My beef with feat chains being forced to take a bunch of feats I don't want or intend to use just so I can have one feat that I do want. That, or the feats required to get the penultimate don't make sense. Whirlwind attack is a prime example of this.
Also if your not a fighter or a ranger the feat tree may put you at 12th plus level just to get close
No one should have to take Endurance to get Diehard.
But TOZ, Endurance and Run are both excellent choices for feats!
Also if your not a fighter or a ranger the feat tree may put you at 12th plus level just to get closeWhy should a non-fighter be just as good at the fighter's schtick?
Not all feat chains are built for fighters for one.
...I notice you make no mention of Endurance there. :)No one should have to take Endurance to get Diehard.But TOZ, Diehard and Run are both excellent choices for feats!
Clearly he is thinking of the Dev's intent for Endurance to be a massive feat tax akin to Combat Expertise.
...I notice you make no mention of Endurance there. :)No one should have to take Endurance to get Diehard.But TOZ, Diehard and Run are both excellent choices for feats!
I disagree, sir. I saw my mistake. Must've been a Freudian Slip.
I am fine if it makes sense like weapon focus then weapon spec. No so much with things like vital strike and diehard lines.
I am fine if it makes sense like weapon focus then weapon spec. No so much with things like vital strike and diehard lines.
Or all the combat expertise followups. I can't stand having to waist a feat on it just to have disarm or trip with my bards or even my rogue.
A wizard has a first level spell. at 10th level, that first level spell hits harder, lasts longer, and has a higher DC. By getting more spells the wizard expands his power and versatility.
A fighter has a first level feat. At 10th level it does the exact same thing that it did at first. Expanding power requires a feat chain.. which is the red queens race. They ave to spend all of their resources just to stand still.
I am fine if it makes sense like weapon focus then weapon spec. No so much with things like vital strike and diehard lines.Or all the combat expertise followups. I can't stand having to waist a feat on it just to have disarm or trip with my bards or even my rogue.
+1 on that. It's my most hated feat in the game for that reason.
A guy I play with has the same kind of burning hatred for point blank shot.
I can understand point black shot, and its not like it is useless or anything. I would be on board with more scaling feats however.
Point blank can be bad if your building for range.
Why does my sniper have to learn to shot things 30 feet away to shoot them 300 feet away.
Point blank can be bad if your building for range.
Why does my sniper have to learn to shot things 30 feet away to shoot them 300 feet away.
Yeah, it never made any sense to me to have precise shot as the ranged feat chain starter. It seems to me like precise shot would have made a better choice. I'm curious how many people would have ever taken point blank shot if they weren't forced to.
|
Yeah, it never made any sense to me to have point blank shot [FTFY] as the ranged feat chain starter. It seems to me like precise shot would have made a better choice. I'm curious how many people would have ever taken point blank shot if they weren't forced to.Point blank can be bad if your building for range.
Why does my sniper have to learn to shot things 30 feet away to shoot them 300 feet away.
Deadly Aim would be my choice for starting off the archer feat chain.
I do not understand the hate for Combat Expertise. Never have, never will.
how often do you see it used?
Deadly Aim would be my choice for starting off the archer feat chain.Yeah, it never made any sense to me to have point blank shot [FTFY] as the ranged feat chain starter. It seems to me like precise shot would have made a better choice. I'm curious how many people would have ever taken point blank shot if they weren't forced to.Point blank can be bad if your building for range.
Why does my sniper have to learn to shot things 30 feet away to shoot them 300 feet away.
Sir i commend this idea.
As for Combat i like it for a lot just hate it being the feat i need for trip disarm and the like.
|
|
A wizard has a first level spell. at 10th level, that first level spell hits harder, lasts longer, and has a higher DC. By getting more spells the wizard expands his power and versatility.
A fighter has a first level feat. At 10th level it does the exact same thing that it did at first. Expanding power requires a feat chain.. which is the red queens race. They ave to spend all of their resources just to stand still.
You mean that most feat effect isn't magnified by the fact that your BAB/HP/Saves/Skills have increased?
I don't agree with you.Having a higher base attack, higher strength, better weapon increase the effect of cleave, keeping it useful at most levels. A lot of feats have the same effect.
The "increase in power over levels" of a spell has a mirror in the increase in power over level of most feats. It is not a perfect reflection but most feat get an increase in power. You feel that is different because the spells generally have an intrinsic value that change while the feats effect is changed by a value outside the description of the feat.
When it comes to feat chains like Two Weapon Fighting/Improved TWF/Greater TWF, or the Improved/Greater maneuver feats, I see absolutely no reason why the whole chain should not be condensed into a single feat, scaling up appropriately as you meet the prerequisites.
In other cases, the prerequisites make no freakin' sense. Whirlwind Attack should be the culmination of Power Attack and Cleave, not Dodge and Mobility.
Sometimes, feat chains can break simulationism, by making a fairly basic tactic, such as using a quarterstaff to sweep the legs, require unreasonably high levels to pull off. Similarly, it might risk severely limiting a character's abilities if the feat chain is too long.
I'm not against feat chains; they're a very useful tool. But I think some judiciousness is called for.
how often do you see it used?I do not understand the hate for Combat Expertise. Never have, never will.
Is not a matter of use. I've seen it used a lot in 3.0, 3.5 and PF. the point is: why int 13? Why not, say, dex 13? The prerequisites by themselves kill off a lot of character concepts.
Moreover, used or note, one should not be forced of taking it because wants maneuvers.
Another thing of feat chains it pidgeonholing. You end up with a fighter with tons of feats, but good at doing few things than expected.
Ingenuity and avoiding self-crippling help a lot, but again some character concept is just killed off at the beginning expecially when a lot of high stats are required.
The irony lies in the fact that most of these concept would be cool but LESS POWERFUL, but you end up with the usual two-hander because it's what the game allows you without taking a master degree (bachelor is not enough) in fighter building, or playing up to level 56.
I use it for a lot of my characters. I like swashbuckling fencer types, so most of my rogues and bards use it.how often do you see it used?I do not understand the hate for Combat Expertise. Never have, never will.
But how often? Every strike, every other strike, one strike in 10?
Is not a matter of use. I've seen it used a lot in 3.0, 3.5 and PF. the point is: why int 13? Why not, say, dex 13? The prerequisites by themselves kill off a lot of character concepts.I want the game to support the intelligent fighter concept without having to use PrCs.
This is fine and cool, but I just should be put in condition of choose it.
And frankly, I'd play a clever fighter with tactical moves, or more skill points.
Being competent in a maneuver should not be a matter of intelligence. The same with parrying attacks.
Moreover, if you require int 13+ witout giving me other advantages in having high intelligence, you just want to make me more Multiple Ability Dependant.
Example: try to build up a shielded fighter + flail for trips with the apparently intuitive Combat Expertise. Then add up the dexterity for TWF. Good luck with your will save. And let's not start with Iron will because I start really to laugh, expecially in this case where you need a crapload of feats just to do ONE thing correclty.
|
|
My opinion it's because feats unlike spells do not get better as you go up. You may hit netter as you increase in level but not because of a feat because of how the system works. If they would have a similar system where as you go up in level feats either became more power or at the very least more useful their would be less hate. Fir example say that Whirlwind attack would not only allow you to hit creatures but also allow you to trip them as you do so at highler levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will just do what i did in the last thread that was about fighters who wanted to use intelligence.
Here.
I use it for a lot of my characters. I like swashbuckling fencer types, so most of my rogues and bards use it.how often do you see it used?I do not understand the hate for Combat Expertise. Never have, never will.
For most of the characters I make that are forced to take it, it's not quite that it will never be used as long as I already have it, but it's pretty close. It's rare that upping my AC at the expense of hitting doesn't let the rest of the party down -- even if I'm playing a would-be tank type, I probably still need to hit at least as much (e.g., tripping enemies that are trying to move past my tank ass to someone with a lot less AC.)
I'm curious how many people would have ever taken point blank shot if they weren't forced to.
I've taken it and have a player who's taken it as well. Neither one of us are min-maxers or power gamers in PF. I recognize that in the grand scheme, when a character gets up to the higher levels, +1 to hit and damage is really inconsequential, but at the lower levels it feels like quite a boost; that to me makes its cost as part of a feat chain a lot more palatable.
On the other hand, Endurance doesn't get used nearly as much, but from an aesthetic standpoint, I can certainly see it as a requirement for Diehard. In my opinion, Diehard is too powerful of a feat to not have a requirement attached. If there were no prerequisite other than, say, high constitution, then I would expect the feat to be watered down to, say, a bonus to stabilize and a roll chance to avoid becoming disabled when you take actions at 0 hp and below.
Combat expertise? Bleah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no hate for feat chains, though I have a slight dislike for badly developed ones, quite a few feats are perceived as weak because they do not cater to the usual optimized character, so they are thought of as a feat tax rather.. and everyone dislikes taxes.
I am wondering wether people would like feats with alternate prerequistes for entering, say some prerequistes can be waived by having a high BAB, high ability score or possibly another feat or class feature substituting for a feat requirement.
|
|
So, it seems that what everyone would prefer is that the fighter get fewer feats (anywhere from 1/2 to 1/3 what he gets now), but that existing feats get combined (forex. TWF and Improved TWF or Catch Off Guard, Throw Anything, and Improved Improvised Weapon) and increase in power over the class levels.
Make it "a vocal group". I prefer the higher number of feats and more granularity.
I am wondering wether people would like feats with alternate prerequistes for entering, say some prerequistes can be waived by having a high BAB, high ability score or possibly another feat or class feature substituting for a feat requirement.
A interesting idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(in the same way that meteor swarm is much more powerful than magic missle).
so, why all the hate for feat chains?
Because nothing in the casting rules says you have to take magic missile in order to take meteor swarm therefore why should I have to take 4 feats to get whirlwind attack.
Now I am OK with the concept of this feat requires level/ BAB X OR feats A,B,& C two ways to get to it and one would hope one being faster than waiting until a certain level.
Since Combat Expertise is getting a lot of heat, I figured I'd comment on it ...
If it is to be a true reflection of expertise in combat, then shouldn't it be a reflection of knowing when to be more defensive and when to be more offensive?
For example, if it read ...
Combat Expertise (Combat)
You can increase your defense or your accuracy at the expense of the other.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class or take a -1 penalty to your Armor Class to gain a +1 on your attack rolls and combat maneuver checks. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
I don't think anyone would be complaining about it then, and I don't think it would be 'broken'.
|
Since Combat Expertise is getting a lot of heat, I figured I'd comment on it ...
If it is to be a true reflection of expertise in combat, then shouldn't it be a reflection of knowing when to be more defensive and when to be more offensive?
For example, if it read ...
Combat Expertise (Combat)
You can increase your defense or your accuracy at the expense of the other.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class or take a -1 penalty to your Armor Class to gain a +1 on your attack rolls and combat maneuver checks. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
I don't think anyone would be complaining about it then, and I don't think it would be 'broken'.
I will get behind it if you can use it while power attacking.
|
|
But how often? Every strike, every other strike, one strike in 10?I use it for a lot of my characters. I like swashbuckling fencer types, so most of my rogues and bards use it.how often do you see it used?I do not understand the hate for Combat Expertise. Never have, never will.
Usually every strike.
I will get behind it if you can use it while power attacking.Since Combat Expertise is getting a lot of heat, I figured I'd comment on it ...
If it is to be a true reflection of expertise in combat, then shouldn't it be a reflection of knowing when to be more defensive and when to be more offensive?
For example, if it read ...
Combat Expertise (Combat)
You can increase your defense or your accuracy at the expense of the other.
Prerequisite: Int 13.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class or take a -1 penalty to your Armor Class to gain a +1 on your attack rolls and combat maneuver checks. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus increases by +1. You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon. The effects of this feat last until your next turn.
I don't think anyone would be complaining about it then, and I don't think it would be 'broken'.
I don't see why you couldn't. A feat to eliminate the penalty of of Power Attack at the expense of AC seems fair to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm somewhat ambivalent towards feat chains as long as the feats included in the chain, and the progression makes sense. Unfortunately, that rarely seems to be the case with 3.5/PF (See Whirlwind). Usually, you have one or more feats in the chain that make you scratch your head in confusion and mutter "What the <expletive>?". Or you have more feats than necessary thrown into the mix to act as taxes to be paid.
However, I reserve the greatest amount of hate for feat taxes. Combat Expertise is one of the worst, if not the absolute worst, feat in the game. And yet, it is used as a tax that must be paid for anyone who wants to use a combat maneuver (or at least to use it well).
As an example, take my Half-Orc Polearm Master/Trip Specialist Fighter. I had to stick a 13 into Int to take CE, which I didn't want, just so I could get to Improved Trip. In the process, I lost out on a feat I really wanted (Keen Scent) because I didn't have another 13 that I could stick into Wisdom to meet the pre-req. That is a perfect example of what's wrong with the feat system in general in 3.5/PF. All the pre-reqs and taxes put obstacles in the way of good, wholesome character building.
Combat Reflexes would be a much better lead-in to most Combat Maneuver than CE, and CR is actually useful. Or better yet, how about NO feat tax for taking a CM feat?