No more feats.

[VM mercenario]

TOZ wrote:

VM mercenario wrote:

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.

Then why are you giving me your opinon on my opinion of your opinion of my opinion? We're entering opinionception here man. Also, the original opinion in case anyone forgot is "That feat would be pretty good".

Action economy? I'm not so noob to fall for that. Free strike back is better action economy.
Before he would give a full attack with range, step 5ft back and you would have to waste a move action action and take an attack of opportunity just to give him one hit. Rinse and repeat. Your best bet would be a secondary weapon with reach, disengage move away and use a ranged weapon, disengage away and charge(to whicch he could brace).
With free strike back you ready an action and when he attacks you you hit him back even if he is out of your range, so his 5ft step doesn't save him, next round if he wants to attack you he has to move at least 5ft, so in your round you can 5ft step without an AoO and get inside his range so you can full attack. Unless he has a feat to short haft his weapon now he has to run away from you. The hunter is now the hunted.

@Evil Lincoln: What full attack? A reach user against someone without reach only takes one full attack every two rounds and does an extra AoO.

About it costing you a feat: The way I see it a feat represents either special qualities you have or special training you take. Strike Back would fall in the last category. As someone who knows his martial arts I believe that hitting someones spear arm is much harder than hitting either the spear or the guy. Makes sense you would need some training for that.

And since your problem seems to be that you're a good GM and your players don't want to use the options you give because there are feats for those same options, I don't think I can understand the problem, much less simpathize with it. So I'll stop being disruptive and will bow out of the discussion.

[VM mercenario]

Blueluck wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

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.

I support this opinion.

[Evil Lincoln]

Interesting. That sentiment could go very well with my "styles" suggestion.

I also would like to see a system that let people "try" for some feats rather than having it be binary... I know some hero/luck points let you simulate feats.

[Maedar]

I feel your pain with feats guys. What I've been doing is offering NPC skill and feat trainers to my players not to replace the current system in the core rule but to give my peopl options to explore the content. I got the idea from playing elder scrolls one day and everyone seems to like it so I've been tweeking it in game for about 6 mounths now. The formula I've been useing goes like this:cost to train equals 1000gp per skill level ie. To go from sealth lvl4 to lvl5 would cost 5000gp per week of training. Time equals 10 minus thee difference in skill rank between npc trainer and pc player with a minimume of one week. Exampletrainer has 15 ranks In stealth player has 5 ranks it would take five weeks to train that pc from level 5 to level 6 in steath and cost 25000gp. I don't require time to be sucessive but I do make them train at least a week at a time. For feats it a little simpler all feats cost 2000gp to train and require 2weeks in game so its done during down time. I write up all my trainers for a given setting in advance and set there skill levels and known feats ahead of time. Sometimes I'll add a little one off side quest or require some level of fame or infamy before a trainer becomes available in the world I'm running but most mid level trainers I run out of shops craftmans guilds or factions and such really its so easy you can put them anywere and it provides one important thing to players,choice. Plus because of time and cost and presetting the trainer npcs max levevls you stay in controls of everything and your game remains balanced.

[Remco Sommeling]

Maybe you can give characters a pool of inspiration points that allow certain feat uses they qualify for, provided they have the prerequistes. I can imagine inspiration being fueled by charisma and level, I think it could be a viable alternative/overlap to the hero point system.

Maybe regain points after every battle that is within a certain CR range.

Some feats that allow you to do a certain thing could allow you to do them better instead.

[Evil Lincoln]

A point system really interests me, in fact.

I'd rather it be for feats only, I find that hooking it into a general hero point system generally means the feat application goes unused if there is a higher-stakes option tied to the same pool.

[thejeff]

VM mercenario wrote:

Blueluck wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

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.

I support this opinion.

The basic problem is that new feats and new options sell books. Without selling books the publisher goes out of business. If they keep selling books with new options the game becomes too complex and overwhelming and people stop playing.

It's a fundamental problem with RPGs. Or at least market-dominating ones.

[Maedar]

As far as the thousands of feats out there published for the d20 rules set I prefure to keep it simple useing my trainer system. If its not in the core book I don't allow them unless the player comes to me before or after a session and shows me the feat then if I allow it I get them makeing gather information or knowlege local checks to find someone to teach them that specific feat I do it the same way with spellsif they want a spell outside the core rulebook research it useing the core rules find a really cool weapon that's not typical in an arms and equiptment book? Research it and craft it or pay some npc to. The reason I still play 3.5 is for the sheer choice of options the it gives players and dms to do what ever they want and the physics and math to make a feasable simulation of reality D20 doesn't need more rules people just need to realize that there is flexiblity in the existing rules if you look for it. It doesn't need a new feat system because that's not what your really asking for. Players can already drop a spell every few levels and trade for another for spontaneous casters why not for feats too? I added in trainers because it allowed my player to pay up for an added edge. If they bought a feat they weren't useing id letm swap it out. I mean why not? Feats should help player customize there characters and set them apart from there peer class equivalents so no 2 figthers have to performe alike per say I think the core rules preformes this duty just fine. The problem occurs when and uncommon feat comes into play and know one knows exactly how its suppose to work or its designed for a particular class or race that that player isn't useing. If as a DM your approveing all noncorecontent ahead of time there shouldn't be any suprises.

[hogarth]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

A point system really interests me, in fact.

I'd rather it be for feats only, I find that hooking it into a general hero point system generally means the feat application goes unused if there is a higher-stakes option tied to the same pool.

That's a very good point.

[Maedar]

Another dm in our group like to run a learned feats campaign. Super simple and you might atually like it lincoln. You want to learn a feat just use it. Let me explain. You can attempt any feat that requires an action or is triggered by an action(like improved inititive) as a full round action to find out if you were sucessful roll percentile dice. Your fist atempt has a 20% sucess rate each time you attempt the feat yor chances of sucess go up 20%. Once you reach 100% you've learned the feat. So basically use it 5x you own it. The down side of this is you end up with a scratch sheet full of feats with % next to them and only a handfull get actually learned so its more paper work for the player but mechanically nothing has to change so that's a nice option on the plus side.