Getting rid of feat bloat


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

What feats do you think shouldn't be feats, rather they should be freely accessible to everyone?

Some on my list are

1.) Weapon Finesse and Agile Manuevers - as long as someone meets all the other pre reqs for these feats, they ought to get the affects of these feats for free

2.) Master Craftsman
The toll for being able to create magic items is high enough if you aren't a caster. Due to SKR's ridiculous FAQ ruling which makes the most powerful class even more powerful than all the others, Master Craftsman should be free to everyone so as to move things closer to balanced.

3.) Monkey Lunge
Monks are feat starved enough and this ability is pretty iconic for them. So, just give it to them.

4.) Dimensional Agility
See #3

5.) Adder Strike
I would increase the craft skill rating required, but make this feat free to those who meet the other prereqs otherwise

6.) Ammo Drop
Free with a relevant Exotic Weapon Prof

7.) Ankle Biter
Add a min CMB, but shouldn't require a feat

8.) Blade Binder
Should come free with Exotic Weapon Prof for the appropriate weapon

9.) Blind-Fight
Min Perception skill rating, but otherwise should be free

10.) Bludgeoner
Seriously? This requires a feat?

11.) Bloody Assault
Should be free with Exotic Weapon Prof in an appropriate weapon and a min BAB

12.) Bloody Vengeance
Same as #11

13.) Body Shield
Again, seriously?

14.) Bounding Hammer
Should be free with a relevant Exotic Weapon Prof

15.) Brutal Grappler
Should require a relevant race or background and min strength, but nothing more

16.) Bull Rush chain
Should all be free

17.) Bullseye Shot
Should be free with a relevant Exotic Weapon Prof.

The list goes on

In addition, all featss which require other feats as prereqs should be free if those other feats are already taken (and the other pre reqs are met).


Darkwing Duck wrote:

What feats do you think shouldn't be feats, rather they should be freely accessible to everyone?

Some on my list are

1.) Weapon Finesse and Agile Manuevers - as long as someone meets all the other pre reqs for these feats, they ought to get the affects of these feats for free

In addition, all featss which require other feats as prereqs should be free if those other feats are already taken (and the other pre reqs are met).

1)Weapon finesse as a feat changes what stat is used to add to your melee hit chance. Agile Manuevers does the same with manuevers. I woudl feel that bopth of them are worth the feat as they can be used to build that quick fighter that is lightly armored but still keeps up with that base fighter that pushed his Strength up as high as they could.

The prereqs are used to make sure that you dont grab a feat that needs another to expain it. I tend to think of it as learning a basic tactic before you can lean and use a more advanced tactic.


WeirdGM66 wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

What feats do you think shouldn't be feats, rather they should be freely accessible to everyone?

Some on my list are

1.) Weapon Finesse and Agile Manuevers - as long as someone meets all the other pre reqs for these feats, they ought to get the affects of these feats for free

In addition, all featss which require other feats as prereqs should be free if those other feats are already taken (and the other pre reqs are met).

1)Weapon finesse as a feat changes what stat is used to add to your melee hit chance. Agile Manuevers does the same with manuevers. I woudl feel that bopth of them are worth the feat as they can be used to build that quick fighter that is lightly armored but still keeps up with that base fighter that pushed his Strength up as high as they could.

The prereqs are used to make sure that you dont grab a feat that needs another to expain it. I tend to think of it as learning a basic tactic before you can lean and use a more advanced tactic.

I'm not denying that Agile Maneuvers and Weapon Finesse aren't valuable. I'm only arguing that they shouldn't be feats. Why should certain character concepts have a feat tax imposed? Such a feat tax adds nothing positive to the game. Further, in this case, that feat tax hurts the classes which are usually considered at the bottom of the tier (Rogues, for example).

As for making "sure that you dont grab a feat that needs another to expain it', I see no value in not having, instead, a feat which says something like (as an example), "at 4 BAB, this feat grants the character X, Y, and Z, and at 10 BAB, this same feat adds A, B, and C to what the character can do".

Dark Archive

Point Blank Shot. Being closer should have a slight advantage


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is all well and good, but by your logic, every character build should be given freebies because those feats are integral to the concept of their character, and I don't just mean the ones you have listed.

Playing a barbarian who focused on brutal frontal assaults against multiple opponents? Power Attack and Cleave.

Playing a blaster mage? Empower and Maximize spell.

Playing a divine warrior-type cleric? Channel Smite.

Do you see where this gets to be a problem? Characters automatically get certain special abilities when they level up, they're called class features. The problem is, you're viewing the feats necessary for realizing your character concept as "Feat Tax" and you propose a solution that involves getting these feats for free, so you can, what? Spend the feats on other stuff?

Feats represent character customization beyond what the class grants, its a step towards fleshing out your character's concept, not a bureaucracy to be navigated and resented just to get what you want.

I understand that you are going to disagree with me, but that's my take on it.


SquirmWyrm wrote:


Do you see where this gets to be a problem?

No. I don't at all.

Things that broaden the range of character flavor that can be easily represented in Pathfinder should be encouraged.

That's something I like about Conan d20. It has a lot of combat maneuvers that anyone who meets certain pre reqs get to do for free. By doing so, it makes playing a martial character much more fun and colorful.

I'd argue that you make a valid point IF it weren't for the fact that the feats that need to be NOT feats are almost all the kinds of things which enhance the capabilities of those classes which are in the bottom tier.

So, what should feats be for? Well, I'm glad you asked. Feats should be for those things that distinguish one character from EVERYONE else (primarily in terms of narrative, not mechanics).

Is the fact that a character is able to fight with two weapons something that a Bard two hundred years into the future will use to show how amazing that character was? No. So, it shouldn't be a feat. A feat might be something like running across a hail of arrows as they darken the sky. A feat might be the ability to rain fire down on someone with a glance (Quicken Spell). A feat might be the ability to use a simple blade of wheat (or something similar) as a lethal weapon against someone in full plate. A feat should be something that Bards sing about for centuries. The ability to bound a hammer is not a feat. Hammers are supposed to be able to bound.


The balance target with a feat should be that it's not so good that everyone (or at least everyone of a certain class) will always take it and it shouldn't be so bad that no one would take it. (Whether or not any existing feats fall outside that range is certainly debatable.)

For example, if the entire weapon focus/specialization line was one feat, and the fighters still got the same number of other feats, every fighter would take that feat, pretty much no question. On the other hand, if you wrapped all the other trees up into single feats and then limited the number of feats people get, it could be rebalanced, but then you're just limiting peoples options (not everyone takes all of one feat tree).


MagiMaster wrote:

The balance target with a feat should be that it's not so good that everyone (or at least everyone of a certain class) will always take it and it shouldn't be so bad that no one would take it. (Whether or not any existing feats fall outside that range is certainly debatable.)

For example, if the entire weapon focus/specialization line was one feat, and the fighters still got the same number of other feats, every fighter would take that feat, pretty much no question. On the other hand, if you wrapped all the other trees up into single feats and then limited the number of feats people get, it could be rebalanced, but then you're just limiting peoples options (not everyone takes all of one feat tree).

Easy enough solution. Get rid of the feats that are underpowered. Figure out if the ones that are left need to be upgraded (which I believe they do).

Scarab Sages

Any feat that is a "trade X for X" such as Power Attack or Combat Expertise. If a wizard can try to disarm, he can try to power attack.

Feats should let you do really cool stuff, break the rules, or use a different ability score modifier for something.

Finally, any of the skill bonus feats. Instead, feats should simply supplant the use of a skill. The whole point of these is to allow the character to excel at a skill, so just hard-code that. Want to craft mwk weapons? Take "Weaponsmith". Allow characters to take 10 or 20 in any circumstance.

Dark Archive

Lunge
Vital Strike (and its follow ups)
Almost feat with the word "Improved" or "Greater" (just make them part of the original feat once prereqs are met)


Name Violation wrote:

Lunge

Vital Strike (and its follow ups)
Almost feat with the word "Improved" or "Greater" (just make them part of the original feat once prereqs are met)

This, I totally agree with. Also, look at many of the feat chains. 5 or 6 feats long for not a whole lot, honestly.

Also, I can't help but totally agree in regards to Weapon Finesse/Agile Maneuvers. A character that wants to focus on being a heavy hitter and sacrifice his agility can do so without any feat investment. A character that wants to focus on his agility at the expensive of his damage out-put has to buy these two feats? Why? (It's not like Dex is better than Str!)
You should just be able to choose between Str or Dex for your Attack Bonus and CMB. There's NO reason the "roguish" character should have to invest so much more for literally no gain.


When it comes to relying on a single attribute, Dex is better than Str. Dex adds to AC, CMD, Ref and a host of very useful combat skills. Str adds to damage and two skills - Climb and Swim. Having to take two feats to use Dex for attacks and CMB is an attempt to even things out between Dex-based and Str-based characters. Without the required feats, a Dex-based melee character would be far superior to a Str-based melee character because of all the other things that Dex provides.

Liberty's Edge

Mike J wrote:
When it comes to relying on a single attribute, Dex is better than Str. Dex adds to AC, CMD, Ref and a host of very useful combat skills. Str adds to damage and two skills - Climb and Swim. Having to take two feats to use Dex for attacks and CMB is an attempt to even things out between Dex-based and Str-based characters. Without the required feats, a Dex-based melee character would be far superior to a Str-based melee character because of all the other things that Dex provides.

I agree with most of this, though I'd argue that as Weapon Finesse already includes Trip, Sunder, and Disarm (the debatably three best Combat Maneuvers), it's a bit silly to ever take Agile Maneuvers, and it should thus be folded into Weapon Finesse. That I'm on board with (unlike the idea of giving both away free).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I agree with most of this, though I'd argue that as Weapon Finesse already includes Trip, Sunder, and Disarm (the debatably three best Combat Maneuvers), it's a bit silly to ever take Agile Maneuvers, and it should thus be folded into Weapon Finesse. That I'm on board with (unlike the idea of giving both away free).

I think you are confusing Weapon Finesse with Combat Expertise - which is the entry feat for Feint, Disarm and Trip.

I can certainly see bundling Agile Maneuvers with Weapon Finesse - it makes a lot of sense. The trouble I have in finding a balance with the whole Dex-based thing is that it usually involves the Rogue which is another can of worms.


Mike J wrote:
When it comes to relying on a single attribute, Dex is better than Str. Dex adds to AC, CMD, Ref and a host of very useful combat skills. Str adds to damage and two skills - Climb and Swim. Having to take two feats to use Dex for attacks and CMB is an attempt to even things out between Dex-based and Str-based characters. Without the required feats, a Dex-based melee character would be far superior to a Str-based melee character because of all the other things that Dex provides.

Strength also includes encumbrance (which is important before you can afford haversacks), bending bars/lifting gates, bull rush, sundering (in as much as it adds to the damage inflicted on an item), and a lot of other stuff.

Liberty's Edge

Mike J wrote:


I think you are confusing Weapon Finesse with Combat Expertise - which is the entry feat for Feint, Disarm and Trip.

Nope, by the rules, with Weapon Finesse alone those maneuvers can be done with Dex. It can be found somewhere obscure in the FAQI think. It has to do with them being performed directly with a weapon (unlike the others).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lots of players seem to want FREE CHEESE. Leave the rules as they are.


Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Lots of players seem to want FREE CHEESE. Leave the rules as they are.

What makes it cheese?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lots of people want martial classes to get nice things. The differ on which nice things are suitable to non-casters, but getting rid of stupid feat prerequisites is not the desire of a few super munchkins. The super munchkins don't care because they're playing full casters or master summoners.

Consider this:

Compared to 3.5 PF characters get 50% more feats, but several martial chains (all the combat maneuvers) are 50% longer. 100% longer after the first or second because they all share one of two first prerequisites. The games is also not designed to go to as high. In common practice 3.5 reached level 20 or more. In common practice PF reaches 16 or so. Judging by PFS and the first Pathfinder AP it's only designed to go to level 12 which would give the same number of lifetime feats as 3.5 while several martial chains are longer for no additional benefit.


I totally agree with the OP regarding unnecessary feats. In later books it's gotten so bad that they're literally inventing feats that provide a benefit that everyone already has (Prone Shooter).

I think a lot of feats would also be more useful if the circumstances in which you could use them were not so limited. I read the Jawbreaker feat and thought "awesome!". Then I looked closer and saw that it only worked on Stunned, Grappled, or Helpless opponents, and thought "huh...so it mainly works when you already have a significant advantage, and thus don't need it as much?". Lame. Same with Choke Hold..."hey, I can strangle a dude? Neat! Oh wait...it will take 10-20 rounds? Uh, a lot less neat".

The main thing that is necessary, really, is to have a reasonable balance point for what a feat is worth. Does anyone seriously believe that (for example) Expert Driver is really worth the same as Crane Style?


All I have to ask is: If Dex is really all that much better than Str, then why aren't there more Dex-based fighters floating around?

Because it's not. Hit and Damage are pretty much everything in this game. All other things can be role-played. (For goodness sake, the Dex fighter doesn't even get to have a better AC, which is supposed to be one of the big draws of the archetype! He just trades a good flat-footed for a decent touch!)


You seem to be glossing over the up side of some of those Feats to back your up your ideas.

For example, Weapon Finesse: This allows a player to pump his "to hit" and AC with only one stat. That is a pretty big bonus. Sure there is a down-side [lower damage] but denying the up side doesn't make for a good argument.


Neo2151 wrote:

All I have to ask is: If Dex is really all that much better than Str, then why aren't there more Dex-based fighters floating around?

Because it's not. Hit and Damage are pretty much everything in this game. All other things can be role-played. (For goodness sake, the Dex fighter doesn't even get to have a better AC, which is supposed to be one of the big draws of the archetype! He just trades a good flat-footed for a decent touch!)

The Strong guy wont be so happy fighting Wraiths [or any other incorporeals]. Or Mages firing off Range Touch Attacks.

...more glossing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I started my new campaign, I used several virtual feats and universal feats. The game worked just fine.

Universal Feats
Expanding BAB


stuart haffenden wrote:

You seem to be glossing over the up side of some of those Feats to back your up your ideas.

For example, Weapon Finesse: This allows a player to pump his "to hit" and AC with only one stat. That is a pretty big bonus. Sure there is a down-side [lower damage] but denying the up side doesn't make for a good argument.

Your "up side" is a lie. You seem to buy into the false perception that a higher dex means a higher AC. It doesn't. I'm not glossing; you're ignoring the elephant in the room.

A low dex fighter puts on heavy armor and his AC goes high. A high dex fighter puts on lighter armor to take advantage of his higher dex... and ends up with the same AC as the low dex fighter (in fact, because of the armor rating of full plate, it's usually the higher dex character that has a lower AC!) The only difference, combat-wise, between them? One spent a feat and does less damage.
You might argue, "But the high-dex fighter has a much better touch AC!" ... And I would counter, "It's not actually all that much better, and his flat-footed AC has to suffer to get it."


stuart haffenden wrote:
Neo2151 wrote:

All I have to ask is: If Dex is really all that much better than Str, then why aren't there more Dex-based fighters floating around?

Because it's not. Hit and Damage are pretty much everything in this game. All other things can be role-played. (For goodness sake, the Dex fighter doesn't even get to have a better AC, which is supposed to be one of the big draws of the archetype! He just trades a good flat-footed for a decent touch!)

The Strong guy wont be so happy fighting Wraiths [or any other incorporeals]. Or Mages firing off Range Touch Attacks.

...more glossing.

Fights with incorporeal monsters are corner cases.

Liberty's Edge

Neo2151 wrote:
A low dex fighter puts on heavy armor and his AC goes high. A high dex fighter puts on lighter armor to take advantage of his higher dex... and ends up with the same AC as the low dex fighter (in fact, because of the armor rating of full plate, it's usually the higher dex character that has a lower AC!) The only difference, combat-wise, between them? One spent a feat and does less damage.

This is simply not true.

A low-Dex Fighter (say, a guy with a 12 Dex) with Full Plate has AC 20 at 2nd level from Armor and Dex, and AC 25 at 20th. He can get more than that with Mithral Full Plate or Armor Training (or both, for a total AC of 31) but only by also raising his Dex (all the way to a 24 if you want that 31).

A high-Dex Fighter seeking to max his Dex may only have an AC of 18 or so (Mithral Chain Shirt) at 2nd level, but by 20th (and maxing out Dx), he's replaced that with +5 Celestial Armor for an AC of 29, and up to 33 with Armor Training. 2-8 points of AC (and the ability to ditch Str completely...no need for a 24 in a secondary stat here) is no small thing.

And that leaves aside Initiative, Reflex Save, and the much better list of skills Dex benefits as opposed to Str.

As well as the fact that, with Dervish Dance or an Agile Weapon you can add Dex to damage.

All things considered, Dex is really quite a bit better than Str to base attack and damage off of. It's only the costs in Feats and Weapon Properties (and, to a lesser degree, the necessity of Power Attack on damage builds...though Piranha Strik alleviates that for some) that make Str characters continue to be the most viable option available.


Dervish Dance? So, no shield, no 1.5*attribute mod for damage, and a low damage die.

You're not really making your point here.

Shadow Lodge

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Leave the rules as they are.

No.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Fighters Are Overpowered.

Shadow Lodge

Nerf Pallys.


Buff Warlocks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Give my Cleric his Heavy Armor Proficiency back!

Liberty's Edge

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Dervish Dance? So, no shield, no 1.5*attribute mod for damage, and a low damage die.

You're not really making your point here.

Oh, indeed. Of course, literally none of that applies to the Agile weapon property, my other example.

But in any case, I wasn't arguing that Dex Fighters were currently optimal, I was arguing that removing the prerequuisites for doing so (the Feats) makes them that way. By quite a bit.


Allow me to be a nonevil assassin.

I know its crazy right maybe my morals out of whack or something but i dont see all Assassins as evil.

Its probably just me though.


Munkir wrote:

Allow me to be a nonevil assassin.

I know its crazy right maybe my morals out of whack or something but i dont see all Assassins as evil.

Its probably just me though.

No, its not just you.

We don't usually see soldiers as evil, even though they get paid to kill.
But, if they work alone or in small groups, use poison, and attack from stealth, they are? really?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Dervish Dance? So, no shield, no 1.5*attribute mod for damage, and a low damage die.

You're not really making your point here.

Oh, indeed. Of course, literally none of that applies to the Agile weapon property, my other example.

But in any case, I wasn't arguing that Dex Fighters were currently optimal, I was arguing that removing the prerequuisites for doing so (the Feats) makes them that way. By quite a bit.

Agile weapons aren't core.

Even if they were, Agile Weapons don't cause a problem.

Everything I said before applies equally to Agile Weapons except for the Elven Curved Blade and Nine-Section Whip. The only difference with them is that you get to pay for a +1 weapon in exchange for doing maybe 1 point per of damage per round.

Liberty's Edge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Agile weapons aren't core.

I wasn't aware this was relevant.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Even if they were, Agile Weapons don't cause a problem.

Okay. I agree. Never said they did.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Everything I said before applies equally to Agile Weapons except for the Elven Curved Blade and Nine-Section Whip. The only difference with them is that you get to pay for a +1 weapon in exchange for doing maybe 1 point per of damage per round.

Just to start with Agile Weapons don't keep you from using a shield. Or dual-wielding (though that does get really expensive). And by the time you have Dex 24 or 26 (doable by 6th level or so with Urban Barbarian), they're well worth the price of admission. They're probably worth it at lower Dex, too, but it's more debatable then.

And weapon damage dice rapidly cease to matter a huge amount anyway, as they are, what, 2 damage a hit different*? The equivalent of 1 Feat. That's nothing compared to +4 each to Initiative and Reflex Saves (the equivalent of three Feats) even leaving aside AC, or the fact that those differences in Reflex and Initiative are gonna be a lot higher eventually.

*Comparing a nodachi to a scimitar or rapier due to equal Crit chances.
.
.
.
On topic: I make loading a Heavy Crossbow a Move Action if you have Martial Weapon Proficiency in them. This has always struck me as something anyone who can load a Longbow as a Free Action should be capable of.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Agile weapons aren't core.

I wasn't aware this was relevant.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Even if they were, Agile Weapons don't cause a problem.

Okay. I agree. Never said they did.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Everything I said before applies equally to Agile Weapons except for the Elven Curved Blade and Nine-Section Whip. The only difference with them is that you get to pay for a +1 weapon in exchange for doing maybe 1 point per of damage per round.

Just to start with Agile Weapons don't keep you from using a shield. Or dual-wielding (though that does get really expensive). And by the time you have Dex 24 or 26 (doable by 6th level or so with Urban Barbarian), they're well worth the price of admission. They're probably worth it at lower Dex, too, but it's more debatable then.

And weapon damage dice rapidly cease to matter a huge amount anyway, as they are, what, 2 damage a hit different*? The equivalent of 1 Feat. That's nothing compared to +4 each to Initiative and Reflex Saves (the equivalent of three Feats) even leaving aside AC, or the fact that those differences in Reflex and Initiative are gonna be a lot higher eventually.

*Comparing a nodachi to a scimitar or rapier due to equal Crit chances.
.
.
.
On topic: I make loading a Heavy Crossbow a Move Action if you have Martial Weapon Proficiency in them. This has always struck me as something anyone who can load a Longbow as a Free Action should be capable of.

I've gotta go and can't respond in depth right now, but I think one of the things you're missing is the question of even if the dex fighter got +4 Ref/Init compared to the str fighter's 1.5*mod damage, heavier armor, heavier weapons, etc. (plus all the other stuff like worse AC in surprise vs. worse touch AC) would it overshadow the other classes (Wiz, Sor, Cleric, Druid, etc.)?

Liberty's Edge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
I've gotta go and can't respond in depth right now, but I think one of the things you're missing is the question of even if the dex fighter got +4 Ref/Init compared to the str fighter's 1.5*mod damage, heavier armor, heavier weapons, etc. (plus all the other stuff like worse AC in surprise vs. worse touch AC) would it overshadow the other classes (Wiz, Sor, Cleric, Druid, etc.)?

Well, there's nothing saying a Cleric couldn't do the same. But more importantly, I'm not saying giving Dex to hit and damage is a bad idea because it throws the whole game out-of-whack, I'm saying it's a bad idea because it makes Dex fighters just better than Str fighters, which they shouldn't be, genre-wise, and makes Str fighters all definitionally completely unoptimized, which isn't cool.


The thing agile weapons don't make up for is the extra damage when holding a two hander. an extra 4 damage per swing is hard to make up for, particularly if the foe has some sort of damage reduction.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'm saying it's a bad idea because it makes Dex fighters just better than Str fighters, which they shouldn't be, genre-wise, and makes Str fighters all definitionally completely unoptimized, which isn't cool.

Note that from my very first post in this thread, I've been talking about getting rid of feat bloat and I gave multiple examples of feats which should be gotten rid of.

How do you know that once the other feats are gotten rid of as well that the str-based fighter will still be unoptimized compared to the Dex-based fighter? I don't think you do know that.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I've gotta go and can't respond in depth right now, but I think one of the things you're missing is the question of even if the dex fighter got +4 Ref/Init compared to the str fighter's 1.5*mod damage, heavier armor, heavier weapons, etc. (plus all the other stuff like worse AC in surprise vs. worse touch AC) would it overshadow the other classes (Wiz, Sor, Cleric, Druid, etc.)?
Well, there's nothing saying a Cleric couldn't do the same. But more importantly, I'm not saying giving Dex to hit and damage is a bad idea because it throws the whole game out-of-whack, I'm saying it's a bad idea because it makes Dex fighters just better than Str fighters, which they shouldn't be, genre-wise, and makes Str fighters all definitionally completely unoptimized, which isn't cool.

I ran a Dex build still am i love it only problem i found is my cleric was dealing more damage then me.

I solved that with a few teamwork feats and Sneak Attack damage

no crit no sneak i got 2d6+8

SNeak 6d6+8 our party pure rouge turned a little red

with crit (15-20) 8d6+8

now i can tell you this im lacking when paired against a barb but a simple fighter...i like to think i out shine him everytime

also my AC is 30 there is a trick for a Sheild with derv dancer Quick draw shield+ Quick Draw Feat allows you to pull that sucker out as a free action and put it up as one or something like that.

Sheild +3 +1 thats it
Armor + 6 basic no inhance besides being mith
Dex +5 basic (i got more dex to give but armor isnt allowing it)
Class Feater +2 Free hand fighter Archtype
Magic/Misc +4 Nat armor ring protect nothing over +3

Liberty's Edge

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Note that from my very first post in this thread, I've been talking about getting rid of feat bloat and I gave multiple examples of feats which should be gotten rid of.

How do you know that once the other feats are gotten rid of as well that the str-based fighter will still be unoptimized compared to the Dex-based fighter? I don't think you do know that.

Uh...what Feats directly make Strength more useful? Intimidating Prowess comes to mind, but that's skill based, and not that good all things considered. I'm really not coming up with anything else.

As things stand, Dex and Str are about equal, really. Str is better for some classes and builds, but Dex is better for others (almost all ranged builds, for example). If you make Dex better, it becomes a superior stat, which is a problem.

Theoretically, if you also beefed up Strength (allowing it to be added to AC or Initiative or Reflex Save, for example) they might maintain equality...but that doesn't seem very logical, and there's no Feat to do it at the moment.


Power Attack.

On two handed weapons it gives 3:1 returns. All two handable finesse weapons are exotic. That means there's still a feat tax for most finesse builds to be able to do two handed damage. The major exception is elves and making strength based elves obsolete is fitting.

Liberty's Edge

Atarlost wrote:

Power Attack.

On two handed weapons it gives 3:1 returns. All two handable finesse weapons are exotic. That means there's still a feat tax for most finesse builds to be able to do two handed damage. The major exception is elves and making strength based elves obsolete is fitting.

+6 damage at 20th level (morelike +2 to +4 in actual play) isn't nearly as cool as the Dex based advantages available, IMO.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Stunning Fist (and Perfect Strike) should not be feats.

Look at the prerequisites for them. Who, besides a monk, is meeting these prereqs? Con and Wis 13 AND takes Improved Unarmed Strike? The only classes I can see taking IUAS as a feat are certain fighters and barbarians, and they tend not to value Wisdom enough to have a 13 in it. BAB +8 is the final nail in the coffin-- the earliest a non-monk can even get this is level 8, but monks get it for free at Level 1. Any character who wants Stunning Fist but isn't really a monk will never actually build their character to meet these prereqs-- they'll dip one level in monk and get it for free, plus get their UAS damage boosted to 1d6.

The APG gave us Perfect Strike, which is even more ridiculous as a feat because in addition to the prohibitive prepreqs, the ability only works with monk weapons, which most non-monks won't even be proficient in (and that's another feat as a prereq).

If monks get the ability for free at level, and non-monks have to jump through far more hoops to get it than just taking one level of monk, then it should just be a monk class ability.


Silent Saturn wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Stunning Fist (and Perfect Strike) should not be feats.

Look at the prerequisites for them. Who, besides a monk, is meeting these prereqs? Con and Wis 13 AND takes Improved Unarmed Strike? The only classes I can see taking IUAS as a feat are certain fighters and barbarians, and they tend not to value Wisdom enough to have a 13 in it. BAB +8 is the final nail in the coffin-- the earliest a non-monk can even get this is level 8, but monks get it for free at Level 1. Any character who wants Stunning Fist but isn't really a monk will never actually build their character to meet these prereqs-- they'll dip one level in monk and get it for free, plus get their UAS damage boosted to 1d6.

The APG gave us Perfect Strike, which is even more ridiculous as a feat because in addition to the prohibitive prepreqs, the ability only works with monk weapons, which most non-monks won't even be proficient in (and that's another feat as a prereq).

If monks get the ability for free at level, and non-monks have to jump through far more hoops to get it than just taking one level of monk, then it should just be a monk class ability.

Correct. But the gods of SYSTEM BLOAT must be appeased!

Sarcasm aside, Pathfinder is well past the point of reason when it comes to supplementary mechanics, especially feats. But as long as supplemtary mechanics sell, they'll keep making 'em, right up until the system collapses under its own weight. It seems to be the connundrum of RPG publishers everywhere.

With apologies to BSG: All Of This Has Happened Before...and Will Happen Again.


bugleyman wrote:
Silent Saturn wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Stunning Fist (and Perfect Strike) should not be feats.

Look at the prerequisites for them. Who, besides a monk, is meeting these prereqs? Con and Wis 13 AND takes Improved Unarmed Strike? The only classes I can see taking IUAS as a feat are certain fighters and barbarians, and they tend not to value Wisdom enough to have a 13 in it. BAB +8 is the final nail in the coffin-- the earliest a non-monk can even get this is level 8, but monks get it for free at Level 1. Any character who wants Stunning Fist but isn't really a monk will never actually build their character to meet these prereqs-- they'll dip one level in monk and get it for free, plus get their UAS damage boosted to 1d6.

The APG gave us Perfect Strike, which is even more ridiculous as a feat because in addition to the prohibitive prepreqs, the ability only works with monk weapons, which most non-monks won't even be proficient in (and that's another feat as a prereq).

If monks get the ability for free at level, and non-monks have to jump through far more hoops to get it than just taking one level of monk, then it should just be a monk class ability.

Correct. But the gods of SYSTEM BLOAT must be appeased!

Sarcasm aside, Pathfinder is well past the point of reason when it comes to supplementary mechanics, especially feats. But as long as supplemtary mechanics sell, they'll keep making 'em, right up until the system collapses under its own weight. It seems to be the connundrum of RPG publishers everywhere.

With apologies to BSG: All Of This Has Happened Before...and Will Happen Again.

The company hired a bunch of people who created the bloat in 3x, didn't it?


bugleyman wrote:
Silent Saturn wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Stunning Fist (and Perfect Strike) should not be feats.

Look at the prerequisites for them. Who, besides a monk, is meeting these prereqs? Con and Wis 13 AND takes Improved Unarmed Strike? The only classes I can see taking IUAS as a feat are certain fighters and barbarians, and they tend not to value Wisdom enough to have a 13 in it. BAB +8 is the final nail in the coffin-- the earliest a non-monk can even get this is level 8, but monks get it for free at Level 1. Any character who wants Stunning Fist but isn't really a monk will never actually build their character to meet these prereqs-- they'll dip one level in monk and get it for free, plus get their UAS damage boosted to 1d6.

The APG gave us Perfect Strike, which is even more ridiculous as a feat because in addition to the prohibitive prepreqs, the ability only works with monk weapons, which most non-monks won't even be proficient in (and that's another feat as a prereq).

If monks get the ability for free at level, and non-monks have to jump through far more hoops to get it than just taking one level of monk, then it should just be a monk class ability.

Correct. But the gods of SYSTEM BLOAT must be appeased!

Sarcasm aside, Pathfinder is well past the point of reason when it comes to supplementary mechanics, especially feats. But as long as supplemtary mechanics sell, they'll keep making 'em, right up until the system collapses under its own weight. It seems to be the connundrum of RPG publishers everywhere.

With apologies to BSG: All Of This Has Happened Before...and Will Happen Again.

How do you propose they stay in business?

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Getting rid of feat bloat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.