About maintaining the backwards compatibility to 3.5, remember in 3.5 you don't get as many feats as you do in Pathfinder, so reducing the raw number of feats shouldn't impact that much.
I really like a lot of these ideas! Some of these ideas has reminded me of what was done with Equipment Tricks Feat.
Sure it is kind of a tax feat, but you can still perform some good maneuvers with the feat by itself. When combined with other feats you can do extraordinary things.
I don't see why we can't do this with other feats as well.
|
Difference being: you don't need spells to do things that might be basic options in another game AND you generally have more spell slots than feat slots.Options are good thing.
Are you also advocating cutting the number of spells available?
And with more spells and slots, they would generally more difficult to adjudicate for the GM, which was a complaint made above.
If you have an issue with a specific feat being something you should just be able to do, we can discuss that, but an entire class is basically built on having more feats than the other classes.
Reducing the number of feat options is effectively the same as reducing the number of spells available for classes who don't have spells.
Giving feats for free reduces the value of feats on the whole.
The fact that a human fighter (and also monk) starts with 3 feats is a big bonus relative to another race and another class specifically because you don't get that many feats.
Why would you want less options for feats, but more options for spells?
Why not just more options in general?
|
Feat bloat is a common complaint about PF. It's not unusual to hear people joking that you need 3 feats just to go the toilet. 1 to sit down, another to wipe you ass and a 3rd one to wash your hands.
To be fair, the third is optional, but frowned upon. The first two are definite examples of a feat tax.
I remember back during the 3.0/3.5 transition when a lot of +2 to skill X and +2 to skill Y feats were created, some brilliant 3rd party publisher came up with a general form of that feat -- something along the lines of "Pick any 2 skills. You gain a bonus of +2 to each of those skills. Special: You may select this feat more than once. Its effects do not stack. Each time you select this feat, you must select two skills that have not previously benefited from this feat." This one feat eliminated the need for a lot of the feats in 3.5 that were inherited by Pathfinder.
I agree with you and I actually covered this here.
Difference being: you don't need spells to do things that might be basic options in another game AND you generally have more spell slots than feat slots.Options are good thing.
Are you also advocating cutting the number of spells available?
And with more spells and slots, they would generally more difficult to adjudicate for the GM, which was a complaint made above.
If you have an issue with a specific feat being something you should just be able to do, we can discuss that, but an entire class is basically built on having more feats than the other classes.
Reducing the number of feat options is effectively the same as reducing the number of spells available for classes who don't have spells.
Giving feats for free reduces the value of feats on the whole.
The fact that a human fighter (and also monk) starts with 3 feats is a big bonus relative to another race and another class specifically because you don't get that many feats.
Why would you want less options for feats, but more options for spells?
Why not just more options in general?
For the most part, spells are not as redundant as the feats are. A lot of feats are so similar to others that they are effectively the same thing. We are just looking to trim the fat of the feats.
Am I the only one who thinks this feat thing is running wild (bad pun)?
Can't we cut down on the raw number of feats?
Here is my idea...The skill feats...right off the bat, most skill feats give a +2 to 2 similar skills (those could be brought down as well to speed up play as well). Why not make one feat for skills that allows a player to give a plus 2 to 2 skills in general.
Skill Feat: Benefit: You may add +2 to 2 skills which have base similarities.
Point blank and simple. There are a ton of other feats that this can be done with I am sure.
Any thoughts?
I thought the feat to give an extra + 2 racial to keen senses was kinda meh considering skill focus is better both long term and in the immediate...unless you combined both i guess. No, I definitely think there are tons of pointless feats it's just hard to say which ones are always crap and which ones might be useful to some character at some point
While its an interesting discussion... whats the point? Unless your going to Homebrew your own list of feats there is little point either way. The feats have been printed and wont be changed. And if you think its bad now just wait. The longer the system is out, the more feats/spells/archetypes/presitge classes/races/ect will be printed.
Bloat is inevitable.
What tha?!
Why is Aiming a feat?
Bullseye Shot. Is there not an aim action in combat? Am I missing something? Tell me there is a move action to aim in combat.
As in to improve your aim, thus netting you a bonus on the roll? No, no such action exists that I know of.
@
Dragonamedrake Ah, but they have started 'revamping' feats, mostly due to the inclusion of firearms. I mentioned earlier about Equipment Trick Feat. A feat that which combined with other feats becomes greater and greater as far as flexibility. This could be one way of nipping bloat in the bud before it's too late. Nothing is inevitable.
That's my grievance, in a nutshell.
Nothing gets added to Pathfinder that isn't locked off. If you ask the devs for new mechanics to handle a situation, you'd best be ready to spend a fear to do it at all.
I understand why, but I don't happen to like it.
I do houserule a fix though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Featlists Are Way Too Long?
(I'm sorry, Im so sorry!! I couldn't resist. I tried.)
And with more spells and slots, they would generally more difficult to adjudicate for the GM, which was a complaint made above.
I actually said I think there should be LESS spells. Casters can already do A LOT! They don't need +200 additional options in every book.
If you have an issue with a specific feat being something you should just be able to do, we can discuss that, but an entire class is basically built on having more feats than the other classes.
Reducing the number of feat options is effectively the same as reducing the number of spells available for classes who don't have spells.
Giving feats for free reduces the value of feats on the whole.
The fact that a human fighter (and also monk) starts with 3 feats is a big bonus relative to another race and another class specifically because you don't get that many feats.
I disagree. If there were less pointless feats (I'll cite Sure Grasp and Water Skinned again, for I really hate those two) and more useful, scaling feats (scaling TWF, Vital Strike, Combat Maneuver feats, etc), those bonus feats would actually mean a lot more!
Why would you want less options for feats, but more options for spells?
Why not just more options in general?
Again, it's not only feats. I believe there are way too many spells (and archetypes) too.
I never suggested simply removing feats. I suggested simplifying them. Make that 6 feat chain a 2 feat chain. Make that 3 feat chain, a single scaling feat. Turn that feat-everyone-takes-anyway into a combat option everyone can do!
This means MORE options, not less.
Making Power Attack/Combat Expertise/Deadly Aim/Weapon Finesse/ combat options instead of feats can go as far as giving you 4 extra feats. Suddenly, martial classes got a lot more powerful and casters didn't have any meanningful power-up. A god wizard with Deadly Aim and Weapon Finesse isn't any more dangerous than a god wizard without any feats at all.
Fighters would no longer be one-trick ponies (or 2 trick-ponies). Hell, maybe those extra feat would actually mean something if every feat scaled and there was little to no risk of taking trap-feats.
It's funny how you need 2~3 feats to wield a whip without causing attacks of opporunity, plus another 2~3 feats for viably tripping someone, but a single feat allows you to have your own pet wizard/cleric/whatever and dozens of servants. Or cast 2 spells in a row. Or cast spells while transformed into a tyranossaur.
Feat bloat and feat tax hurt martial classes (including Fighters! Hell, specially Fighters!) a lot more than casters.
@ Lemmy. Glad to see we are on the same 'Path'! (bad pun)
What do you think of Equipment Trick Feat as a basis for expanding what feats can do, so as to reduce bloat?
@ Lemmy. Glad to see we are on the same 'Path'! (bad pun)
What do you think of Equipment Trick Feat as a basis for expanding what feats can do, so as to reduce bloat?
Honestly... I'm divided about it. While it as good example of a feat that scales in power with the character, it still has a few options that IMO, fall into the category of "you shouldn't need a feat for this!" or at least "this should be a secondary effect of feat X", like Hurl Shield and Find The Hidden.
I don't really like skill tricks either. Players shouldn't need a feat to do something their skills should allow them to do in the first place.
IMO, every feat should give you a cool new ability and/or a meaningful bonus, not just a +1 (hey get, another 3 feats and you have a +4!) or allow/expand something you should already be able to do.
Let class abilities/items give us the static numerical bonus. Feats should give us a nice ability and a minor bonus or a meaningful, scaling bonus, instead of costing 3 or 4 feats.
Imagine if instead of scaling with BAB, you had to take Improved Power Attack for a -2/+4 and Greater Power Attack for a -3/+6. Do you think so many people would still take it?
Now, imagine if Weapon Focus granted you a +1 (eventually a +2) to attack bonus, and if you had enough fighter levels, you also get a +2 (eventually a +4) to damage rolls. Would that make fighters too good? I really don't think so.
EDIT: How about this idea: the Equipment Trick itself shouldn't exist, instead when you fulfill the prerequisites for the tricks, you are allowed to use them.
The CRB could have a list of "Creative uses for feats and equipment". It doesn't spend any feat and encourages player creativity.
@ Lemmy, on comment #51 here I did mention Equipment Trick is more of a tax. On that same note I like your idea for being able to perform special tricks for having certain feats. It eliminates the tax feat and opens the possibility for effective feats.
I don't see a problem with the number of feats and traits available.
I like the ability to go into combat feats, type in a weapon name into ctrl+F, or some similar concept, and have 3-10 options to consider.
It really helps you built what you want instead of have to make what you want fit what is available.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a problem with the number of feats and traits available.
I like the ability to go into combat feats, type in a weapon name into ctrl+F, or some similar concept, and have 3-10 options to consider.
It really helps you built what you want instead of have to make what you want fit what is available.
Iorthol, my point is: More feats is not the same as mroe options.
Let me give you an example. Suppose I'm making a Fighter. He focuses on a Sword and Board combat style.
If, among my choices, there are Improved Shield Bash, Weapon Focus (Longsowrd) or (Shield Bash) and, Two-Weapon Fighting. That's a real choice, they may not be perfectly balanced and one may be better than the others, but not overwhelmingly so.
Now, let's add a feat named, I dunno... Underwater Shield Swiming. It let's you ignore the shield penalty to swim checks. Is that a real choice? Do you actually intent on swiming while wielding your shield? How often does that happen? And isn't it simply better to get Skill Focus (Swim)? It's so weak, chances are you'll never see it into play. i.e.: It's not a real choice. This is the problem with Sure Grasp.
Or another feat named... let's say... Invincible. It increases your AC, saves and damage by +10.You don't really need it, but would you ever not take this feat? I don't think so. That is not a real choice either. This is the problem with Power Attack and Natural Spells.
Imagine there is also a feat named "Spellcaster". Without it, wizards are not allowed to cast spells higher than 3rd level. The "Improved Spellcaster" feat allows them to cast spells higher than 6th level. Is that a choice? No, it's a feat tax the character is forced to pay in order to do something they are supposed to be able to do in the 1st place! This is the problem with many Fighter feats.
But it could be worse! Let's say you have a feat named "Armored Tree Climber". It allows you to climb trees while wearing armor. Why the hell do you need a feat for that? Does wearing armor make it phisically impossible to climb tress The character should be able to do so anyway! That's not a choice, that's a feat tax. This is the problem with Blundgeoner.
Having lots of false choices is the same as having no choice at all. There is no point in adding 200 options to the game if only 100 of those are actually useful. It's better to have just the useful half and save print space. It makes it much easier to find what you want in the book and reduces the risk off picking feat-traps. I'd guess it's less intimidating for new players too. And we want new players! The more the merrier! More players = More buyers = More material = Possibly More Fun!
I changed the way saves worked making them 1/2 character lvl without good saves, making it less obvious what a particular characters weakness is and making certain classes less vulnerable in low magic settings in particular.Not sure I understood. Does this mean all classes have the same saves? What are the save progressions? What is the difference between good and poor save progressions? And how does this change affect the game?
Yes, this does mean that all classes have the same saves, or rather that saves are determined by character level rather than class levels and ability scores are an important part in making a difference. Overall it decreases the difference between bad saves and good saves, negates class stacking resulting in high/weak saves, there is less (almost) certain success/failure on saves, enemies are judged on their apparent ability rather than a focus on their class or creature type. I did adjust a few class abilities though, bravery allows for a reroll of a fortitude or fear save 1/day at 2nd and an additional time at 6th and every 4 levels for instance. Monks can use a ki point as an immediate action to reroll a save once per round, barbarians can consume 4 rage rounds as an immediate action to reroll a fortitude or will save entering rage on his/her turn etc.
Giving characters a level based (dodge) AC bonus as the gunslinger class, we dont use this class but if we did probably would add +1 AC every 2nd level instead.What is the bonus you give them? I considered doing the same thing in my games, the bonus I was thinking of was (BAB+1)/3. I just didn't do it out of fear of unbalancing encounters.
This means that the more combat focused characters (fighters/barbarians) would learn to defend themselves better than the ones who only partially focus on combat (rogues/clerics) or not at all (wizards/sorcerers). It also "ends" nicely. With Full BAB having +7 AC at 20th level, medium BAB a +5, and poor BAB, a +3.
I gave them an AC (dodge) bonus based on character level at 2nd lvl and every 4 levels after. I didn't make a distinction per class, since the overall balance stays the same (a character that had AC 6 higher, will still have AC 6 higher)
There is always gaining an ability to use your CMD as your AC instead of doing the 1/3rd dodge to bab thing...just a thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter that much to be quite honest. Half of them are barely worth taking for any class.
I don't agree with Power attack being given as free, at least not the scalable version. Maybe a fixed -1/+2 for free and a scaling version as a feat... Would a basic version be enough so that the feat is not a must have?
Why? Every martial takes it anyway. And the feat is not even OP, just very good, in no small part because it scales. If you only had a static version and the feat was required for the sacling version, things would be exactly the same. Every martial would still take PA (Maybe a little later)
Also, you already "pay" for the extra damage with a penalty yo accuracy, it seems a fair trade. It just happens that the deal is sweeter for a few classes. I don't see how hitting things harder (but less precisely) is something that you need to learn.
Like Broken said:
What tha?!
Why is Aiming a feat?
Bullseye Shot. Is there not an aim action in combat? Am I missing something? Tell me there is a move action to aim in combat.
Even if everybody got PA for free, I dare say many classes would still choose not to use it. Arcane casters, obviously, but rogues/ninjas as well.
Dotting for reference. The number of feats is something that has bothered / irritated me. Interesting to read back later and see what's up in the thread...
|
I agree and like the idea of some of the feats scaling with leveling. It would help reduce in the smorgasbord of many feats that are available. I do understand that attractive feats have many prerequisites by the time you qualify you're already level 20. On another note, speaking of about feat starved classes... Clerics should have access to Selective channeling automatically without burning a feat to do so.
|
|
Scaling feats makes some sense, and some feats (power attack, skill focus) do scale. But some feats exist for flavor, and some feats are more about synergy than standing on their own. Childlike for example is very, very powerful in a heavy role play game even if it doesn't add much mechanically.
Making some of the underpowered feats into traits would make more sense to me as a fix for some of the complaints about underpowered feats in the thread, but I don't want less options for people to choose from as they are trying to make a concept work in game.
Giving feats for free to all classes would have the unintended consequences of lessening the value of feats overall. This is particularly a problem for multiclass builds, gish in particular. Part of the limiting factor is having to take feats you wouldn't otherwise take because you are trying to be diverse.
Being feat starved is a consequence of some builds, and since you have significantly more feats now than in 3.5, this penalty has already been greatly lessened.
Having to make choices and sacrifices is the challenge of the game.
Agreed on the Cleric, Robert.
@ Atarlost...
You have helped to put the whole thing into perspective for me. I am slow at times, but I do eventually get it.
When a character goes up in level most everything about the character goes up, simulating a higher proficiency at what they do.
Most feats are a dead end, unless you get another feat that enhances the original making the first one a tax feat.
The first tier feats should scale up around every 5 levels and feats which link to it should offer options of how to use the first tiers in different ways...that is just the way I am seeing it now.
|
|
For example let's compare Dodge to Mage Armor. Dodge is a +1 bonus of a better type, but Mage armor is a bigger bonus and blocks incorporeal attacks. Given the duration issue Dodge is pretty good -- at level 1. Come level 16, though, and mage armor lasts all day. Now Dodge doesn't look so good. It needs some scaling. It should probably go up every 5 or 6 levels. Since it's not really a martial feat it should probably index off of character level directly or off of the acrobatics skill rather than BAB.
Saying "better type" doesn't really cover it. One stacks with armor, one does. One is always on, one has to be cast and is still off 4 hours a day even at 20th level. And by that point, you likely have some kind of armor (bracers, etc) that it doesn't stack with, making it fairly useless.
I wouldn't mind some leveling of Dodge, but it wouldn't need that much considering it is a prerequisite (giving additional bonus) and it stacks with most everything I wouldn't go more than +1 every 10 levels (so +1 1st, +2 10th, +3 20th)
This process is a good idea, but it could lead to a ton of power creep and would probably be better suited for the next version (come on Pathfinder 1.5....)
|
I remember back during the 3.0/3.5 transition when a lot of +2 to skill X and +2 to skill Y feats were created, some brilliant 3rd party publisher came up with a general form of that feat -- something along the lines of "Pick any 2 skills. You gain a bonus of +2 to each of those skills. Special: You may select this feat more than once. Its effects do not stack. Each time you select this feat, you must select two skills that have not previously benefited from this feat." This one feat eliminated the need for a lot of the feats in 3.5 that were inherited by Pathfinder.
True 20 did this. Is that what you were thinking of?
|
|
Clerics should have access to Selective channeling automatically without burning a feat to do so.
It is the limiting factor of giving Cleric's more free healing in this edition.
You can heal everyone in 30 feat, but if you don't want it to apply to enemies, that is a feat. If you don't have it, you need to make hard choices in combat situations. Not to mention if you are channellings negative and have to decide if you will hurt them more than your friends...
The game is supposed to be challenging. The challenge is a large part of the fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, you're missing the point.
It's not a limiting factor of anything and it adds no challenge.
It's a dumb rule, because the problem goes away when you take the feat and you really need the problem to go away, so you take the feat.
In practice, it doesn't affect channelling in the least. What it DOES affect is variety between clerics. It also makes them all a little worse at some totally unrelated thing than they would otherwise be.
I think classes should just work right out of the box. You shouldn't be asked to make obvious choices with your feats to balance their features. Feats exist to add choices and an obvious choice is no choice at all.
Having said all that, sure, the game should be challenging. Part of that means getting rid of junk options and dramatically superior options where possible, because they reduce the game to luck if you don't understand it well and box-ticking if you do. Both those extremes destroy strategy and reduce the importance of actual play, which is pretty much the opposite of challenging.
|
|
It adds no challenge that you have to make a choice if you heal your friends you might also heal your enemies?
Really.
You take the feat to remove a problem. Just like you take Power Attack to remove the problem of not doing enough damage.
I would argue you are missing the point. Channel is supposed to be a decision you have to make about healing (or hurting) friends and enemies at the same time.
That is strategy.
You don't have to have selective channel. You can play without it and just not be able to do mass healing during combat.
That was what you did in 3.5, so I assure you it is possible.
Now with this new option comes a trade off. They decided to give you a way to get around the trade off, at the cost of a feat.
Not all benefit come without downsides.
Why? Every martial takes it anyway. And the feat is not even OP, just very good, in no small part because it scales. If you only had a static version and the feat was required for the sacling version, things would be exactly the same. Every martial would still take PA (Maybe a little later)
Also, you already "pay" for the extra damage with a penalty yo accuracy, it seems a fair trade. It just happens that the deal is sweeter for a few classes. I don't see how hitting things harder (but less precisely) is something that you need to learn.
Like Broken said:
What tha?!
Why is Aiming a feat?
Bullseye Shot. Is there not an aim action in combat? Am I missing something? Tell me there is a move action to aim in combat.
Even if everybody got PA for free, I dare say many classes would still choose not to use it. Arcane casters, obviously, but rogues/ninjas as well.
Power Attack is not OP but it IS poweful. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a 'must have'.
PA is too powerful to give for free, not enough to merit a nerf and just enough that not taking it is a hard decision. It's actually the best designed feat in the system.And stop saying it is a 'tax' or that 'every artial takes it'. You know my barbarian and my paladin and neither have it and both rock.
And yes, hitting harder IS something you have to learn. There is a whole thing about using weight and leverage and impulse and how you hit and it varies depending on what weapon you are using and what techniques you use with that weapon... That argument is so wrong, it's not even funny.
Giving feats for free to all classes would have the unintended consequences of lessening the value of feats overall. This is particularly a problem for multiclass builds, gish in particular. Part of the limiting factor is having to take feats you wouldn't otherwise take because you are trying to be diverse.
Being feat starved is a consequence of some builds, and since you have significantly more feats now than in 3.5, this penalty has already been greatly lessened.
Having to make choices and sacrifices is the challenge of the game.
I disagree. If there were less feats, but they were generally better and/or more balanced, the value of each feat would go up. I'm not saying "hey, give me Blindfight and Weapon Focus for free." Both of them are solid choices. What I'm saying is "if you are already paying a price (in accuracy, action economy, etc), why do you have to spend a feat too?
The few feats I think should be in-built options are the one you already have to sacrifice something in order to use or/and are simply so fundamental, there is no reason to not take it. Power Attack fits the description.
If it's gonna be in 90% of the builds anyway, why not simply give it to 100% of them? It's not a simple buff, you have to make a choice when you use PA. Less accuracy for more damage. For some classes, this is a good deal, for others, not so much. Just like every other aspect of the game.
As Broken said, why is Bullseye shot a feat? Why is "aiming" not a simple action? Why do I have to spend a feat for the "privilege" of sacrificing a move action to get bonus on attack rolls? I'd rather make a full attack (not rare for archers).
You already pay for the benefit by suffering a penalty (or spending a valuable Move action).
I'm on the fence with Selective Channel. The feats does give you a new ability, and IMO, Channel is not that important. Many clerics only use it out of combat anyway. It's not such a great feat that you almost need it (like PA), or so bad/situational that noone ever takes it (like Sure Grasp). IMO, it's a well balanced feat.
On the other hand, I can see a cleric learning how to better control his Channel Energy at higher leves. (Maybe 10th level?). It'd be a nice buff, and probably not too unbalanced, but Clerics don't really need it, they are pretty strong as it is.
Natural Spell is almost the same (but for Druids). Except, it's much, much better. I've seen many Clerics without Selective Channel (hell, I've seen many clerics that don't even use Channel Energy), but i've never ever seen a Druid without Natural Spell (well, except for archetypes that sacrifice Wildshape, like Feral Child. I guess the same would happen for achetypes that sacrifice spellcasting, but I don't think there is one).
IMO, the existence of this feat is not even necessary. Druids would still be very powerful if they were not allowed to cast while transformed into a squirrel. But, since the feat exists and, again, is taken by 99% of every druid ever. It might as well be a class feature, instead of a feat tax.
No pressure, though, I don't care that druids have to spend a feat for such powerful ability.
I do care that Fighters/Rangers/Cavaliers (even Commoners!) have to spend a feat in order to to swing a sword with more force and less accuracy. I do care that nearly all martial builds equal Power Attack (or one of its brothers) + 9 feats. 10, if you are human. It's not it'd make any of these classes OP.
Giving PA as a combat option increases variety, just like scaling feats increase feat value.
I'd say 80% of "flavor feats" could simply be removed and never be missed. The remaining 20% could be traits.
|
|
The fact that some classes can afford to take feats and other can't is part of it.
When classes choose to pick feats is the other part.
Even if we assume 90% of martial classes take Power Attack (high in my opinion, as many rogue and ranged builds don't...) we then have to ask when do they take it?
Do they take it at 1st level when if they aren't human, a fighter? 3/4 BaB can't take it at all. So 3rd level? 5th? And what else do you postpone?
One of my favorite 1st level combos is Power Attack and Furious focus, which basically free power attack every round at a point where you can only generally make one attack.
If you give it for free to the Magus and Bard, that allows them to select other magic based feats in the now available slot, when the penalty for the class relative to Fighters/Rangers/Monks/Rogues is having less available feats.
As for feats like bullseye, it is an attack bonus for being really good at aiming if you do "x". Other people can't do "x" as well as you so they aim as well as they can, which is their BaB. You start giving those away for free and suddenly you open the door to casters "aiming" touch attack spells to get bonuses. Before the feat existed, you had no issue. Now that it does, you want it for free all the time?
And on a more basic level, saying "Feat Tax" is just a way of complaining you can't have all the things exactly when you want them for free. Having to take feats to do things is part of the game in the same way having to have a spell memorized to cast it isn't a "spell tax".
It adds no challenge that you have to make a choice if you heal your friends you might also heal your enemies?
Really.
I never said that. I said that in practice you don't have to make that choice anyway.
I also didn't meant to imply that it's impossible to get by without channel, just that if someone wants to channel, they will take the feat.
That is that point I was referring to when I said "Ciretose, you're missing the point".
I still say there shouldn't be a feat you take just to get full use out of a class feature. As soon as the party gets a wand of cure light wounds, channelling outside of battle stops being much use, but just as importantly, when people read channel, they seem to expect it to work like it does when modified by the feat. Everybody I've seen make a cleric when introduced to pathfinder takes it right away. At least one immediately resented it.
If feats aren't tied up with filling the gaps between your class, the rules and your expectations, you can use them creatively, pick what you actually want rather than what you feel you ought to and display skill (rather than just knowledge) by picking synergistic combinations or evaluating subtle, ambiguous or situational differences in power.
|
|
It adds no challenge that you have to make a choice if you heal your friends you might also heal your enemies?
Really.
I never said that. I said that in practice you don't have to make that choice anyway.
I also didn't meant to imply that it's impossible to get by without channel, just that if someone wants to channel, they will take the feat.
That is that point I was referring to when I said "Ciretose, you're missing the point".
I still say there shouldn't be a feat you take just to get full use out of a class feature. As soon as the party gets a wand of cure light wounds, channelling outside of battle stops being much use, but just as importantly, when people read channel, they seem to expect it to work like it does when modified by the feat. Everybody I've seen make a cleric when introduced to pathfinder takes it right away. At least one immediately resented it.
If feats aren't tied up with filling the gaps between your class, the rules and your expectations, you can use them creatively, pick what you actually want rather than what you feel you ought to and display skill (rather than just knowledge) by picking synergistic combinations or evaluating subtle, ambiguous or situational differences in power.
Because players don't like limits of abilities doesn't mean you get rid of them without making them pay for it.
I can't cast spells as a swift action without the quicken spell metamagic feat (or a rod). Does that mean I should get it for free?
Power Attack is not OP but it IS poweful. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a 'must have'.
PA is too powerful to give for free, not enough to merit a nerf and just enough that not taking it is a hard decision. It's actually the best designed feat in the system.
And stop saying it is a 'tax' or that 'every artial takes it'. You know my barbarian and my paladin and neither have it and both rock.
And yes, hitting harder IS something you have to learn. There is a whole thing about using weight and leverage and impulse and how you hit and it varies depending on what weapon you are using and what techniques you use with that weapon... That argument is so wrong, it's not even funny.
My point is, no feat should be a "must have" (or "must have not"), except for very specific builds.
Using leverage and impulse and whatever is great and all, but warriors train in order to do so in order to increase accuracy or, at least, do it without any loss in it.
Give me a sword and I can swing it as hard as I can. Will I hit anything? Probably not. (well, maybe myself). If I instead focus on what I'm trying to hit (which, I hope, is what Barbarians/Fighters are doing), I'd probably do a better job (it'd still be a poor job, as I have no swordsmanship skills at all, but better, nonetheless).
Is PA absolutely necessary? No. I don't think so. Does it make nearly every martial build much better? Yup.
Saying that it's too powerful to be given for free is like sayng giving and additional feat to every martial class would make them too powerful.
You can live without PA. Druids can live without Natural Spell. Wizards can live without Quicken Spell. But they lose a lot of power.
Something powerful is not necessarily something broken. Or even too powerful. And martials could use a buff. Even it's what effectivelly amounts to "1 bonus feat".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, you've made your point. Ease up.
I'm a GM, and I still think this is an issue. That negates most of your arguments about selfish players just wanting it all.
You also aren't addressing the tendency of valid RP options to get locked away behind the feat wall. That's not a problem that extends to spells. (well, in a very general sense, it's a common complaint about the vancian system, but that's not germane I don't think).
|
|
Ciretose, you've made your point. Ease up.
I'm a GM, and I still think this is an issue. That negates most of your arguments about selfish players just wanting it all.
You also aren't addressing the tendency of valid RP options to get locked away behind the feat wall. That's not a problem that extends to spells. (well, in a very general sense, it's a common complaint about the vancian system, but that's not germane I don't think).
Respectfully I disagree that your being a GM negates anything.
Options that provide mechanical benefit aren't always going to be "valid RP" options. Keeping track of that many mechanics is a complication in and of itself prior to adding mechanics.
We now have under the proposes additions a 1st level player who decided before each attack if they are using power attack or aiming or just attacking.
I think the argument is saying on one hand "too many feats are confusing and hard to get through" and on the other "We need to have more options for free".
If we want to say some feats should be traits, fine. If we want to say some feats need to level, fine. If we want to say some feats have to many prerequisites, fine.
But you can't argue to many options while simultaneously arguing for more options, sooner unless what you are really arguing for is not simplicity, but power increase.
And with that, creep.
In the case of Channel Energy, I agree with ciretose. Selective Channel makes you better at one facet ot what your character can do. And it's not an essential part of the Cleric's ability, nor does it have any reason not to use it all the time.
You don't need the feat. But it's a great option for those who want to be better at this specific part of the clerics abilities.
It's a good and well-balance feat, IMHO.
I'll try to be clearer... What should not be feats:
1 - Feats that "allow" you to do things that you should be able to do anyway.
2 - Feats that are so good, there is almost no reason not to take them and/or come with an inbuilt penalty. (Exceptions are very, very powerful effects, like metamagic feats, 'cause casting 2 spells in the same round, making them last twice as much and/or auto-entangle opponents is a lot more powerful than a +6 damage.)
Feats that should not exist are
1 - Feats that are too powerful (although, right now, I can't think of any feat I'd say it's so powerful it should be completely removed. Maybe the pre-errata Antagonize).
2 - Feats that are so weak, they amount to little more than feat bloat. Hey, there, Water Skinned.
3 - Feats that are simply broken (i.e.:they do not work. At all). Hello, Prone Shooter!
|
|
In the case of Channel Energy, I agree with ciretose. Selective Channel makes you better at one facet ot what your character can do. And it's not an essential part of the Cleric's ability, nor does it have any reason not to use it all the time.
You don't need the feat. But it's a great option for those who want to be better at this specific part of the clerics abilities.It's a good and well-balance feat, IMHO.
I'll try to be clearer... What should not be feats:
1 - Feats that "allow" you to do things that you should be able to do anyway.
2 - Feats that are so good, there is almost no reason not to take them and/or come with an inbuilt penalty. (Exceptions are very, very powerful effects, like metamagic feats, 'cause casting 2 spells in the same round, making them last twice as much and/or auto-entangle opponents is a lot more powerful than a +6 damage.)Feats that should not exist are
1 - Feats that are too powerful (although, right now, I can't think of any feat I'd say it's so powerful it should be completely removed. Maybe the pre-errata Antagonize).
2 - Feats that are so weak, they amount to little more than feat bloat. Hey, there, Water Skinned.
3 - Feats that are simply broken (i.e.:they do not work. At all). Hello, Prone Shooter!
I largely agree, with the exception of the first #1, and even then only about what should and shouldn't be "allowed"
I think power attack and Bullseye are completely legitimate, as the presumption is you will always be trying your best to hit with power and accuracy, and these "abilities" indicate a level of training to learn a technique that provides mechanical advantage. Which is what a feat is.
I get that an argument can be made to have these as mechanics similar to fighting defensively, but I think they are significant enough benefit to justify being a separate feat, and I also think adding that many base options would get to a point of over complication fairly quick.
We now have under the proposes additions a 1st level player who decided before each attack if they are using power attack or aiming or just attacking.
I think the argument is saying on one hand "too many feats are confusing and hard to get through" and on the other "We need to have more options for free".
If we want to say some feats should be traits, fine. If we want to say some feats need to level, fine. If we want to say some feats have to many prerequisites, fine.
But you can't argue to many options while simultaneously arguing for more options, sooner unless what you are really arguing for is not simplicity, but power increase.
And with that, creep.
Now, that is a valid point. Although I still disagree.
I'd rather see "Carefully Aiming" and "Power Attacking" written as possible things to do in the "Combat" section of the CRB than in dozens of feat prerequisites.
More options is good. False options are not.
Having 3000 feats of which 2900 are useless is effectivelly the same as having 100 feats. If 20 of them are so good if can't help but take them 9 out of 10 times, that's basically having only 80 feats to choose from.
Can you see my point?
EDIT - Cause ciretose keeps ninja'ing me -.-'
I think power attack and Bullseye are completely legitimate, as the presumption is you will always be trying your best to hit with power and accuracy, and these "abilities" indicate a level of training to learn a technique that provides mechanical advantage. Which is what a feat is.
I get that an argument can be made to have these as mechanics similar to fighting defensively, but I think they are significant enough benefit to justify being a separate feat, and I also think adding that many base options would get to a point of over complication fairly quick.
If you are always doing your best to hit with power and accuracy, and that supposedly involves aiming better. Why can't you choose to be worse at it? "Well, I hit-my-target 9 out of 10 times, but sometimes I lose patience and just try to hit them as hard as I can, instead of precisely directing my fists". Why can't you take you time to make a better shot ("My rate-of-fire is not very high, but if I have the time to aim, I'll always make the shot!") or instead, aim at smaller, vital organs instead of just shooting in the enemy's general direction ("Okay, this shot will be harder than usual, but if I make it, I'll pierce his heart!"
It's possible that I'm wrong about selective channel, but I stand by the general principles that form the basis of my argument against it being a feat. I hope it's obvious why they're different from casting spells as a swift action without quicken.
There's a difference between an ability doing anything you want and an ability meeting people's expectations. One is powerful and permissive almost to the point of becoming free-form RP, the other is good design.
Lemmy, I agree with your feat rules.
I'd add "feats that are strictly better or worse than other feats" and "Feats that are extremely similar in flavour and function to other feats".
Point by point so it doesn't get complicated.
My point is, no feat should be a "must have" (or "must have not"), except for very specific builds.Power Attack is not OP but it IS poweful. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a 'must have'.
PA is too powerful to give for free, not enough to merit a nerf and just enough that not taking it is a hard decision. It's actually the best designed feat in the system.
And stop saying it is a 'tax' or that 'every artial takes it'. You know my barbarian and my paladin and neither have it and both rock.
And yes, hitting harder IS something you have to learn. There is a whole thing about using weight and leverage and impulse and how you hit and it varies depending on what weapon you are using and what techniques you use with that weapon... That argument is so wrong, it's not even funny.
And I want chocolate to rain from the skies, a billion dollars tax free and superpowers. Nothing is perfect. If it wasn't power attack, it would be some other feat.
Using leverage and impulse and whatever is great and all, but warriors train in order to do so in order to increase accuracy or, at least, do it without any loss in it.
Give me a sword and I can swing it as hard as I can. Will I hit anything? Probably not. (well, maybe myself). If I instead focus on what I'm trying to hit (which, I hope, is what Barbarians/Fighters are doing), I'd probably do a better job (it'd still be a poor job, as I have no swordsmanship skills at all, but better, nonetheless).
And that is why they have full BAB. A feat represents specialized training, in this case in hitting things really hard. It's the difference between a Muay Thay fighter ad a Wing Chun fighter, they're both better than we could hope to be, but one specializes in hard and destroying hits and the other in fast and precise hits.
Is PA absolutely necessary? No. I don't think so. Does it make nearly every martial build much better? Yup.
Saying that it's too powerful to be given for free is like sayng giving and additional feat to every martial class would make them too powerful.You can live without PA. Druids can live without Natural Spell. Wizards can live without Quicken Spell. But they lose a lot of power.
Something powerful is not necessarily something broken. Or even too powerful. And martials could use a buff. Even it's what effectivelly amounts to "1 bonus feat".
Notice that you compare PA with Natural Spell and Quicken Spell, both that are must haves for their classes but that are too powerful to give for free. I'm not even going to say anything else about that.
Options that provide mechanical benefit aren't always going to be "valid RP" options. Keeping track of that many mechanics is a complication in and of itself prior to adding mechanics.
But then there's Strike Back, and Rhino Charge. Where do we draw the line?
Oh, I'm not comparing their power, Mortuum.
Selective Channel is, IMHO, a great feat. Useful, reliable, well balanced and worth the investment.
Quicken Spell is... Well, Quicken Spell. Even if there was no Quicken Spell mechanic at all, full casters would still be the most powerful characters anyway. In fact, Quicken could have a prerequisite feat and it'd still be worth taking.
But like I said, I don't want to remove options. I want to add to them. One way of doing that is removing false choices.
We now have under the proposes additions a 1st level player who decided before each attack if they are using power attack or aiming or just attacking.
I think the argument is saying on one hand "too many feats are confusing and hard to get through" and on the other "We need to have more options for free".
If we want to say some feats should be traits, fine. If we want to say some feats need to level, fine. If we want to say some feats have to many prerequisites, fine.
But you can't argue to many options while simultaneously arguing for more options, sooner unless what you are really arguing for is not simplicity, but power increase.
And with that, creep.
Now, that is a valid point. Although I still disagree.
I'd rather see "Carefully Aiming" and "Power Attacking" written as possible things to do in the "Combat" section of the CRB than in dozens of feat prerequisites.
I already suggested a compromise.
But a scaling bonus is too much to give for free.
And I want chocolate to rain from the skies, a billion dollars tax free and superpowers. Nothing is perfect. If it wasn't power attack, it would be some other feat.
Not true. There has to be a best option, sure, but there are only so many "no brainer" options. If we get rid of some of them, there will be fewer such feats causing problems. Also: Old News Flash! Claiming that we shouldn't try to improve things because they'll always imperfect is a logical fallacy.
And that is why they have full BAB. A feat represents specialized training, in this case in hitting things really hard. It's the difference between a Muay Thay fighter ad a Wing Chun fighter, they're both better than we could hope to be, but one specializes in hard and destroying hits and the other in fast and precise hits.
It's not specialised training. Pretty much everybody who fights much learns it and uses it continuously. A feat is SUPPOSED to be specialised training, yes, but as people have said way, way too many times already here, it doesn't always work out like that. That's a major part of the problem we'd like to solve.
Ah, Lemmy, the comment about quickening was directed at ciretose, who appeared to be comparing the idea of built-in selective channelling to changing the casting time of all wizard spells to a swift action.