| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The APG has a lot of interesting feat material in it, but we run up against the problem of too many interesting feats and not enough slots to make characters interesting. I personally feel that Melee has gotten pretty static at high levels (my campaign is at 10th) because my melee PCs are not fighters. I'd like it to be a bit more tactical, and I feel like my Meleers could have up to twice the feats while not really out-pacing the casters.
One solution I'm considering is making a selection of feats "free". Especially those feats that have awkward pre-reqs, those that have built-in balance mechanisms, and those that really just seem like something all characters should be able to do! Also, definitely no-brainer feats that everyone ends up taking regardless... the "Feat Tax" for melee characters, so called.
So, what combat feats would you free up? Make them basically combat options that everyone gets!
Here's my starting list, please critique:
Agile Maneuvers
In my opinion, you shouldn't have to spend a feat to make a dex-driven melee character. Making this feat free basically amounts to changing CMB to use "Dex or Str, whichever is higher."
Combat Expertise
Yes, Combat Expertise for free. Who can argue that? And, what's more, I would totally waive the Int 13 requirement. Maybe now people will actually take Maneuver Feats!
Deadly Aim
You trade to-hit for damage. That's a fair trade.
Lunge
You trade AC for reach. Seems fair.
Power Attack
You trade to-hit for damage. That's a fair trade.
Strike Back
I'm not even sure why this is a feat! I mean, a literal interpretation should disallow this kind of thing, but Readied actions are already contingent on enemy behavior, that's a pretty big trade-off. You deny yourself a full attack and negate the risk of an AoO by waiting for the dragon to hit you... okay, fine, you get your standard attack, bro.
Two Weapon Fighting (improved, greater)
Am I crazy? Nah. For TWF, I'll just allow anyone to make the extra attacks with each at -2. The catch is, in order to apply any bonus damage (Sneak Attack, Favored Enemy, Smite, etc) you have to pay the feat tax. If you're just trying to do something cool that involves TWF, no tax.
Vital Strike (improved, greater)
Vital Strike free, why not? It's been proven that it isn't "too good." It was intended as a patch to the "stand and hack" mode of 3.5... it works. Let everyone in on the fun.
Weapon Finesse
Like Agile Maneuvers. This basically changes the attack roll to use "Dex or Str, whichever is higher."
---
All of these feats would require the pre-reqs to be met before the free feat is available, with the exception of Combat Expertise (Int 13 pre-req on all the Improved Maneuver feats... )
So, what say you all? Is this total madness?
Fighters get plenty Feats in PF, I don't see a need to give stuff away for free. As for the other Classes, they gets lots of cool Class Abilities, so I don't see where they need free Feats either.
Fighters get plenty Feats in PF, I don't see a need to give stuff away for free.
I think the general idea is along the lines of this: you don't need a feat to fight defensively, so why would you need a feat to use Combat Expertise (which is basically just a slight variation on fighting defensively)?
Fighters get plenty Feats in PF, I don't see a need to give stuff away for free. As for the other Classes, they gets lots of cool Class Abilities, so I don't see where they need free Feats either.
I state my perceived problem in my first paragraph, loaba. I'm not looking for an official errata to the rules here, nor even for a universally popular house rule. I just want to tweak things a bit and get some advice from people who know the rules cold.
Please tell me what effects you think this change would have in the context of that first paragraph problem?
|
I've actually been using Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers as baseline for about 6 months now, and it hasn't presented any problems thus far.
I actually approve of your list, with the exception of the Two-Weapon Fighting line, and that's only from a logical standpoint. Someone who has trained for 30 year with a big zweihander isn't going to be able to pick up two short swords and immediately excel. Having attempted to use two weapons in an actual setting myself, it takes a lot more concentration and skill than a single weapon.
All in all, though, these may just see implementation in my game.
Please tell me what effects you think this change would have in the context of that first paragraph problem?
If your parties melee fighters are not actual Fighters, then yeah, they're simply not going to have the varied Feat selection. If anything, your party illustrates just how important a true Fighter really is. I hate to see the Fighter's abilities handed out, for free, to other classes. It cheapens the Fighter class altogether.
I'm not out to change your mind or upset your apple cart, rather I just don't see the need to make DEX fighting free. DEX is a powerful ability, and when you have both offense and defense feeding from it, that's a huge benefit. It should be paid for.
One thing I noticed in Pathfinder is the introduction of some non-class related "dead" levels.
1. Feat
2.
3. Feat
4. Ability Increase
5. Feat
6.
7. Feat
8. Ability Increase
9. Feat
10.
11. Feat
12. Abiility Increase
13. Feat
14.
15. Feat
16. Abililty Increase
17. Feat
18.
19. Feat
20. Ability Increase
Levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18 might be levels where "free" feats might be available. Maybe bonus traits.
Maybe the characters can choose a weapon of choice, to which they can apply those circumstancial feats for free.
Not sure that I would include lunge, but I certainly would include 'heighten spell'.. in fact I wouldn't consider it a metamagic feat at all, just a function of casting using a higher slot.
Already done in my campaign, but not included here because I am really concerned with combat options. Basically, I'm looking at feats that should be more like combat options in my individual opinion.
But yes, this is helpful in the sense that I'm trying to narrow down which feats deserve to be free, and Heighten spell is a good one. Does anything on the above list "break the game" to have it become a free ability, and if so how?
As for Lunge, I dunno, I think it makes sense as a "trade-off power". It just seems like something people should be able to do.
Lunge, Power Attack, and Deadly Aim are probably the shakiest on this list. Power attack should stay, I think, just because EVERYONE takes it, and that's a little dull.
I am excited to see more thoughts on the matter. The list I gave is far from perfect, I'd like to know why!
I'm not out to change your mind or upset your apple cart, rather I just don't see the need to make DEX fighting free. DEX is a powerful ability, and when you have both offense and defense feeding from it, that's a huge benefit. It should be paid for.
It is, but so long as damage is derived from Strength, going with Dex to hit will always be inherently self-balancing on offense. That's my understanding anyway, I'm open to contrary cases. If you make a dex based fighter, you can have a good defense and hit as much as the big Str character, but you will always do less damage. Seems fair to me. I never liked seeing PCs have to pay out the feats just to play a swashbuckler type. Might as well have a player shell out for "Weapon Brutality" before they can add their Strength to attack rolls. PLUS! The light weapon restriction on Weapon Finesse holds — that tips the balance even further in terms of fair. A character who gets this feat for free is still making a trade: damage for defense. Seems fair to me.
When I look at the builds that this opens up, they will only be as good as a greatsword fighter with all Strength. Currently, because of the two-feat tax, they are not as good. Then again, I'm not being a very precise CharOp about this, I'm just looking to open up options for my players in a way that is fair.
So in short, I guess you're right — but I feel it does balance out in the end. There is a reason that Weapon Finesse is often passed over or thought of as a "flavor" feat.
btw, loaba, thanks for humoring me, that was constructive!
If you make a dex based fighter, you can have a good defense and hit as much as the big Str character, but you will always do less damage.
You're forgetting that the good (I'd say phenomenal) defensive capability of the DEX Fighter goes a long way towards mitigating the good hitting capability of the STR Fighter. If we're talking about True Fighters, who have more Feats than the day is long, then you can make a Shield Fighter. This guy is nigh unhittable, has multiple attacks from Level 1, and dishes out the excellent damage despite a sub-par STR Ability. Gawd, throw in a heavy STAT Array, to defeat the MAD issue, and you have a real killer.
That's what the Fighter class is for. If you give away Feats the way you propose, you weaken that Class in the process.
About Weapon Finesse - that was a very hard choice to make for my DEX Fighter. There wasn't a clear answer as to what was a better choice. That tells me that Weapon Finesse is a valid Feat.
As others have said, when you start giving away combat feats, you take away from the Fighter class, whose main class ability is having loads and loads of combat feats.
On the other hand, D&D has a long history of making a high strength score be an enormously effective strategy. So effective that other, just as interesting and fun strategies, pale in comparison. The addition of Weapon Finesse, the expansion of Weapon Finesse to include all weapons rather than one per feat, and now Agile Maneuvers helps that to a degree.
I have taken that trend one step further and made Weapon Finesse simply a part of the game, essentially given it to all characters for free, and I feel that it was a strict improvement. I'd seriously consider doing the same thing with Agile Maneuvers.
So, my response in a nutshell:
Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers - Yes, because you're fixing the game.
All the others - no because those parts of the game don't need fixing.
That's what the Fighter class is for. If you give away Feats the way you propose, you weaken that Class in the process.
2 things: 1, you might be right about that, but I am trying to make things more interesting for my non fighter (and non caster for that matter) PCs. There's no fighter in the party to feel gypped. 2, if the feats are free, then... does not the fighter get better as well? So it isn't really unfair to the fighter, is it? That is a sincere, sarcasm free question, BTW.
|
Why not go the Monte Cook "Book of Experimental Might" route and give PCs a feat at every level? Folks could choose you "free" feats that way, but other folks could get stuff too. Unless you're specifically trying to benefit melee characters.
Also, by opening up the trade-X-for-Y try feats, you're starting to create a Stance system. Some good ideas about this were tossed around back in the Beta days: a defensive stance (+AC, -damage), an aggressive stance (-AC, +damage), a targeting stance (+hit, -[iterative attack, move, initiative or something]), and a rapid stance (-hit, +[iterative attack, move, initiative or something]). This would be available to everyone, or maybe everyone with BAB >= +1. Would be fun to see this developed as an option.
One other thing on "free" feats. If you don't want to make them absolutely free, you could just double up some of them. Two-Weapon Fighting automatically include Two-Weapon Defense. Weapon Finesse includes Agile Maneuvers. Not totally free, but at least bundled to make them more attractive.
So, my response in a nutshell:
Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers - Yes, because you're fixing the game.
All the others - no because those parts of the game don't need fixing.
My party's main damage dealer is a barbarian. She's taken Vital strike, which has done its job and given her the mobility she needs to survive in a campaign very heavy on giant opponents.
If I make Vital Strike available to everyone as soon as they become eligible, how does that step on the fighter's toes? it isn't a fighter only feat...
Again, Power Attack and Deadly Aim might well not belong on this list. Expertise is only on there because I hate hate hate how it bottlenecks all the maneuver feats, and is generally useless on its own.
But Vital strike? I don't really see this imbalance the game if it becomes an auto-feat. It certainly doesn't change the fighter's awesomeness relative to other PCs feats... he'll just use the slot on something else!
On the flip side, we have a paladin whose enthusiasm for the mounted chain has lead him to spurn Vital Strike. Right, his stupid move, his loss. But in a giant heavy game, especially with awesome blow in the opposition, this can hurt a LOT when he isn't horsed. I dunno, I think free Vital Strike is just not that crazy! it would benefit all Martial classes equally, PCs and NPCs.
I dont think that this sort of thing will affect the game too greatly or take anything away from the fighter.
In my games I have combined the standard, improved and greater versions of feats. If you take the first feat, you gain the benefit of the next when you meet the requirements. So far it has only given my fighters more options, they are taking feats the normally wouldnt as the wouldnt have the feats spare even with the extra feats pathfinder gives you. Means they can have a couple of strings to their bows instead of just focusing on one aspect.
Unless you're specifically trying to benefit melee characters.
Bingo. I am just trying to help the martial characters, actually. 3/4 BABs can come along for the ride. I'm fine with a little boost to ranged combat. My wizard is happy as a pig in &^#* right now, he doesn't need extra feats to play with. :)
Really, moving some of these abilities from the "Feats" chapter to the "Combat" chapter, so to speak, seems like a tidy solution for helping the Martial PCs get a few more options. As it stands, they're pretty much forced to be one-trick ponies unless they're fighters. If we free up some of the feats, they can be two-trick ponies, and the fighter gets that much more awesome... still not a caster though.
Lest this degenerate into a fighter vs wizard thread — let's just accept that this is how my campaign feels and plays, with no CharOp, warts and all. We're not talking about big "D" design here, we're talking about a tweak with a single-campaign scope. :) I expect I might have to repeat that last part. (although big D design enthusiasts ought to be interested in the outcome)
Well you don't have a fighter to step on, so don't worry.
Correct! But, there are always fighter NPCs. It could matter, I just think if everyone gets it, it balances out, right?
Is there another PC in the group that you are looking to help? Or is it just the barbarian?
A Monk and a Rogue are joining the party in the near future. Hence this consideration. :) I want to close the well-known option gap with the wizard, if only a little (since it doesn't bother me too much). For the monk, freeing Combat Expertise might let him get what he actually needs out of maneuvers.
I'm completely on board with weapon finesse and TWF. Nobody really uses TWF except sneak attack rogues, and one reason is the absurd number of feats it takes (THF requires one: power attack. TWF requires the three TWF feats and then another feat or class ability to do damage and then...and then... and then...).
Agile Maneuvers is kinda dumb as a feat since Weapon Finesse covers that, too.
I also agree with Vital Strike, because having all those feats for the same single concept seems just plain messy. It's like if you had to take a feat every six levels to gain your extra attack.
As far as "but you hurt the fighter!" the solution there is to make more and better fighter feats, not to screw over everyone else. Or, alternately, give the fighter actual class abilities :U
I kind of like this Idea, but if i did this I would not change TWF because I have a player the Always take twf, "I think i will play a cleric with 2 maces that would be awesome" "I think i will play a rouge with two short swords that would be awesome" "I think I will play a ranger with two long swords" for the past 5 years not kidding.
Anyway the rest would open out combat options for every one, I have been thinking about doing Vital Strike instead of more attacks at higher levels. And doing rapid attack feat chain if people still want to roll a bunch of dice.
Anyway I would like to know how it all work out Evil Lincoln?
I kind of like this Idea, but if i did this I would not change TWF because I have a player the Always take twf, "I think i will play a cleric with 2 maces that would be awesome" "I think i will play a rouge with two short swords that would be awesome" "I think I will play a ranger with two long swords" for the past 5 years not kidding.
There's certainly some fine print under TWF in that first post. My current house rule is that everyone gets all the 2WF feats free — but in order to get bonus damage (class abilities, etc) on the offhand attack you need to pay feats. So far, it has worked really well, it has only come up once or twice, and always from something that was stylish rather than power-gamery.
I stole it from some other poster on these here boards. It's a great rule, one that makes 2WF a combat option for 90% of players, and still forces PCs to pay the cost to make it a gross damage vehicle.
|
I understand the frustration with the fact that some feats are nice, cool and flavorful they are woefully underpowered or part of an overly long feat chain, compared to other options.
I do have to disagree on some of the examples you gave however, especially power attack. Power attack is pound for pound, the BEST feat. Period. I would sooner give a character a free of Pearl of Power or ring of counterspells than a free Power Attack.
But I would hesitate to simply give them to player for free. If you want to strike the difference I would suggest instead offering them as traits, as traits are basically "half-feats" in the first place.
In terms of the dead levels that start at 2, and repeat themselves every 4 levels thereafter I give my players 1 non background/campaign trait that they meet the prerequisites for, just like how a player would select if he took the feat "Additional Traits." I do this to help guide the players a little more in the direction of flavor of the PC and it legitimately makes leveling up more interesting and fun. This could be part of how you make these less powerful options available.
|
|
If you're giving away feats for free, you might want to allow everybody to pick one skill-related feat (Agile, Persuasive, etc). Hardly anyone ever takes them, and I think they add variety and fun to the characters.
You might want to restrict some of the free combat feats to characters with a certain amount of BAB. So, maybe you don't get Lunge until you hit +4 BAB, to represent the combat know-how necessary to lunge effectively.
I think Mounted Combat ought to be merely an effect of the Ride skill, but you might feel differently since you have a mounted character in the party.
Exotic Weapon Proficiency could be a nice boon to give - it's not usually worth taking the feat, but it'll really help some folks. Classes that don't come with martial weapon proficiency should get something else, like proficiency with a martial family (polearms, heavy blades, light blades, etc.).
I have a list of basic feats that I'll allow characters to buy training in.
They can only buy one feat every five levels and the costs use the following fomula:
Number of feats bought^2 x 4,000 gp.
So it's:
4,000gp for the first
16,000gp for the second
36,000gp for the third
64,000gp for the fourth
100,000gp for the fifth
This is based on the scaling aspect of stat, armor, weapon, and other such boosts, and to keep a player from just buying all the feats available (my logic is it takes time to train, and this is extra training on top of all the other training they are doing during their down time -- which you can only do so much of).
Why not go the Monte Cook "Book of Experimental Might" route and give PCs a feat at every level? Folks could choose you "free" feats that way, but other folks could get stuff too.
I did something like this in a 3.5 game I ran long ago, and two of my players copied my system for the games they ran later. Our system consisted of breaking down all of the feats by quality, the was a list of "Good Feats" and another of "Bad Feats". (Of course, we only wrote down the "Bad" list and just stated that everything else was "Good".)
Every time a character got to choose a feat, including bonus feats, they could choose a second feat that could only come from the Bad Feats list.
Our Bad List included:
- Skill bonuses (too weak)
- Item creation (out of combat, and helps the whole party rather than making one character more powerful)
- The weaker combat maneuvers
- Spell focus (too narrow)
- Any feat that was interesting but too weak or narrow to be worth spending a feat on
This method worked surprisingly well at getting things into play that usually sit, unloved and unlearned, on the island of misfit feats. Unlike simply giving out more feats, which simply encourages players to take more of the good stuff, and still leave the weak but potentially interesting stuff behind, characters got more interesting because of the sub-optimal choices they were offered as a bonus.
In Pathfinder, I would probably put all of the Traits on the "Bad Feats" list as well.
I dont think that this sort of thing will affect the game too greatly or take anything away from the fighter.
Agreed. It doesn't take anything away from anyone. Instead, it benefits everyone, and benefits the fighter since he can more quickly access "higher level" feats since prereqs are built-in to the class.
I've done something similar for a while, and it's been nothing but a benefit to the PCs, pretty much regardless of class. Details at this link.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Definitely agree on Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers. I'd also add that Exotic Weapon Proficiency should be downgraded to a trait.
I understand the frustration with the fact that some feats are nice, cool and flavorful they are woefully underpowered or part of an overly long feat chain, compared to other options.
I do have to disagree on some of the examples you gave however, especially power attack. Power attack is pound for pound, the BEST feat. Period. I would sooner give a character a free of Pearl of Power or ring of counterspells than a free Power Attack.
But I would hesitate to simply give them to player for free. If you want to strike the difference I would suggest instead offering them as traits, as traits are basically "half-feats" in the first place.
In terms of the dead levels that start at 2, and repeat themselves every 4 levels thereafter I give my players 1 non background/campaign trait that they meet the prerequisites for, just like how a player would select if he took the feat "Additional Traits." I do this to help guide the players a little more in the direction of flavor of the PC and it legitimately makes leveling up more interesting and fun. This could be part of how you make these less powerful options available.
Yeah, Power Attack and Deadly Aim are both very powerful feats. I wouldn't give either of those away for free.
The Vital Strike/TWF/Weapon Finesse freebies are less "Now you're more powerful" and more "Hey you suck less" ;p
As others have said, when you start giving away combat feats, you take away from the Fighter class, whose main class ability is having loads and loads of combat feats.
On the other hand, D&D has a long history of making a high strength score be an enormously effective strategy. So effective that other, just as interesting and fun strategies, pale in comparison. The addition of Weapon Finesse, the expansion of Weapon Finesse to include all weapons rather than one per feat, and now Agile Maneuvers helps that to a degree.
I have taken that trend one step further and made Weapon Finesse simply a part of the game, essentially given it to all characters for free, and I feel that it was a strict improvement. I'd seriously consider doing the same thing with Agile Maneuvers.
So, my response in a nutshell:
Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers - Yes, because you're fixing the game.
All the others - no because those parts of the game don't need fixing.
+1
As for Vital Strike (improved, greater) it needs to be redesigned not given away for free. Of all the feats you suggest given away for free Vital Strike is the most illogical and Weapon Finesse the most logical. But I do agree something should be done with Vital Strike.Who want to invest in 3 feats just to do more damage as a standrd action?
The damage bonus suck unless you go powergaming, that is enlarged and "oversized weapon with huge base damage". Monks or melee character using with great sword or monsters. Problem is making this chain just one feat that upgrades would make some monsters very nasty. I rather have it work like sneak attack. If designed this way you would only pick one feat but it would upgrade. This bonus should probably not stack with sneak attack.
BAB 6: 2d6 regardless of weapon or size. BAB 11: 4d6, BAB 16: 6d6
Perhaps you should combined the standard, improved and greater versions o TWF.
The dex based feats are good choices for making free. It really isn't going to hurt anything as the game is OVERLY set up for dex based characters to be weaker than strength base ones, no matter what.
TWF, I would say give them the entire tree for 1 feat.
Combat maneuvers should have next to no prerequisites. That Int 13 is stupid, and should have been removed. I tried to push it very much, but didn't work out too well.
Others, I really think they are worth the feat personally.
Fighters get plenty Feats in PF, I don't see a need to give stuff away for free. As for the other Classes, they gets lots of cool Class Abilities, so I don't see where they need free Feats either.
+1
PF characters get more feats than 3.5 characters, and there are actually less "Pathfinder" feats than 3.5 feats (Although the systems are 95% compatable, so you could add 3.5 feats).
Like others have said, give them free feats if you want. However, I'm part of the camp that likes to have players make choices. If EVERYONE has the same feats, then it's not nearly as cool when fighter X does awesome thing Y, because everyone's fighter can do it too. The more feats you give away, the more everyone's character (especially melee combatants) will start to look like clones of each other. Also, the power level of your party will go up, because not every monster they fight will be able to take advantage of the free feats (either because they already have them, or because they can't use them).
Still, If you REALLY want to give away feats, consider this...
Tie certain feats to certain races. For instance, all halflings get Weapon Finesse for free at 2nd level. All half-orcs get Power Attack for free at 2nd level. All Elves get Deadly Aim for free at 2nd level. All dwarves get Combat Expertise for free at 2nd level, etc...
This would let you hand out some more feats, like you want, without going overboard. Also, it makes race selection more important, which I believe is a good thing.
Just a thought. If you do go ahead with the free feats, be sure to watch out for your PC's power level. They will get pre-reqs sooner, meaning the better feats will be available sooner.
One thing I noticed in Pathfinder is the introduction of some non-class related "dead" levels.
1. Feat
2.
3. Feat
4. Ability Increase
5. Feat
6.
7. Feat
8. Ability Increase
9. Feat
10.
11. Feat
12. Abiility Increase
13. Feat
14.
15. Feat
16. Abililty Increase
17. Feat
18.
19. Feat
20. Ability IncreaseLevels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18 might be levels where "free" feats might be available. Maybe bonus traits.
I'm not seeing these as dead levels.
Barbarians get rage powers, Fighters get feats, Monks get feats, Rangers get feats, and Rogues get tallents on these "dead" levels. In other words, most classes get a feat (or something equivalent to a feat) at these levels.
The only classes that don't get feats (or an equivalent) are Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard. However, I can't see any of these classes crying into their pillows because they feel no one loves them. They do just fine without the feats.
Just my thoughts. The PF designers did their best to avoid "dead" levels.
|
|
Agile Maneuvers
Weapon Finesse
I'm for both of those. Having the Dex Fighter start out two feats in the hole, and still be doing less damage than the Str Fighter seems a bit over the top.
Perhaps I watched too much Errol Flynn as a child...
Combat Expertise
Deadly Aim
Power Attack
In Alpha and Beta, I argued that Fighters should get Combat Expertise and Power Attack for free as class abilities (with no prereqs needed, but counting as having the feats for learning subsequent feats that require them as prereqs).
Additionally, I wanted the Fighter to have both a class bonus to melee / ranged damage equal to 1/2 class level (round down, so +1 at 1st level, to +10 at 19th level) and a bonus to Armor Class, and not only be able to reduce BAB to add to AC and BAB to add to Damage, but also be able to reduce their AC bonus to add to their BAB (Reckless Assault) or reduce their Damage bonus to add to their Atk (Measured Strike).
It would have been awesome, being able to juggle around Attack bonus (gained through BAB), Damage bonus (gained through Ftr class levels) and AC/Defense bonus (also gained through Ftr class levels) to fine-tune / adjust oneself for a specific combat.
Instead, Power Attack became strictly rationed, with no player choice at all in how much is going to be used at any given time. Ugh.
I'm not sure if I'd support the idea of Combat Expertise / Power Attack (or similar This-Combat-Bonus-For-That exchange feats) being freely available for everyone.
IMO, the Charge action (which already is a -AC/+Atk action) and the Fighting Defensively action (+AC/-Atk) cover some of that role for the untrained character (although there isn't a +Damage option, true). If a Barbarian wants to Power Attack, or a Wizard specializing in Ray spells wants to use Combat Expertise, they should have to learn the Feat the old-fashioned way. Fighters were the only ones I saw getting this stuff as class abilities...
Strike Back and Lunge I think I'd prefer kept as Feats.
Vital Strike was *another* thing I wanted to see Fighters be able to do as a class ability, just ignore their iterative attacks, and add an extra base die to their single full-BAB attack. I was only proposing that it be an option as a full attack as well, for those times when only your best hit was likely to get through anyway, and the iterative attacks would just be increasingly unlikely to matter. Vital Strike ended up stronger than what I was proposing, but was a Feat instead of a class ability.
*If* I were to consider Vital Strike as a 'freebie' Feat that anyone could use, I'd be inclined to walk the freebie version back to the idea I had back in Alpha, requiring a Full Attack, allowing someone to throw all of their iterative eggs into one basket, rather than make those additional rolls at 25% less likely to hit per roll.
Two-Weapon Fighting, I'd want to hear more on your thoughts. I'd be tempted to keep it a feat, but get rid of the rest of the chain. Once you've got TWF, I'd be inclined to allow the iterative attacks to accrue normally. In my experience, against most CR appropriate foes, iterative TWF attacks are a fat stack of jack anyway, allowing you to fail to hit even faster than ever...
|
|
I'm less inclined to give away stuff in the core books for free, but I have been contemplating giving a few of the feats in the APG away--basically making them manuevers that you can perform if you're high enough level.
This is something that Mutants & Masterminds did that I was pretty fond of, making certain feats into stunts that could be performed at a -4 to the roll, and the feat itself merely eliminated the penalty.
So, adapting this to a PF feat, anyone might be able to attempt a Lunge 'maneuver,' but would suffer a -4 to their attack roll, in addition to the AC penalty. If they learned the Lunge feat, they'd no longer take that penalty.
Combat Expertise vs. Fighting Defensively already serves as a sort of precedent for this sort of thing. Anyone can Fight Defensively, but with Combat Expertise, you're just flat-out better at it.
"Weapon Finesse" is just one feat, and it effectively gives your character "Agile Maneuvers" for free. At least for the maneuvers you care about (at least I don't think of most dex-based characters using things like bullrush a lot).
Two-Weapon Fighting, I'd want to hear more on your thoughts. I'd be tempted to keep it a feat, but get rid of the rest of the chain. Once you've got TWF, I'd be inclined to allow the iterative attacks to accrue normally. In my experience, against most CR appropriate foes, iterative TWF attacks are a fat stack of jack anyway, allowing you to fail to hit even faster than ever...
what I did was keep the two-weapon fighting feat as it is, but every time you gain an additional attack from a high base attack bonus you gain another off hand attack. So your off hand stays on track with your main hand, as you say it doesnt affect much really and the damage they do is only the same as a two handed fighter, unless they have sneak attack then they dont hit as often anyway.
What I do with other feats is (using as an example) Combat reflexes I use the improved and greater versions from an old dragon magazine. So you take Combat reflexes as normal but then when you meet the requirements for the next step you gain that benefit. This is only used for feats with improved and/or greater version, so like improved bull rush and greater bull rush.
I do like Lincolns idea of changing some to maneouvres though might impliment this as well.
I will point out that I do have a good group and the only persons I need to worry about powerplaying is me. LOL I do think a good group allows you to change things without having to worry about "what the hell will they do with this."
Sometimes, the ability to trade something for something else is totally worth a feat, because you get something really nice out of the whole thing.
Agile Maneuvers
In my opinion, you shouldn't have to spend a feat to make a dex-driven melee character. Making this feat free basically amounts to changing CMB to use "Dex or Str, whichever is higher."
I'm not quite at home with this, but I did turn Weapon Finesse into a general option (or, if you want to put it like this: A free bonus feat for everyone at level 1). I also have Improved Weapon Finesse that allows you to use dex for damage.
Combat Expertise
Yes, Combat Expertise for free. Who can argue that? And, what's more, I would totally waive the Int 13 requirement. Maybe now people will actually take Maneuver Feats!
I wouldn't do that, because this is basically "Improved Fight Defensively". If you want to be extra great at this, get the feat. Otherwise, you use the standard option
Deadly Aim
You trade to-hit for damage. That's a fair trade.Power Attack
You trade to-hit for damage. That's a fair trade.
Actually, you trade a bit of to hit for a lot of damage, especially if you power attack with a two-handed weapon.
Back in 3e days, I allowed a weaker version of Power Attack for free, and had a ranged attack option called Called Shot. You'd get +1 damage for -2 attack (double that for two-handed, half that for light). Taking the respective feat would double the bonus.
I'd do something similar in this case for PF
Lunge
You trade AC for reach. Seems fair.
Reach is very valuable, and I think being able to do this at all should require a feat.
Strike Back
I'm not even sure why this is a feat!
Agreed. I'd allow someone to hit something with a prepared action if that something used natural attacks (if it uses a weapon, you can instead do something to the weapon)
Two Weapon Fighting (improved, greater)
I'm not sure right now - I either still allow all extra attacks with one feat or used to. I wouldn't make it completely free, though, as I somehow feel this needs special training.
Vital Strike (improved, greater)
I grant those as bonus feats automatically, too. As soon as you get your extra attack, you can use Vital Strike to trade it in for one bigger attack.
And I allow it whenever you only get to make one attack against one target (like with spring attack or charge).
While you're at it, I would have simple & martial weapon proficiency give proficiency in all simple & all martial weapons respectively. Why otherwise take it when you could take exotic weapon prof?-James
I imagine because there are several prestige classes that require proficiency in all martial weapons. The Eldrich Knight will drool all this
|
Not sure that I would include lunge, but I certainly would include 'heighten spell'.. in fact I wouldn't consider it a metamagic feat at all, just a function of casting using a higher slot.
-James
I agree with James here. Lunge was the only one that seemed out of place to me. As for heighten, I agree that if a caster decides to launch his fireball using a level 5 slot with no metamagic applied, it should be cast as a 5th level spell (having the appropriate save DC). Frankly, that's a feat I like to house-rule out whenever I get a chance.
I'd definitively make Vital Strike scale with BAB. 3 feats for a standard action + 3d12 is not worth it. Period.
Strike Back should not exist. Should be one thing setted in the base mechanics of the game.
Not sure for the others, the TWF chain needs something for sure. Or at least, add Rend and Defense mergerd to the 2nd and 3rd feats of the chain. Maybe a TWPounce like the one of the TWFighter.