lot more often, +2-10 to hit is a major damage increase to the Rogue.

Since we are talking about an encounter or PC tactic which is designed to stun and allow the rogue to coup de grace someone, none of your points apply.

While we are on the subject, does Pathfinder have a feat that allows you to perform a coup de grace as less than a full round action? I've seen it as both a move and standard action in other rules, but I'm not sure about Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zurai wrote:
...stunned creatures drop everything they're holding, including their shield.

How on earth do you drop something that is strapped to your arm?


sieylianna wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Actually, there's several differences. One, stunned creatures cannot move, so they cannot escape the Rogue. Two, stunned creatures cannot make AoOs, so it's incredibly easy to set up a flank. Three, stunned creatures drop everything they're holding, including their shield. Four, they get -2 AC, lose any Dex bonus, lose any AC bonus from their no-longer-held shield, and can still be flanked. Considering that the only reason Rogues do less damage than the full BAB characters is that they miss a lot more often, +2-10 to hit is a major damage increase to the Rogue.
Since we are talking about an encounter or PC tactic which is designed to stun and allow the rogue to coup de grace someone, none of your points apply.

How do you figure? You said "the only difference between stunned and flanked is a couple points of AC". I pointed out that there were more differences.


Ravingdork wrote:
Zurai wrote:
...stunned creatures drop everything they're holding, including their shield.
How on earth do you drop something that is strapped to your arm?

Shield straps aren't like belts, that can't fall off if they're properly fastened. They're more to keep the shield positioned properly than to keep it on your arm at all costs. That's why shields have to be gripped. If all it needed was a strap, you'd have a free hand instead of having your hand used up by the shield (which, admittedly, is the case for the buckler).


Ravingdork wrote:
Zurai wrote:
...stunned creatures drop everything they're holding, including their shield.
How on earth do you drop something that is strapped to your arm?

Bucklers are strapped to the arm.

Shields, usually, have a loop that goes around your forearm and a handle on the inside that you grip. So if you drop your arm to the side (which will happen with a shield in your hand when you are stunned), then the shield will slide right off your arm.

EDIT: Ninja'd! Darn you Zurai! :)

On the other hand, with a buckler, you'd only lose the shield AC while you're stunned (can't defend with the buckler while stunned), but get it back immediately after you recover from being stunned.

Silver Crusade

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet: This feat "technically" already existed in the Pathfinder Campaign setting. Granted, that book was written for 3.5, and it is specifically for firearms, but still, already existed, and personally, for having spend 3 feats and 4 levels to get it, it's not bad at all. For me it falls into that "necessary for the weapon type" feats. Like double slice for dual wielders, or weapon focus for any weapon user, or weapon specialization for any fighter. Considering you have to specialize in a single weapon for the feat, makes it less OMG BROKED.


I'm not surprised about the crossbow master feat making an appearance on this thread, i am kinda surprised there wasn't more about Dastardly Finish. It's pretty easily taken advantage of by a rogue without even hitting another class if you don't mind waiting a couple of lvl's to get stunning fist on your own (+8bab). I mean, i take minor/major magic w/ true-strike already cast as a spell-like ability, ..+20 hit w/ your next attack + stunning fist+ dastardly finish?
Three feat's to shoe-horn into a rogue doesn't seem like a bad trade-off for those potential returns.


The only problem I had with the Feats are the Feats that allow you to take Class Traits. They could of saved some space and said that those Classes could take those traits as feats. I allowed that anyway.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Blakksheep wrote:

I'm not surprised about the crossbow master feat making an appearance on this thread, i am kinda surprised there wasn't more about Dastardly Finish. It's pretty easily taken advantage of by a rogue without even hitting another class if you don't mind waiting a couple of lvl's to get stunning fist on your own (+8bab). I mean, i take minor/major magic w/ true-strike already cast as a spell-like ability, ..+20 hit w/ your next attack + stunning fist+ dastardly finish?

Three feat's to shoe-horn into a rogue doesn't seem like a bad trade-off for those potential returns.

Let me see, first round to True Strike, second round to Stunning Fist attack (hope for no natural 1), which forces a save based on the rogues Wis, and then on the third round force a Fort save modified by SA damage.

Well, it's better than Cockatrice Strike anyway.


A save based on your rogue's wis does make that sound a little worse, but to be fair the stunning fist save DC is 10 + half your lvl + your wis bonus, which for all intents and purposes is most likely just the 1 for the 13 wis you need to get stunning fist to begin with. But if your doing this with one character, that's going to be at least a 15-16 save at lvl 11 when you hit the required +8bab (i don't remember if you round up or not). Certainly not an impossible number to hit w/ a level appropriate npc, but its not a for-sure thing even with a solid fighter's fort save. The stunning fist save is the weakest link in the attempt to be sure.
Your taking one (or more, stunning fist attempts are limited per day based on your level) high value target and throwing its hit points right out the window. Instead it gets a 3 round timer based on iffy saves. Potentially two of those three rounds the target's stunned and being killed.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, i'm new to Pathfinder. Our group recently picked it up and i really enjoy the system alot. I haven't had this much fun screwing around with character build's in a long long time. I'm just interested to see how many time's a bad guy gets dropped in our games prematurely because of this feat. I mean, its like punching someone as hard as you can in the ball's then slicing their throat open when they lean over and groan.


Blakksheep wrote:
The stunning fist save is the weakest link in the attempt to be sure.

Actually, while it is a very weak link (CR 11 monsters have an average Fort save of +10 to +14, meaning a DC 16 save is pretty trivial), the weakest link is that it takes three rounds to pull off.

101 to 150 of 168 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / APG - Broken feats? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.