First, I love options. The more options the better...
However, that being said... I hate having so many feats.
I know that second statement seems counter to my first but hear me out. Adding more and more feats does not really give options, it limits them. What I mean by this is that there are many tasks that feats allow you to do that, in my opinion, you should just be able to try... period. If you are playing and tell you DM, "I wan to try..." and there is no feat for it, no specific rule for it then the DM simply makes a quick decision, sets a DC, you roll a die and Wham! you either suceed or fail misserably. But, have a feat/rule for everything and now you want to swing at the beasts tentacle as it whips past you utilizing it's massive reach... sorry, you don't have the propper feat for that, try again in 12 levels.
So, as I said... I love options, but often times adding more feats doesnt' increase options. On the contrary, it limits them.
+42. QFT. Win. Use whatever phrase you want, this sums up feats and the issue with feats like no other post.
Before I knew about the Rouge Talent that does this my friend asked me "Do you think a Rouge would be able to spread a rumor around town with a bluff check?" To which I replied, after a second of thought - "Yeah. I mean, it's just spreading a rumor. Anyone can try and do that. People do that at work all the time, talking about who's sleeping with who, and whatnot. So, makes sense to me - just set a DC based on the rumor, the kind of town, who's involved, etc."
He then told me about the talent (can't remember name or book, but it was an advanced one, I think). And it bothered me. Now the implication is that, if you don't have this talent, you can't do it. It's the same with feats. Every time a feat gives you the ability to do something (like swing from chandeliers or whatever), it implies that you need the feat to do it, and if you don't have it, tough luck.
The feats that give options that are clearly not options in normal gameplay (like Spring Attack, Combat Patrol, etc), are the best "option" feats. The feats that give static bonuses are boring, but effective, nor least of all because they don't limit the player like some of the "option" feats do.
|
I'm adding Precise Shot to my list of grumbles, mainly because the rules for shooting into melee are kind of wonky to me.
Picture it: the archer raises his bow to fire at yon goblin currently clashing swords with his fighter friend. Because the goblin and the fighter are in combat, the archer takes a -4 to hit. If the fighter is directly between the archer and his target, the archer takes an additional -4 because the fighter is unwittingly providing cover. Precise Shot would eliminate the first penalty, and Improved Precise Shot would eliminate the second. But no matter how few feats the archer has or how many penalties are applying to his attack roll, there is never any chance whatsoever of him accidentally hitting the fighter instead of the goblin he's aiming at.
As for my earlier complaint about Point-Blank Shot, I've thought about it and changed my mind. Point-Blank Shot isn't a bad feat. I just don't like that it's the foundation of the ranged combat feat tree and thus every archer has to have it. I'd say it should be on its own, like Deadly Aim, and thus each archer could decide for themselves how interested they are in having it.
I'm adding Precise Shot to my list of grumbles, mainly because the rules for shooting into melee are kind of wonky to me.
Picture it: the archer raises his bow to fire at yon goblin currently clashing swords with his fighter friend. Because the goblin and the fighter are in combat, the archer takes a -4 to hit. If the fighter is directly between the archer and his target, the archer takes an additional -4 because the fighter is unwittingly providing cover. Precise Shot would eliminate the first penalty, and Improved Precise Shot would eliminate the second. But no matter how few feats the archer has or how many penalties are applying to his attack roll, there is never any chance whatsoever of him accidentally hitting the fighter instead of the goblin he's aiming at.
As for my earlier complaint about Point-Blank Shot, I've thought about it and changed my mind. Point-Blank Shot isn't a bad feat. I just don't like that it's the foundation of the ranged combat feat tree and thus every archer has to have it. I'd say it should be on its own, like Deadly Aim, and thus each archer could decide for themselves how interested they are in having it.
In every game I've seen that had a mechanism for this, there was a point where people realised it was sometimes advantageous to shoot at their ally in combat, hoping to miss and randomly hit the enemy.
|
|
In every game I've seen that had a mechanism for this, there was a point where people realised it was sometimes advantageous to shoot at their ally in combat, hoping to miss and randomly hit the enemy.I'm adding Precise Shot to my list of grumbles, mainly because the rules for shooting into melee are kind of wonky to me.
Picture it: the archer raises his bow to fire at yon goblin currently clashing swords with his fighter friend. Because the goblin and the fighter are in combat, the archer takes a -4 to hit. If the fighter is directly between the archer and his target, the archer takes an additional -4 because the fighter is unwittingly providing cover. Precise Shot would eliminate the first penalty, and Improved Precise Shot would eliminate the second. But no matter how few feats the archer has or how many penalties are applying to his attack roll, there is never any chance whatsoever of him accidentally hitting the fighter instead of the goblin he's aiming at.
As for my earlier complaint about Point-Blank Shot, I've thought about it and changed my mind. Point-Blank Shot isn't a bad feat. I just don't like that it's the foundation of the ranged combat feat tree and thus every archer has to have it. I'd say it should be on its own, like Deadly Aim, and thus each archer could decide for themselves how interested they are in having it.
I would count it as part of the "fumble" rules-- if you roll a 1, you might hit your ally. I have a hard time picturing what your ally's AC versus your enemy's AC would have to be where your odds of hitting your enemy are higher if you aim at your ally.
I would have guessed that the real reason PF doesn't have a mechanic for this is that nobody wants to see their character die because their own ally accidentally put an arrow in the back of his skull.
|
In every game I've seen that had a mechanism for this, there was a point where people realised it was sometimes advantageous to shoot at their ally in combat, hoping to miss and randomly hit the enemy.I'm adding Precise Shot to my list of grumbles, mainly because the rules for shooting into melee are kind of wonky to me.
Picture it: the archer raises his bow to fire at yon goblin currently clashing swords with his fighter friend. Because the goblin and the fighter are in combat, the archer takes a -4 to hit. If the fighter is directly between the archer and his target, the archer takes an additional -4 because the fighter is unwittingly providing cover. Precise Shot would eliminate the first penalty, and Improved Precise Shot would eliminate the second. But no matter how few feats the archer has or how many penalties are applying to his attack roll, there is never any chance whatsoever of him accidentally hitting the fighter instead of the goblin he's aiming at.
As for my earlier complaint about Point-Blank Shot, I've thought about it and changed my mind. Point-Blank Shot isn't a bad feat. I just don't like that it's the foundation of the ranged combat feat tree and thus every archer has to have it. I'd say it should be on its own, like Deadly Aim, and thus each archer could decide for themselves how interested they are in having it.
If they don't want to take the -4 penalty, I have them make an attack roll, then roll percentiles. 50 or lower and your attack roll is made against your ally (Flatfooted AC of course, you don't expect your allies to shoot you). 51 or higher the attack roll goes against the enemy.