RSS Facebook Twitter Email
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion

Not enough feats...

Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

Search Thread

Search this Thread:

There are so many cool feats, but who ever gets to take them besides maybe a fighter?

Everyone? You actually get a fair number of feats in pathfinder, not to mention the other base classes that have bonus feats (ranger, monk etc).

Spontaneous casters ask this same question about spells. It's all about choices - not having everything and making the best of what you do have is often more fun.

Want a lot of feats? Human Monk of the Sacred Mountain 2/Gunslinger 1/ Wizard 1/ Alchemist 1/ Dawnflower Dervish 1/ Cavalier 1/Oracle of Juju 1/Spire Defender 1/ Divine Hunter 1/Lore Warden 8/ Sorcerer 1/ Undead Lord 1

That's 34 feats.
The Exchange
cranewings wrote:
There are so many cool feats, but who ever gets to take them besides maybe a fighter?

Obviously Paizo doesn't understand how to consult the Character Optimization guides! Look! Half of all these feats are less effective than some other feat - and therefore useless! - and another third are intended for something other than combat - and therefore useless!

(Before you get angry, CO fans, let me quote Foghorn Leghorn: "That's a joke, son.")

Heh... feats are so cool that my witch has used every one of his so far for "extra hex."
The Exchange
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Heh... feats are so cool that my witch has used every one of his so far for "extra hex."

Your GM isn't letting you select 'Ability Focus', eh?

Lincoln Hills wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Heh... feats are so cool that my witch has used every one of his so far for "extra hex."
Your GM isn't letting you select 'Ability Focus', eh?

Eh... isn't that a monster feat? I never even thought to ask. I'm pretty sure my GM would consider taking monster feats an attempt to exploit something.

Would he be right in this case?

Not if you asked him first -- it would be a legitimate question -- the feats do say some characters can take them with GM permission.
The Exchange
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

...I never even thought to ask. I'm pretty sure my GM would consider taking monster feats an attempt to exploit something.

Would he be right in this case?

As you surmised, it's a Bestiary feat. It's like Spell Focus... except that it applies to one specific supernatural ability instead (though I believe it grants +2 to the DC, not +1). Allowing it to PCs would be a GM call, of course.

Lincoln Hills wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

...I never even thought to ask. I'm pretty sure my GM would consider taking monster feats an attempt to exploit something.

Would he be right in this case?

As you surmised, it's a Bestiary feat. It's like Spell Focus... except that it applies to one specific supernatural ability instead (though I believe it grants +2 to the DC, not +1). Allowing it to PCs would be a GM call, of course.

Hmm... I suppose I could ask.

I assume you take that and apply it to something like "misfortune"...

Let's see, with that feat, my second level witch would have, I think, a DC of 18 on his misfortune hex...

Yeah -- that's the thing -- it only helps 1 hex -- unlike spell focus which helps an entire school of magic.
The Exchange

Anyhow, back to feats. Cranewings, bear in mind that PF actually increased the number of feats available throughout a character's career by about 35% (not counting bonus race and class feats.) If you're agonizing over which of 3-4 feats to pick first, consider that at least you're likely, in the long run, to get all your favorites. In olden days everybody but fighters and wizards had to give up hope of being featlords. ;)

I feel bards are feat starved.
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Anyhow, back to feats. Cranewings, bear in mind that PF actually increased the number of feats available throughout a character's career by about 35% (not counting bonus race and class feats.) If you're agonizing over which of 3-4 feats to pick first, consider that at least you're likely, in the long run, to get all your favorites. In olden days everybody but fighters and wizards had to give up hope of being featlords. ;)

Yeah, but lets say I want a bard who shoots arrows effectively, from horse back, and can choke you out with a sleeper hold. What level am I? 15?

cranewings wrote:
Yeah, but lets say I want a bard who shoots arrows effectively, from horse back, and can choke you out with a sleeper hold. What level am I? 15?

If you want the actual "Sleeper Hold" feat, that's 11th level because of the +8 BAB prerequisite. But describing grappling nonlethal damage as a "sleeper hold", especially after a pin, seems perfectly viable to me.

What feats do you need to do the above, other than Mounted Combat and Mounted Archery? Or do we have different thresholds for "effectively"?

because only people that high-leveled get to be as epic as action movie heros.
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Not enough feats... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion