| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm tired of feats.
They used to be kind of fun, but there's explosive growth in the number of choices and most characters just don't have enough slots.
Making matters worse, new feats that codify something random and cool that players might want to try in combat discourage those options for creative play. I used to consider it a smart use of the rules when a PC would ready a standard action to attack a foe when they used reach. The Strike Back feat comes out, and of a sudden players "forget" that they always had that option. Now you need to spend a feat for it, and believe me that limits it to the occasional fighter who would even consider spending the slot on it.
Little by little, the creative applications of the rules are being locked away behind feats.
Martial characters get locked in to a single style whether it works or not, and they are completely unable to adapt as they level up.
It isn't fun anymore.
Has anyone experimented with a replacement system that lets us use the rules for feats but without a static slot system? Any ideas?
Both good suggestions.
I feel like there may be some feats that still need to be "special" somehow. Maybe a skill roll? Or a margin-effect on the attack roll, for some combat feats.
Something like "For every 5 points by which you beat the opponent's AC/CMD, you may choose one extra feat" ... maybe in addition to one basic feat per attack?
Probably too complicated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just change it such that any feat that allows you to do X just makes you better at doing X. So, for Strike Back, just make the feat give a bonus to the attack roll when doing that. Or make the attack deal more damage. Or make it so that a successful Strike Back penalizes the enemy's attack.
Just change it such that any feat that allows you to do X just makes you better at doing X. So, for Strike Back, just make the feat give a bonus to the attack roll when doing that. Or make the attack deal more damage. Or make it so that a successful Strike Back penalizes the enemy's attack.
I like this idea very much.
Keep them coming!
A friend used a maneuvers system based on the Tome of Battle where many feats, particularly Fighter Bonus feats, became maneuvers that anyone could attempt. Fighters were just better with them. A caster that actually had a feat could use it as written, others were less adept with same. Kinda like a feat giving a bonus to a specific or group of skills or checks, only in reverse.
Just change it such that any feat that allows you to do X just makes you better at doing X. So, for Strike Back, just make the feat give a bonus to the attack roll when doing that. Or make the attack deal more damage. Or make it so that a successful Strike Back penalizes the enemy's attack.I like this idea very much.
Keep them coming!
One option, which I did with item creation feats, was to remove them as feats at all and use them as options a player could use if he met the minimum requirements.
Using vital strike as an example: Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6. If the player had a BAB of 6, he could use the feat which would now be a form of combat option. If the player met the qualifications for improved counterspell, for a second example, and had the 15 ranks in spellcraft, he could use the "parry spell" option.
Hope this inspires, helps, and so on. Good luck.
I have thought about taking all feats that are skill related and making them into 2 or 3 point skill tricks. I loved skill tricks as a second 'entry point' to feat like options. Alot of the time, particularly with martial characters your skill totals wont mean alot if someone else is going to do it better then you (particularly things that are not personal like knowledge or survival) so puting those skill points into new skill based feats might be an alternative.
Can I get a reference on Skill Tricks and perhaps a short summary?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
While I like the idea of just allowing all the "special trick" feats to be automatic abilities gained if you meet the prereqs, what about feats that apply static bonuses like Iron Will or Weapon Focus? A lot of them don't have prereqs, but you probably don't want every character in your game having all of them.
I'd propose seperating feats into two categories - "automatic if you meet the prereqs" and "need to spend a slot" and giving characters maybe 1 slot every 4 levels.
So, every 13 str character gets Power Attack, Cleave, and all the Improved maneuver feats that go with it, but must spend a slot on Weapon Focus or Two Weapon Defense.
Would it be too weird to just throw them out?
Or... allowing everyone one feat per round, people could pick up the feats they think they need for that round only? "I'll take iron will this turn..."
You could also have multiple slots per round... but this would only be playable with a smaller number of feats. Maybe built like a card-game? Managing that order of complexity seems fine in M:tG.
More ideas, different ideas.
I have an action point system in many of my campaigns. You get action points equal to half your highest ability score plus half your level at the beginning of each level.
The reason that matters is one thing you can do with an action point is gain use of a feat you don't have for 1 round. (If you dont meet its prerequisites it costs an extra 1 action point per prerequisite, and you can't skip prerequisites based on race, level, or class).
That means that many feats (like Strike Back) are rarely taken, but people spend action points to use them when they need them. On the other hand if you want a feat to be a focus of your character, you go ahead and take the feat, and have access to it all the time.
It's worked very well for my group (though we are actually only using it in about half our games, as some of my revolving court of players don't like the rule).
|
Evil Lincoln, I think you missed something about Strike Back...
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
"Even if the foe is outside of your reach" Makes you want to take the feat. If Guard Joe has a sword and hits you, no problem. If Guard Joe has a Crossbow on the other hand, that is when the feat comes into play.
With that said... Why don't you make it so that you get a minimum of one feat per level, and gain extra equal to your INT modifier? Wizards would be feat extensive, but would probably use those Metamagic feats like mad.
While I like the idea of just allowing all the "special trick" feats to be automatic abilities gained if you meet the prereqs, what about feats that apply static bonuses like Iron Will or Weapon Focus?
I would think, since they are not "special tricks," that they would be purchased using normal feats.
So, stuff like "Strike Back" which creates a special action you can only take with a feat becomes automatic. Iron Will or Power Attack, which gives no special action, only a modifier to a given action or stat, remain normal feats.
Or at least, that's how I'd do it.
"Even if the foe is outside of your reach" Makes you want to take the feat. If Guard Joe has a sword and hits you, no problem. If Guard Joe has a Crossbow on the other hand, that is when the feat comes into play.
I don't think I understand what you're implying. First, are you Guard Joe, or is Guard Joe hitting you? Secondly, both attacks involved (the one you make and the one that triggers it) need to be melee attacks, so I don't really understand the relevance of the crossbow.
|
Would it be too weird to just throw them out?
Or... allowing everyone one feat per round, people could pick up the feats they think they need for that round only? "I'll take iron will this turn..."
You could also have multiple slots per round... but this would only be playable with a smaller number of feats. Maybe built like a card-game? Managing that order of complexity seems fine in M:tG.
More ideas, different ideas.
This could work, but I'm worried it would create too much bookkeeping and memory issues. Now each player needs to basically memorize every feat in the book he qualifies for to effectively pick the right one for a scenario, and remember which feat he's using at any given time (and which bonuses to stop counting because they were granted by a feat he's not using). Printing up cards with feats on them, like M:tG, might make this easier, but I have to believe there's a simpler solution.
The Inquisitor's Solo Tactics ability seems like a prototype of a more workable form of the idea. As a swift action, the Inqusitor can exchange his/her most recently selected bonus feat, but once he/she earns a new one, the previous one gets locked in. This would help martial characters with their adaptability by letting them try a bunch of tactics and figure out what works best for them.
I'd say just go through, figure out which feats grant abilities you think players should already be able to do, and just houserule that the feat now grants a bonus when doing that instead of allowing them to do it.
Would it be too weird to just throw them out?
Or... allowing everyone one feat per round, people could pick up the feats they think they need for that round only? "I'll take iron will this turn..."
You could also have multiple slots per round... but this would only be playable with a smaller number of feats. Maybe built like a card-game? Managing that order of complexity seems fine in M:tG.
More ideas, different ideas.
I would be very wary of either throwing out feats or allowing on the fly feat selection. You would literally have to redesign half the classes in the game. Most of them grant bonus feats. If your feat selection is 'flexible' or non existent you have very drastically changed the value of bonus feats. And so much of the game is built on the idea that feats have a progression (with a majority having a prereq of another feat) I really think it is completely impractical. You would in effect have to re-write the whole of pathfinder.
I think you are better off simply not allowing non-core feats (or teamwork feats if someone is playing a cavalier or inquisitor or what have you). Thus restricting how much of the 'cool ideas' are codified as opposed to being able to be improvised.
Evil Lincoln, I think you missed something about Strike Back...
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
This is something I had previously allowed as a creative application of the Ready action, because it makes a lot of sense. You wait for the dragon to bite you so you can stab it in the face. We always considered this good RP and rules-knowledge in 3.5. The mechanical tradeoff is inherent — while you wait for its turn, you can take more damage. It was absolutely fine (in fact, action packed) as it was.
Then the feat came out, and basically invalidated this perfectly good rule. The whole thing invalidated what I thought was a great example of creative combat in the system. This one really bothered me.
Needless to say, yes, I did house rule it. It pertains to discussion here because feats are coming out regularly that lock off creative application of the rules (like the Punishing Kick thread active now discusses). I consider this to be antithetical to the roleplaying aspects of a combat system.
Feats are a house of cards, design wise. Each new book builds a wing on that house. It is only a matter of time before it collapses under its own weight.
|
|
I understand what you mean, but there's another side of the issue to consider. Just plain learning the rules can be hard-- coming up with creative tactics is harder still, and you can't really fault the DM that's worried his players are just looking for loopholes to abuse. And even if a player gets the idea to do that and the DM is willing to let him, how does it work? Does it count as an AoO, a readied action, a called shot? If the enemy is comin at you with a polearm, can you attack the polearm? Isn't that just a sunder attempt? Strike Back seems like something anyone could do, but in all the time I played 3.5 I never saw anyone think to do it. And if someone had, I can just see what would have happened-- the game would stumble to a halt as the DM and players argue over how the rules say a situation like that would go, and then the DM disallows it because it's not in the rules (or the player gives up on trying to do it because he doesn't want to spend 20 minutes in the middle of a fight looking up rules for reach, AoO's, and anything else he thinks might be tangentially related.
Making Strike Back a feat may have seemed restrictive to your playgroup, but to some groups I've seen, it created more options where there was none. Sure it'd be great if players could think of these cool ideas on their own and if DMs always knew how such a thing would be implemented, but not every group can. For those groups, feats like Strike Back are a blessing.
They used to be kind of fun, but there's explosive growth in the number of choices and most characters just don't have enough slots.
In Sarûnia, a campaign setting I plan to publish, all characters get 2 feats at first level and every level thereafter that isn't divisible by three.
You could house-rule something similar to amp up the amount of feat slots.
EL, I think I understand where you're coming from. The Strike Back feat actually struck me the same way because our groups allow the same readied action.
That said, I think the best answer if you've reached the tipping point is to isolate the specific feats that you want to Just Allow and do so. House-rule them as globally available.
You want to avoid granting extra feat slots as that doesn't solve the problem... it just spreads it out. I would house-rule Strike Back as a "non-feat". Anyone can use Non-Feats without consuming a slot. That puts the situation back to before the feats were published.
Well, yes, seeing from that side the feat is bad. But what about groups where you couldn't just do that and the feat opens the possibility? I think most groups would rule you can't just ignore the other guys reach just because you readied an action.
It's no different from readying an action to deal deal double damage against a charging character.
*waits for a 'Brace' feat to be published*
Invalid argument. Brace is a weapon property. You can only do that with certain weapons. A Brace feat that allows you to do it with any weapon would be pretty good actually. Is there a Strike Back weapon property that I missed?
@ Evil Lincon: Being able to ready an action to attack someones arm while they are out of your reach, without the feat, is a houserule of your group and maybe some others. It's not a widespread houserule. No houserule is. If the feat curbs some players at your table and makes them think they need the feat to do it, just tell them that you houserule it so everybody can do it and the feat doesn't exist. But keep in mind that to most people the feat is actually giving them an option they DIDN'T have before. Can't stress that enough.
@VM, I think he on some level accepts that it [free Strike Back] is a house rule. It seemed to me like his problem is more that this feat really is only really desirable because it seems like something you should already be able to do, and a reasonable DM could/would probably allow these actions (sans feat) if a player asked. When it is made into a feat however, those sorts of discretionary decisions are now in need of validation, as most would think that it is something of a more questionable move to house rule that the players get a feat for free, whether or not it is a mechanically powerful feat.
The existence of this feat forces this GM to conflict with the rules in a sense. This is important not because conflicting with the rules is a bad thing to do, but because it is just another action that the GM is expected to justify which the OP thinks would be better left well enough alone, I think.
Basically, a lot of reasonable actions a character could make that were once left up to the GM's discretion are pseudo-invalidated when such a feat is created. I say "pseudo" because it is not that the GM is literally prevented from house ruling them away with justification, only that making a house ruling requires passing through a thicker social barrier than making a discretionary decision, and the problems this imparts can vary from non-existent to mildly annoying to game changing, depending on a player group's dynamics.
I personally don't think the problem is inherent to the feat system itself though.
PS: Just wanted to note that the post by kira in this thread is not actually her. I keep using her computer and forgetting that her account is the one logged in. :/
|
|
My group has had a similar issue here and there.
For example, we thought that a cleric could always choose who in his radius was and wasn't affected by Channel Energy. It wasn't until someone noticed the Selective Channel feat that we realized our cleric should have been unwittingly healing our enemies during fights. I think we eventually decided to use the rules as written, but we strongly considered houseruling this one away.
We also don't bother with confirming critical hits-- you roll a 20, you crit. This makes Critical Focus a worthless feat and a feat tax for any player wanting to take any of the critical feats that use it as a prereq. So far it hasn't come up in practice, so I don't know how our group will rule on it.
I've had issues with the plethora of feats from the get go. All of the splat books for 3E/3.5E just added to that headache, then all of the 3PP feats, and now all of the extra's coming in with Pathfinder. My method for handling feats has been to adapt the Feat Mastery set-up from Iron Heroes by Monte Cook. It was set-up such that the palyers could attain varying levels of feat mastery, depending on the feat. His set-up required additional feats to take the next level in order to gain the next level of feat mastery. What I did to adapt them was my thinking that, a good number of feats are desgined to be sort of feat trees. Well, no more feat trees. My adaptation works such that you take a feat, you gain a base benefit from taking the feat. You advance to the point where you gain a new feat - you not only select another feat, the feat you've had advances to the first level of mastery. Get to a point where you gain a third feat, your first feat automatically advances to the second level of mastery, the second feat that was gained automatically advances to its first level of mastery, and you gain a new feat. Keep building up. It's worked and has does wonders to streamline the vast amount of featage. Not nearly enough, but it is a start.
Two issues I have with feats, and neither makes me want to scrap the system.
One is similar to the skill system- every feat has the same "value" to every character as every other feat. If Bob the player wants to call his barbarian Athletic, taking a feat to show that is just as valuable as Power Attack. Obviously this is not true- but in the eyes of the mechanics, it really is. The only way to give additional "weight" to a feat is by having prerequisites of some sort, which only really makes it "too expensive" for characters that presumably wouldn't make proper use of it or haven't earned it yet. There is no way to make a feat "cheaper" for some archetypes than others except by giving it away as a bonus feat. Bob will just have to make do calling his barbarian the best athlete in the tribe and spending skill points.
The other is what the feat system is supposed to do for your character. The overwhelming majority of feats affect your character's combat ability. It's baked into the system that you will select feats that make your character better able to deal with combat-based conflicts. However, I have heard many people say that the purpose of feats is to make your character unique and different from other members of the same character class and level. A few feats seem to support this with titles like "Athletic," "Childlike," "Leaf Singer" and things of that sort. The results of trying to do both at once can be disheartening, though- especially in the company of those who only try to do one.
Invalid argument. Brace is a weapon property.
So? It's the same concept.
And no, that feat would be horrible.
They are both similar concepts, but not the same. One lets you use certain weapons to be able to ready an action. This action does not negate the charge just gives you extra damage after it. The other, as proposed, is readying an action to negate someones reach. And since anyone can do it without cost this completely nullifies having reach in the first place. You need a specific weapon to be able to brace. What is the cost of being able to negate reach? A readied action is just not enough.
And I think a feat to add brace to any weapon would be a cool feat. Your opinion on that nonexistent, imaginary, feat is irrelevant.We also don't bother with confirming critical hits-- you roll a 20, you crit. This makes Critical Focus a worthless feat and a feat tax for any player wanting to take any of the critical feats that use it as a prereq. So far it hasn't come up in practice, so I don't know how our group will rule on it.
My group has a similar houserule that a natural 20 is an automatic crit, no confirmation. But we still roll the confirmation if you threaten a critical with anything else. What if your threat range is 19-20, does rolling a 19 is an automatic crit? What if it's 15-20, like you can get with some keen weapons, the best choice for anyone going with the critical tree? It would be less insane to roll to confirm in those cases instead of letting someone deal critical damage 25% of the time, wouldn't it? In that case Critical Focus is back as a good feat instead of a tax.
@VM, I think he on some level accepts that it [free Strike Back] is a house rule. It seemed to me like his problem is more that this feat really is only really desirable because it seems like something you should already be able to do, and a reasonable DM could/would probably allow these actions (sans feat) if a player asked. When it is made into a feat however, those sorts of discretionary decisions are now in need of validation, as most would think that it is something of a more questionable move to house rule that the players get a feat for free, whether or not it is a mechanically powerful feat.
I get the premise but I disagree with his conclusions, because Strike Back allows you to attack someone using reach even if he is not inside your reach. That is a far more potent ability than you guys are giving it credit for. It disables the biggest advantage of reach weapons, that is, hitting the enemie from a distance where he can't hit you back. For free this makes the rech property completely useless. Most DMs I know would ask you to pay some resource for that kind of ability, probably a feat. They would rather make a feat to give that ability than give it for free.
And I would bet that before seeing the feat most people wouldn't even think of doing something like that. For most people it isn't "Now I need a feat to do that." It's "Hitting the guys arm? Cool idea. I want to take that feat."
I get the premise but I disagree with his conclusions, because Strike Back allows you to attack someone using reach even if he is not inside your reach. That is a far more potent ability than you guys are giving it credit for. It disables the biggest advantage of reach weapons, that is, hitting the enemie from a distance where he can't hit you back. For free this makes the rech property completely useless. Most DMs I know would ask you to pay some resource for that kind of ability, probably a feat. They would rather make a feat to give that ability than give it for free.
And I would bet that before seeing the feat most people wouldn't even think of doing something like that. For most people it isn't "Now I need a feat to do that." It's "Hitting the guys arm? Cool idea. I want to take that feat."
This highlights a very specific problem facing game designers:
If you don't have a rule to cover a specific action, many people will never think of taking that action and you will have to rely on individual GMs to be skilled enough to adjucate the action properly and consistently.
On the other hand, if you do have a rule to cover a specific action, then inevitably, that rule will interfere with the way people want it to work.
In this case, you have two distinct groups:
1) Those who assumed you could ready an action to strike back at, say, an incoming tentacle attacking with reach, and would consider a player asking to do that to be clever and cool (I would fall into this group)
2) Those who would never think of doing this in the first place without the feat there to suggest it.
Neither side is wrong, so what do you do? It's a different game depending on who you cater to.
|
They are both similar concepts, but not the same. One lets you use certain weapons to be able to ready an action. This action does not negate the charge just gives you extra damage after it. The other, as proposed, is readying an action to negate someones reach. And since anyone can do it without cost this completely nullifies having reach in the first place. You need a specific weapon to be able to brace. What is the cost of being able to negate reach? A readied action is just not enough.
And I think a feat to add brace to any weapon would be a cool feat. Your opinion on that nonexistent, imaginary, feat is irrelevant.
Irrelevant to what? Your opinion? Stop stating the obvious, your opinion of it is just as irrelevant to mine.
The cost is in the action economy. A character readying to strike a limb is giving up any full-round action options he has to make a single attack on the enemy, compared to the enemies number of attacks. And now you want to charge more for it? The reach is not negated, as it is now limiting the attacks of the enemy rather than negating them. If the character were able to full attack the limb, then the reach ability would be negated.
This is an interesting discussion.
For the record, I already handled Strike Back as a house rule situation and that was fine. Unfortunately, Strike Back is only one example of this problem cropping up. Rhino Charge was another seemingly valid use of the rules, that my group always figured was just good tactical use of the general rules.
More such feats will always crop up, and my solution for those will always be to make them "virtual" feats for the whole campaign. But specific feats are not what is at issue here. I am having a problem with the feat mechanic.
I like feats in a deck-building sense, I really do. But I do long for the RPG experience where you could try anything, and you just had an abysmally low chance of success. Feats are much more binary than that.
I suppose my grievance is this: with each new feat, the game moves away from creative use of the general rules. It becomes such that every interesting thing is a feat. Combat becomes less about creativity and roleplaying and more about rules mastery and deck-building.
While feats may be great for a deckbuilding kind of game experience, unlike a real card game we are locked in to a certain build over many many games. In the course of my single campaign, at least 200 new "cards" (feats) have been produced. Most of my players have 'discovered' that a feat is not as cool as it sounded (cleave!)... by the rules, I should not allow them to re-spec. Of course I do.
But re-spec doesn't quite satisfy me. It's like the Pathfinder engine completely forgets to model that people re-spec in real life. I don't like that it requires GM intervention in the rules for a super-hero-level warrior and tactician to get frustrated with an inferior weapon choice and train in a new one. Especially when the wizard prepares radically different powers every single morning.
I have a set of house-rule feats (Battle Adaptation) that help ameliorate my frustration slightly. But I'm looking to go the extra mile in this thread. Some of the above recommendations seem really interesting, although the sheer number of feats makes some impractical.
---
Another idea I had recently is to just group all of the feats into "styles" and let players choose one or two styles for the whole campaign. Any style feat you meet the pre-reqs for, you have.
For VM and TOZ, I've got to side with TOZ. Even when the readied action was allowed without the feat, it was still a measure of desperation. You were delaying your attack, which is a risk, and the entire maneuver was predicated on an incoming attack, which is another risk. You give up full attack, you give up a lot.
It was actually quite balanced. Likewise readying a charge.
I agree that feats that unlock a particular special move (e.g. Vital Strike, Strike Back, Rapid Shot, Power Attack) are kind of dumb; I'd be sympathetic to rolling those maneuvers into the normal combat system.
But if I did that, I'd probably remove the Fighter class altogether (or roll it into the Rogue class); fighter bonus feats would have a pretty dull selection after that.
There are a bunch of feats that allow you to do something that anyone can do, but do it better, with bonuses or no penalty. Improved Bull Rush, things in that style. That seems a better approach to this kind of action than not letting you try it without the feat.
Maybe Rhino Charge would let you full move or readying a charge without it would not give the charge attack bonus.
I honestly think this should be the basic criteria for any new feat.
This has come up before a few times; what should be a feat and what should be a new general mechanic?
It seems like Pathfinder has a dislike for new general mechanics, and tends to package these as feats. If they would consider adopting this criteria for feats, we could have entirely sidestepped the whole Antagonize debacle with a new application of the Intimidate skill...
*highfive*
*leaves you hanging*
Irrelevant to what? Your opinion? Stop stating the obvious, your opinion of it is just as irrelevant to mine.
No highfives for TOZ until he adopts a more civil tone. ;) Don't trainwreck my thread!
It seems like Pathfinder has a dislike for new general mechanics, and tends to package these as feats.
Or, more specifically, d20 tends to package fancy maneuvers as feats and PFRPG didn't change that.
*on the rebound*
I'm tired of feats. . .
I think they're a great part of the game, but I agree that they've gotten out of hand. I'm playing with a couple of new players right now, and they're overwhelmed at the number of options.
I'd love to see the overall number of feats reduced, and see each one be more significant.