Hey all,
I'd really like to get some community input on feat chains (such as the TWF chain, the shield bash chain, the intimidation chain, etc.). Personally, I can't stand the bloody things and refuse to go further than 2 deep in any string of feats. Despite the fact that I play a Fighter and have more feats to play with than other classes, I still can't stand feat chains.
I think the main reason for my distaste is that there always seems to be 2 or 3 bad feats you have to take to get to the one capstone feat, which is usually pretty cool.
However, I compare that to someone making me eat 2 or 3 horse turds before they offer me a cut of prime filet mignon. No matter how much I like filet mignon, I won't eat the turds to get to it.
Maybe there's a positive side that I'm not considering though. Comments?
Having feat taxes is something that has always bothered me. However, many of the existing feat chain are cohehrent and require you to pick stuff you'll reasonably want or need in order to do what what the feat does.
-You need Two-weapon fighting in order to make double-slice useful.
-Weapon focus and weapon specializtion and greater versions are logical expansions.
However, a problem with Pathfinder in general is that they are bound to many mistakes or desing flaws because of the backwards compatibility with 3.5. I really don't think that Paizo would have make whirlind attack so you have to take 4 other feats of wich 2 are incompatible with ( mobility and spring attack), thougth it did make them compatible via mobile figther archetype variant.
Humbly,
Yawar
|
Feat chains, when not overdone, are something that I find quite appropriate.
"Not overdone" means that anything longer than 3 feats will make the chains uninteresting (but different branches are good, as are alternative capstones). Also, feat taxes that are of the appropriate power level when accessible/accessed, are not really a problem.
I wouldn't like my Exhausting Critical skipping Critical Focus, or Spring Attack forgetting the Dodge first step. Even Deadly Stroke should need quite steep prerequisites was the existing feat chain to be thrown away - not just high character level.
Obviously, YMMV.
Generally I'd say feat chains are well done. Most make sense, but not all quiet fit the theme. Take Whirlwind attack which has requires you to take Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack. How does that fit? They're all about movement, whereas Whirlwind Attack is about striking multiple targets? Other than a feat investment point of view it just doesn't seem to match up for my mind.
Maybe there's a positive side that I'm not considering though. Comments?
The positive I can think of is: hey, it's not as bad as it used to be (:
In 3.X, you got feats every 3rd level after your 3rd character level (1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18). So prereq feats hurt less because your feat gain rate has gone up.
So while a lot of people don't like the feat tax of something like Whirlwind Attack, at least you don't have to wait quite as long to get it.
Reasonable feat chains are good.
Legacy feat chains Paizo couldn't be assed to correct inexplicably are bad.
I'm not against feat chains necessarily, but I am against nigh-useless feats (whether they're used in a chain or not).
One unpleasant innovation that the PFRPG added is aggregating all of the prerequisites of feats 1 through N in feat (N+1), which sucks for monks and rangers who might have skipped to feat N without having one of the previous prerequisites.
I'm not against feat chains necessarily, but I am against nigh-useless feats (whether they're used in a chain or not).
One unpleasant innovation that the PFRPG added is aggregating all of the prerequisites of feats 1 through N in feat (N+1), which sucks for monks and rangers who might have skipped to feat N without having one of the previous prerequisites.
I agree, that's even stupider than pointless feat chains. If you have feat X that requires feat Y, then you have feat Y. If you DON'T have feat Y, then you don't need it and feats that require both X and Y should stop being stupid about it.
I like feat chains, but it can be easy to go overboard on them. For example, I would condense Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, and Greater Two Weapon Fighting into a single feat which scales according to your BAB--while leaving other dual-wielding feats like Double Slice alone.
I also prefer to shave the Combat Expertise prerequisite off the Improved [Maneuver] feats. And I debate with myself over whether the Improved and Greater [Maneuver] feats really need to be two different feats each.
And I debate with myself over whether the Improved and Greater [Maneuver] feats really need to be two different feats each.
I don't. I concluded those are a purposeful burdening of characters do to the increased number of feats. The Improved and Greater [Maneuvers] are basically the Improved [Maneuver] from 3.5 broken in two and given more pre-reqs.
Hey all,I'd really like to get some community input on feat chains (such as the TWF chain, the shield bash chain, the intimidation chain, etc.). Personally, I can't stand the bloody things and refuse to go further than 2 deep in any string of feats. Despite the fact that I play a Fighter and have more feats to play with than other classes, I still can't stand feat chains.
I think the main reason for my distaste is that there always seems to be 2 or 3 bad feats you have to take to get to the one capstone feat, which is usually pretty cool.
However, I compare that to someone making me eat 2 or 3 horse turds before they offer me a cut of prime filet mignon. No matter how much I like filet mignon, I won't eat the turds to get to it.
Maybe there's a positive side that I'm not considering though. Comments?
Ok I generaly like the feat trees...though those I don't like I tend not to like any of them...so I don't feel 'taxed' or I am 'loosing out' there. I just don't care for the concept there.
But I have a question...why do you go two feats deeps? As most of those are the 'crap' feats you are talking about...to use analouge...you are eating the horse turds and refusing to eat the filet migon.
Also I curious which feats chain do people hate? And why?
I don't mind feat Chains. I don't take them though to get the feat in the end though.
Most just make sense and are feats I'm going to take anyways. Like Power Attack, Cleave and Great Cleave. Dodge, mobility, and spring attack. Those make sense.
Now Improved Trip doesn't make sense. You have to Combat Expertise which is defensive to take Improved Trip with is offensive. That doesn't make much sense to me. As well combat expertise is one of those feats I never take.
And I debate with myself over whether the Improved and Greater [Maneuver] feats really need to be two different feats each.I don't. I concluded those are a purposeful burdening of characters do to the increased number of feats. The Improved and Greater [Maneuvers] are basically the Improved [Maneuver] from 3.5 broken in two and given more pre-reqs.
I tend to agree...but, the extra given by Greater [Maneuver] feats is really nice. Probably works fine to just scale up to that, though.
Hey all,I'd really like to get some community input on feat chains (such as the TWF chain, the shield bash chain, the intimidation chain, etc.). Personally, I can't stand the bloody things and refuse to go further than 2 deep in any string of feats. Despite the fact that I play a Fighter and have more feats to play with than other classes, I still can't stand feat chains.
I think the main reason for my distaste is that there always seems to be 2 or 3 bad feats you have to take to get to the one capstone feat, which is usually pretty cool.
However, I compare that to someone making me eat 2 or 3 horse turds before they offer me a cut of prime filet mignon. No matter how much I like filet mignon, I won't eat the turds to get to it.
Maybe there's a positive side that I'm not considering though. Comments?
PF has substantially more non-chain feats than chain feats, and many of the chain feats are legacy (like TWF). I'm still mystified that Far Shot requires Point Blank Shot, however.
The one that really gets me is the Skill Focus requirement on Eldritch Heritage in UM. That was total feat tax and, honestly, there's not a particularly good reason for it. Generally, though, feat chains are (thankfully) starting to die out.
Also I curious which feats chain do people hate? And why?
Whirlwind Attack is pretty much the poster boy for random feat prerequisites. Why do I need Dodge or Combat Expertise for Whirlwind Attack?
On a smaller scale, there's Diehard and Improved Trip; I would (almost) never take Endurance or Combat Expertise if it weren't to qualify for another, better feat.
|
I don't like feat chains that require unrelated feats, or feats that are rendered useless by the capstone feat, or any other feat within the chain.
In general, unchained feats should provide versatility to a character, while feats higher than the first level of a chain or tree should provide greater power.
Thus improved two weapon fighting should be more powerful than two weapon fighting. Which I don't believe is the case. The Two Weapon Fighting chain and the Vital Strike chain should provide their bonuses if the non feat requirements of the higher levels of the current chain are met (dex requirements, BaB requirements), because these feats not only don't provide any further versatility to the character, but the higher level feats are, on an individual basis, either weaker than or equal to previous feats in this chain. (Two weapon fighting you're paying a feat for an attack with the same amount of damage at a lower attack bonus - I think they're progressively weaker. Vital Strike you're giving up more static damage bonuses for another weapon dice at a higher attack bonus. It's about equal to lower feats in the chain, maaaaaybe a little lower.)
I think Combat Expertise is a neat feat conceptually. I'd like to see it used to allow an intelligent fighter more viability in the game. But compare it to Power Attack. But mechanically it's...absolutely worthless compared to power attack. It only provides a one to one tradeoff, while power attack can provide up to a 3 to 1 tradeoff. If combat expertise were improved into a feat people actually could gain an advantage from (defense is already weaker than offense because it doesn't do anything to put an end to attacks against you, it just allows you to continue fighting) people might protest less against it as a prerequisite.
I guess, to sum up - I like the idea of feat chains. But they should scale in power much as spells do. When you spend three or four feats to get to a capstone feat, that feat should be as exponentially more powerful than the first tier feats as 6th level spells are compared to first level spells.
Also I curious which feats chain do people hate? And why?Whirlwind Attack is pretty much the poster boy for random feat prerequisites. Why do I need Dodge or Combat Expertise for Whirlwind Attack?
On a smaller scale, there's Diehard and Improved Trip; I would (almost) never take Endurance or Combat Expertise if it weren't to qualify for another, better feat.
I can see dodge and combat expertise in whirlwind attack...as well you are attacking everything in reach you should have to defensive enough not to open yourself up to attack.
Endurence and Diehard...um endurence would indicate physical fitnees to me to require being able to pull off what die hard allows...
and Combat Expertiase is a great feat for two reasons...one I like what it does...and two it is in multiple feat chains...if it only opened up say Impr trip...than I can agree with you but it opens up much more than that.
I guess I just look at it differently...
and two it is in multiple feat chains
I don't think certain people on these boards understand circular logic.
and two it is in multiple feat chainsI don't think certain people on these boards understand circular logic.
Edited: I was going to respond...but I think it will be easier to deal with it this way.
Cartigan whenever you see my post you disagree with...just assume we'll just agree to disagree...that way you can save your venom for people that might actualy care...and I'll save my time.
Hey all,I'd really like to get some community input on feat chains (such as the TWF chain, the shield bash chain, the intimidation chain, etc.). Personally, I can't stand the bloody things and refuse to go further than 2 deep in any string of feats. Despite the fact that I play a Fighter and have more feats to play with than other classes, I still can't stand feat chains.
I think the main reason for my distaste is that there always seems to be 2 or 3 bad feats you have to take to get to the one capstone feat, which is usually pretty cool.
However, I compare that to someone making me eat 2 or 3 horse turds before they offer me a cut of prime filet mignon. No matter how much I like filet mignon, I won't eat the turds to get to it.
Maybe there's a positive side that I'm not considering though. Comments?
Ok I generaly like the feat trees...though those I don't like I tend not to like any of them...so I don't feel 'taxed' or I am 'loosing out' there. I just don't care for the concept there.
But I have a question...why do you go two feats deeps? As most of those are the 'crap' feats you are talking about...to use analouge...you are eating the horse turds and refusing to eat the filet migon.
Also I curious which feats chain do people hate? And why?
I can only speak for myself, but the shield bash chain is way too long, as is the TWF chain, and the intimidation feats. Wpn Focus + Greater Wpn Focus is reasonable to me, as are the Wpn Specialization feats. But I hate most of the Combat Maneuver feats because they require Combat Expertise. That makes no sense to me either, CE is a defensive feat, why should that help with Disarm and Sunder?
Several people mentioned Whirlwind Attack, that has a lengthy list of pre-reqs as well.
Hey all,I'd really like to get some community input on feat chains (such as the TWF chain, the shield bash chain, the intimidation chain, etc.). Personally, I can't stand the bloody things and refuse to go further than 2 deep in any string of feats. Despite the fact that I play a Fighter and have more feats to play with than other classes, I still can't stand feat chains.
I think the main reason for my distaste is that there always seems to be 2 or 3 bad feats you have to take to get to the one capstone feat, which is usually pretty cool.
However, I compare that to someone making me eat 2 or 3 horse turds before they offer me a cut of prime filet mignon. No matter how much I like filet mignon, I won't eat the turds to get to it.
Maybe there's a positive side that I'm not considering though. Comments?
PF has substantially more non-chain feats than chain feats, and many of the chain feats are legacy (like TWF). I'm still mystified that Far Shot requires Point Blank Shot, however.
The one that really gets me is the Skill Focus requirement on Eldritch Heritage in UM. That was total feat tax and, honestly, there's not a particularly good reason for it. Generally, though, feat chains are (thankfully) starting to die out.
That sounds good to me bud. Hopefully in the future when Pathfinder 2E (or whatever they call it) comes out, many of the more nonsensical feat chains will be removed.
I'm not a fan of feat trees, and am in the process of turning most of them into scaling feats. It allows more versatility (though also more power).
-The Beast
IME., feat chains cause more troubles that they fix.
And the fact the the starting prerequisite is so-and-so (dodge) or has wieird prereqs (combat expertise - WHY in 13 to parry blows?) makes things worse.
Thumbs Down.
They were a nice idea, but they don't work in game.
I'm not sure what you mean. I've seen plenty of instances of Power Attack + Cleave and Weapon Focus + Weapon Specialization in my time, and I've never thought "that doesn't work".
Now the idea that trading six crappy feats now is worth one good feat much later, that idea is terrible.
I would prefer feat web rather than.chains (like in dragonage 2.)
The could be a bunch of webs, relating
to
TWF
THF
Sword/Shield
Toughness
Battle commander.
The most powerful ones require X number of feats in the web but which ones doesn't matter.
That's not a chain, that's using two feats together. :P
Okay, now I'm not sure what you consider a "feat chain".
I love the deep feat chains in Pathfinder. Fighters sucked in 3.5 (in part) due to not being able to go anywhere with their feats. You would get 2 or 3 deep, and then have to change your focus. As such, fighters were somewhat versatile, but otherwise sucked hard.
Now in Pathfinder, my fighter can be versatile OR seriously focused on a given style (because each style now has tons of feats).
I do agree that some of the groupings are nonsensical, though, and that isn't cool.
Personally, I am tempted to combine together some of the more boring and less effective feat chains into a single feat that becomes more powerful at higher levels. Specifically, Two-Weapon fighting and Vital Strike. To me, making having to take so many feats for these two combat styles makes me wonder why power attack wasn't separated into four or five feats, lol.
Whirlwind Attack does have some pretty silly prerequisites, but I would be worried about cleave becoming pointless if Whirlwind became too easy to get.
I can only speak for myself, but the shield bash chain is way too long, as is the TWF chain, and the intimidation feats. Wpn Focus + Greater Wpn Focus is reasonable to me, as are the Wpn Specialization feats. But I hate most of the Combat Maneuver feats because they require Combat Expertise. That makes no sense to me either, CE is a defensive feat, why should that help with Disarm and Sunder?
Several people mentioned Whirlwind Attack, that has a lengthy list of pre-reqs as well.
Ok...I can see how people might say that I don't think any a particularly lengthy...but sure.
I disagree with CECombat Expertise:
1) I use this feat all the time...it works fine. I don't get what people see as the problem?
2) It make sense to me atleast. As the Combat Maneuvers feats generaly negate the attack of op. Which is more defensive in nature...and Combat Expertise is really the only defensive feat that make sense to be the prereq.
|
|
Damned Somebody else having my avatar...
some feat chains are reasonable.... in theory.
Doge/mobility/spring attack? ok.
Whirlwind attack should have a "or BAB 7 and great cleave and dodge" clause
alot of the existing ones could be dumbed down a few feats. like vital strike should be a feat, the the second vital strike feat could scale to include the 3rd one. TWF could use the same treatment
I'm not really fond of feat chains, myself. While I understand the concept behind their execution, I think that they usually don't achieve the results intended. Most of the time, the further you go into a feat chain, the worse the chain actually gets for the resources invested*. Likewise, feat chains almost universally involve feat taxes, and require you to build a character a certain way, despite whatever your roleplaying concept is**.
*: Great Cleave, for example, is a feat that will see less and less play as the game goes on, while being more limited or little benefit, and requiring two other feats to acquire. Power Attack and Cleave are both arguably good feats (PA being one of the best, actually), while Great Cleave is not only the capstone, but by the time you get it, it's already obsolete and also hard to set up.
Spring Attack is another feat that is arguably poor, while requiring 2 other feats to actually qualify. Dodge, which is still pretty poor despite the buff it got in Pathfinder, and Mobility which would be a decent feat, and finally Spring Attack, which basically becomes useless since 1 attack as a full-round action.
**: Diehard is an excellent example of this. It requires Endurance which is generally a poor feat. While I, myself, actually like Endurance a bit for the ability to sleep in medium armor, it's not really a good feat and I'm willing to admit that. However, you have to go through it to get Diehard which is a quintessential trope in heroic fantasies and cannot be easily emulated without the feat (barring Ferocity as a racial ability).
Likewise, when you consider that the Feat does absolutely nothing for you unless you're already losing badly (dropped below 0 Hp) and only functions with conditions (you are staggered so your actions are limited), it makes you wonder why you have to burn two feats to get it, with one of those feats being arguably useless for most characters.
Hmmm. I will admit putting Diehard on NPCs is actually kind of funny, since it doesn't really matter what their feat selection looks like most of the time, 'cause villains generally don't last very long anyway. I may have to do this with a couple of NPCs, just for laughs.
Whirlwind Attack?
No, I mean I don't understand what your definition of "feat chain" is that excludes Power Attack -> Cleave. Does it have to have more than two feats or what?
I also want to come out and say that I prefer feats that give specific different abilities that scale. Wanna know why Power Attack is so great? Because it scales. It gives you a good bang for your buck, and then it keeps on giving throughout your adventuring career.
One could argue that Power Attack is even more useful at high levels than at low levels. At 1st level, Power Attack gives a +3 damage, but your minimum damage probably kills the orc anyway, but at 20th level, that +18 damage over multiple attacks is very noticeable!
Notice that Toughness isn't such a useless feat anymore? That's because now it scales better. It starts decent (+3 Hp at 1st-3rd level isn't bad) and then remains fair (what amounted to +20 Hp for a feat) at higher levels (it essentially cancels out a single +18 power attack at 20th level, so it may save your bacon).
Vital Strike? No scaling. Taking 3 feats in a chain is not scaling. Spending 3 feats for the benefits of Greater Vital Strike is something I've yet to come to terms with in terms of cost vs value, especially since it pretty much requires you to wield very specific weapons to get good returns on it.
What would Vital Strike look like it scaled? Well it might look more like how weapon damage scaled in SWd20, except as a feat. So maybe at 6th, 11th, and 16th level, your weapon damage scaled up by a die or by weapon damage (so a longsword might grow from 1d8 to 4d8), without such a heavy feat tax. It might also be a bit milder, but apply to all attacks (not just a single attack).
Just some thoughts.
Combat Expertise makes sense to me. It's like, you have to be smart to do some of the more advanced fencing things.
It's the mechanics of Combat Expertise that bug me. It's a feat tax because no one uses it because it sucks.
I can see "not dumb" as a prereq (hence int 11 since feat prereqs are not even numbers).
But this is bad because kills character concepts. Couldn't be I good at parry just for my Dexterity? Fighters need a mentalt stat to hit?
Moreover, try to built a shield fighter with a flail. Can be done but man...
I've always liked the concept of feat chains, but feel they were poorly implemented. Learning a technique, then building on that technique with this or that variation is very natural and common in both fighting styles and other aspects of life. It could easily have be translated into feat chains. I think the Shield focus series of feats created by Paizo is well done and demonstrates this progression.
The chain starting with combat expertise has always bothered me, the feats seem to be crafted for martial characters, but require stats that most martial characters will not prioritize, seems like an arbitrary way to keep few characters from taking the feat. I've also always felt that the Whirlwind attack feat tree should be PA->Cleave->GCleave->Whirlwind, just seems to make more sense and have considered changing it in my games.
4 feats for a whirlwind is anyway too much.
Make it scale with BAB.
I like them if they build off of the previous feat - weapon focus/specialization tree being a classic. To expand on what Raving Dork said, it allows high level fighter types to access powerful abilities that I think are more special then just having a +16 BAB or whatever.
On the other hand, I agree that some feats no longer make sense together. As others have mentioned, power attack and cleave make sense from a fluff perspective, but mechanically don't function well together.
So, yes, I like feat chains, all the feats should function well flavor-wise and mechanically.
EDIT: Yeah Whirlwind Attack... Has anyone ever made good use of that feat in the history of gaming? Perhaps some sort of armored pole-arm user or something?
4 feats for a whirlwind is anyway too much.
Make it scale with BAB.
Well, maybe something like this would make more sense and be more useful.
PA->Cleave->Lunge->Whirlwind
That gives it double the range and considerable hitting power rolled up into the chain itself while making the capstone of whirlwind more useful.
I'm unsure what feature of the feat you would make scale, an inherent damage bonus perhaps?
I like the second version more.
PA scales.
cleave could improve to great cleave at BAB +6, or add an additional enemy every 4 points of BAB. Stuff like this.
Lunge could be as is, but could not give the -2 AC at BAB +8 and could grant reach for 1 attack as an immediate action at BAB +12.
PA, lunge, cleave --> whirlwind attack prerequisite. Whirlwind could become a standard action at BAB +17.
(these are just examples, things should be balanced and can be done properly only with a system overhaul I fear).
I hope now is more clear my concept of feat scaling.
@Current version of Whirlwind Attack: guisarme wielder can make good use of the feat and the prereqs are prereqs for Improved Trip and Combat Patrol, so let's not exaggerate. One thing is say the feat could be less prereq-intensive, one thing is say is not useful. In the right build is useful.