Weapon Specialization has said that since the invention of feats. As for the rest, yes, I believe you're correct, it's something a special "class ability" for fighters to have access to a few feats that (almost) nobody else can get.
while i totally feel that those feats are great for the fighter and that there should be more of them i think there are two feats that bother me as fighter only, Disruptive and Spell-breaker should be open to everyone who wants to specialize in fighting spell casters or even give a higher minimum level for non fighters.
|
Count me in the camp of 'make it a dern class feature if you're going to require fighter levels'. The only things that should be used for feat prerequisites are BAB, skill ranks, and caster level. Thus, characters cannot get a feat before the point you think it is appropriate, and they don't have to plan out their character in advance when they want a certain feat, and they don't get screwed when they decide they want a feat but need three other feats to get the one they want.
it make no sense that they create feats only fighters can qualify for and then make rogue talents a class feature
surely feats only a rogue can qualify for is exactly the same thing
or fighter talents ?
same diff no ?
We've been down that road before. 'Feats are the fighter class features' they say.
...*blink*....
Why is it that so many feats now say they require lvls in fighter? Am I reading this wrong? Reference weapon specialization for example.
Was this aimed to make fighters more powerful by allowing only them to take certain feats?
Fighter level = you are exceptionally trained this much to do X.
So makes sense because only a fighter THAT MUCH TRAINED can use the weapon that way, or ignore that damage reduction and stuff.
And, as stated, since feats are the main thing fighter have, and since are designed to be a very customizable class, in this way you have a thing exclusive for the fighter, without force hit to take it.
IMO is an elegant solution. YMMV, of course.
|
it make no sense that they create feats only fighters can qualify for and then make rogue talents a class feature
surely feats only a rogue can qualify for is exactly the same thing
or fighter talents ?
same diff no ?
There is a difference, Feats have a bit more flexibility in that there is an opportunity cost attached (not using that feat for something else)
A player can also choose to take a class only feat later than the minimum level if they want, e.g. A Fighter could take Disruptive at level 7+ rather than the minimum 6th level (when it would have to be a fughter bonus feat).
Also class only feats can be added in new books along with other feats rather than have to have a separate section offering more class abilities.
Basically feats are more flexible in terms of when you can take them and how many you can and want to take.
My group has an issue with the 'Fighter only' feats as well, but primarily the 'shield' oriented feats, as we could see a Paladin making use of them more than a Fighter would.
How many pages of "class features" are dedicated to Bards, Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Sorcerers, and Wizards? There are two whole chapters about them, not counting what is the classes chapter. I don't begrudge the Fighter having class feature spillover into a small section of another chapter. (note: one of the reasons 4e squished everything into class features, because people complained about this)
Besides having those "Fighter Only Feats" as feats also means that archetypes can snag them with very little space issue. See the Bard Arcane Duelist archetype in the APG. Also there are prestige classes like Eldritch Knight which stack fighter levels (even if the character doesn't have any). It is also far easier for a DM to apply rule 0 and allow someone to take a feat, then to modify a class to insert a new class ability.
This drove me nuts about the TOS Swashbuckler. The class has full BAB, Weapon Training as a class feature, but doesn't qualify in any way as having Fighter levels for the purpose of feat qualification? Really?
|
Making the current "fighter only" feats into fighter class abilities weakens the class. Bonus Combat feats are more flexible. Not every fighter wants Weapon Specialization at all, much less at 4th level. Others might want Weapon Specialization multiple times, perhaps as early as 4th, 5th and 6th level. Changing the base class would most likely make this impossible
(Plus, Fighters already get Weapon Training as a class feature.)
|
|
Making the current "fighter only" feats into fighter class abilities weakens the class.
I disagree. The barbarian and rogue were not weakened by giving them rage powers or talents. The fighter could have been enhanced by an application of the same concept. Call them "combat powers" or whatever. Take most/all of the fighter-only feats and add them to the list as well as additional powers that still give fighters plenty of customization. I think this would make the fighter feel more like a fully fleshed out class and not the generic, base-class it is now. Most players I have seen still use fighter as either a spring-board to the PrC they really want to play or dip a level or two to get extra feats. Don't get me wrong, fighter is much improved from v3.5, but could be even better. Unfortunately, I do not expect this will be a reality since it would cause a large amount of errata and re-writes. I'll stick to barbarian/ranger/paladin for my martial classes and rogue can use talents to dip as well.
Two "fixes" for this problem:
1) Replace the fighter bonus feats with a "fighter talent" class feature. Move the figher-only feats to fighter talents. Also make a combat feat a fighter talent that the fighter can take as often as he chooses. Because other classes like rangers can now select some of these feats, I consider this option non-optimal.
2) Remove fighter-level dependencies from feats, but give fighters a special advantage in selecting these feats. For example: "A fighter adds half his class level to his base attack bonus when qualifying for combat feats." Then make Weapon Specialization require a +6 BAB, Greater Weapon Focus require +12 BAB, and Greater Weapon Specialization require a +18 BAB. Then anyone can qualify but not as fast as the fighter, plus it's something else that's special about the fighter (he qualifies for lots of feats faster than anyone else).
I think option #2 might require some slight re-designs in places, but it would fit to the notion of all feat prerequisites being general while still allowing the fighter to be special.
If Paizo had written Pathfinder from scratch and developed a game that looks a lot like what Pathfinder is, there probably would not be fighter-only feats. Instead, there would be fighter talents. These would include the fighter only feats, and an option to take a combat feat. (Much like what AvalonXQ said in the first option.)
However, it was not written from scratch, but based on 3.5, which was in turn based on 3.0. When 3.0 was written, neither rogue talents nor rage powers existed. The concept of the fighter was "a guy who knows a lot about fighting". At that time, a reasonable way to make such a class was to give it a lot of combat-related feats. This decision was inherited by 3.5 and Pathfinder.
If the concept of fighter only feats bothers you, think of them as mislabeled fighter talents because the designers at WotC couldn't figure out what Paizo was going to do ten years later. :-)
Meta Combat Feats
Give them their own section like the Meta Magic Feats. You want the feats - take the class.
|
|
If Paizo had written Pathfinder from scratch and developed a game that looks a lot like what Pathfinder is, there probably would not be fighter-only feats. Instead, there would be fighter talents. These would include the fighter only feats, and an option to take a combat feat. (Much like what AvalonXQ said in the first option.)
However, it was not written from scratch, but based on 3.5, which was in turn based on 3.0. When 3.0 was written, neither rogue talents nor rage powers existed. The concept of the fighter was "a guy who knows a lot about fighting". At that time, a reasonable way to make such a class was to give it a lot of combat-related feats. This decision was inherited by 3.5 and Pathfinder.
If the concept of fighter only feats bothers you, think of them as mislabeled fighter talents because the designers at WotC couldn't figure out what Paizo was going to do ten years later. :-)
Bingo. Well said, sir.
Sure, you can say Fighter Only Feats are Fighter Class Features,
and thus it`s Holy Sacrilege that Paizo didn`t treat them like Rogue Talents or Barbarian Powers.
...The thing is though, that Fighter Only Feats are an OPTIONAL Class Feature. You don`t have to choose them, you can choose ANY Combat Feat with your Bonus Feats, and you can choose ANY Feat period (including the Fighter Only Feats) with your normal Feats. Keeping them classed as FEATS allows Fighter characters extreme flexibility, from taking all the Fighter Only Feats as soon as they are available (Bonus Feat or not) to taking none of them and choosing other Combat Feats that work better for them.
Rogue Talents and Barbarian Powers NOT being classed as Feats means it`s IMPOSSIBLE for a Rogue/Barbarian to take more than the 1/2 class levels that they currently receive them at, which is a huge factor is balancing power level as well as differentiating single class progression from multi-class combos who could otherwise just purchase such class features with their Feats.
I think it works out pretty fine... (though I agree certain Feats like Disruptive don`t need to be Fighter only)
I think Fighter Feats are just as reasonable as feats that require sneak attack (which only rogues get) or the old 3.5 feats that required Turn Undead class feature. The only difference is that fighters are so un-unique that they have to SAY "fighter level X" instead of just identifying a class feature requirement.
Thing is, alot of the new 'rage powers' or rogue talents are better than fighter-only feats.
Example- Come and Get Me and Reckless Abandon. Both far better than wpn spl.
I have no issue with fighter only feats but I'd like them to be in their own subsection, like metamagic feats are. They could also use a power up.
PHBII addressed this quite well:
Rolibar's Gambit
Melee Weapon Mastery
Slashing Flurry
Crushing Strike
The Combat Form Feats.The more PF material that comes out the less 3.5 our group seems to use, our fighter's however are still using (and frankly for 'cool' reasons) 3.5 CW,PHB2 and TOB martial study feat.
DPR is not the issue- straight PF fighters do damage that is only eclipsed by a Paladin Smiting or a Cavalier Challenging. But Doing something cool with your standard action is better than saying I full attack every turn...
Paizo seems to have recognised the need for standard action 'special moves and has put in some but most are open to everybody.
I'd like to see some Fighter only feats that really rock special(the new archetypes sorta did this as class features)
+1.
I'm actually starting to dislike the archetypes. I would have liked so see less archetypes and more feats.Feats that gives fighter some sort of iterative attacks (mobil fighter)
Feats that gave the Bard alternative Bardic Performance
Etc.
|
|
Rogue Talents and Barbarian Powers NOT being classed as Feats means it`s IMPOSSIBLE for a Rogue/Barbarian to take more than the 1/2 class levels that they currently receive them at, which is a huge factor is balancing power level as well as differentiating single class progression from multi-class combos who could otherwise just purchase such class features with their Feats.
Not with the APG Extra Rogue Talent and Extra Barbarian Power feats.
|
|
We want fighters to have class features without calling them class features.
That's how I read that.
So if we took all the fighter feats out of the feat section and added them to fighter class section then changed them to "fighter talents" and the extra feats fighters got became talent slots, all would be better?
|
|
So if we took all the fighter feats out of the feat section and added them to fighter class section then changed them to "fighter talents" and the extra feats fighters got became talent slots, all would be better?We want fighters to have class features without calling them class features.
That's how I read that.
I would say no, but then, I think that feats should do more.
Sure, you can say Fighter Only Feats are Fighter Class Features,
and thus it`s Holy Sacrilege that Paizo didn`t treat them like Rogue Talents or Barbarian Powers....The thing is though, that Fighter Only Feats are an OPTIONAL Class Feature. You don`t have to choose them, you can choose ANY Combat Feat with your Bonus Feats, and you can choose ANY Feat period (including the Fighter Only Feats) with your normal Feats. Keeping them classed as FEATS allows Fighter characters extreme flexibility, from taking all the Fighter Only Feats as soon as they are available (Bonus Feat or not) to taking none of them and choosing other Combat Feats that work better for them.
Rogue Talents and Barbarian Powers NOT being classed as Feats means it`s IMPOSSIBLE for a Rogue/Barbarian to take more than the 1/2 class levels that they currently receive them at, which is a huge factor is balancing power level as well as differentiating single class progression from multi-class combos who could otherwise just purchase such class features with their Feats.
I think it works out pretty fine... (though I agree certain Feats like Disruptive don`t need to be Fighter only)
I think that is a fair point about the freedom to build your fighter any way you choose. Of course, I prefer giving them feats AND talents for maximum flexibility. I suppose it is all a matter of preference.
Don't think of them as feats. Think of them as "Fighter Talents". Listing them as "Feats" in the book merely obviates the need for an extra mechanic and class feature and saves the rain forests. Go Green!
Honestly, with Weapon Training and all the other class features that Paizo gave the fighter, there's a lot less weight to the "Feats are a fighter's class features" argument. They already get a bonus to damage rolls thanks to Weapon Training. Why are they the only ones who get to have it again with Weapon Specialization?
At the moment, I'm testing the idea that Weapon Specialization, et al, are available to everyone and really see if it comes across as unbalanced. Because a simple +2 damage really isn't that much to write home about at higher levels, and certain other classes struggle with damage anyway. I'll see if I change my mind as my Kingmaker game goes on, but I'm not really expecting it. Weapon Specialization was kind of a "meh" feat in 3.5 as was...
So if we took all the fighter feats out of the feat section and added them to fighter class section then changed them to "fighter talents" and the extra feats fighters got became talent slots, all would be better?We want fighters to have class features without calling them class features.
That's how I read that.
LOL. Well said!
Yes all would be better and fighter would not be able to pick any talents at level 1, 3, 5, etc. That would realy be great.
Even better why not create Archetypes tied to all feats.
The dodge Archetype, the combat expertise chain Archetype, etc.