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 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.
Never said we shouldn't try to improve. In fact I offered a compromise. Putting words in someone elses mouth may not be a logical fallacy but it is rude and deceiving.
And Power Attack IS NOT A NO BRAINER.
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.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say... I guess it is that because everybody takes the feat it isn't a specialized training? No, that just means a lot of martials take that training.
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.
So? Just cause there are other problematic feats, it doesn't mean this is not a problem. By that logic, we can't argue that Wizards are the most powerful class 'cause if we removed them, it'd be Druids (or Clerics, or whatever).
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.
There is no a difference in style if everyone uses the same one (just like nearly everyone uses Power Attack). Also, PA is not a style. It's a choice. Fling your sword as hard as you can, but less preciselly. I don't see how you need any training to do that. In fact, I'd say most warriors/martial artists train in order to do the opposite.
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.
Tsc... I'll try and make the point a bit clearer. I'm not comparing their power. I've never said they are the same, powerwise. In fact, I even said that I don't care if Natural Spell is stil a feat.
My point is that all of them are false choices. They are so obivously good, there is little to no reason to take them. You don't need any of those in order to be a viable character, but you better have a hell of a reason not to take one (or all) of them.Let's compare them and see why I think PA should be a given, but not the other two...
1 - Power Attack: Scaling feat. Has an inbuilt penalty. There is a reason you may not want to use it (high AC/low HP enemies or if you benefit more from indiivudal hits than their damage, like the case os a Sneak Attack'ing Rogue). Benefits nearly all classes, but mostly the ones considered the least powerful
2 - Quicken Spell. Awesome feat. Has an inbuilt penalty, but it's completely insignificant compared to what it does. Benefits only the classes considered the most powerful.
3 - Natural spell. Another powerful feat. Does not scale cause there is nowhere to scale to. Makes an already powerful class even more powerful. No penalty at all. There is no reason not to use it all the time.
So... PA has real drawbacks. Sometimes you need a sure hit more than you need the extra damage.
Quicken spell is so good, it's more than worth its penalty. Worst case scenario, you misused 1 spell slot. So what? You have dozens of them!
Natural Spell has no drawback or limits. And it greatly increases your character power.
All of them are false choices. But Quicken (and Metamagic in general) and Natural Spell are too good to be given for free, because using them is a no-brainer. It's not the case of PA.
EDIT: I gotta go now, so I'll come back later. I'm enjoying this discussion.
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 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.Never said we shouldn't try to improve. In fact I offered a compromise. Putting words in someone elses mouth may not be a logical fallacy but it is rude and deceiving.
And Power Attack IS NOT A NO BRAINER.
It's true, you did offer a compromise up-thread. My mistake. However since I was addressing exactly what you just said it's a bit rude and deceiving to say I'm putting words in your mouth.
As to power attack not being a no-brainer, most people seem to think it is. I'm not going to say they're certainly right, but a lot of things require it, so even if people don't want it I've known them to take it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say... I guess it is that because everybody takes the feat it isn't a specialized training? No, that just means a lot of martials take that training.
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.
If everybody in a wide, wide range of specialisations shares a particular speciality, that's not really part of specialising at all. Whenever I discuss fighter and barbarian builds, people just assume power attack at an early level. I'd go so far as to say power attack is what people take unless they specialise in something with which it is specifically not compatible, and most of those specialities have their own special version of power attack anyway. That makes it a general purpose staple of melee combat, which isn't something I think should be represented as specialist training.
|
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?
This is my point. If they are feats, the line is you can only have so many on a given build.
If they are part of the base mechanics, you keep track of all of them AND any specialized feats that come into play.
I don't view Bullseye as "Aiming". I view it as "You are really great at taking a moment to focus, which improves your ability to aim dramatically."
I don't view power attack as "Swinging harder" I view it as "You know a technique that is generally less accurate but more powerful"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I am a TWF class that needs the feats, power attack isn't a no brainer.
If I am a ranger specialist that needs the feats, power attack isn't a no brainer.
A lot of builds aren't going to take power attack, or at least won't take it until later in the build than other builds.
It is a really good feat, highly likely to be taken by most melee classes fairly early.
But not always, and not even invariably at low levels depending on what you need when.
I've often considered giving Power Attack and Combat Expertise for free, but lately I've decided against it. While I thematically like making them standard combat options, Power Attack's a wee bit too good to have for free, and Combat Expertise is already represented by the Fight Defensively option. I do mostly remove Combat Expertise as a prrerequisite, though.
The main thing I do with feats is aggresively consolidate feat trees into scaling feats. Got Two Weapon Fighting? As soon as you meet the prerequisites, it upgrades to Improved, and then Greater. Got one of the Improved Maneuver feats? Not only have I added a special ability at that level of the feat, it goes up to Greater as soon as you have a BAB of +6--or the equivalent in the case of the monk. For fighters or people who get faux fighter levels, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization automatically become GWF and GWS.
I created the weapon trait 'finesse' which allows you to use Dex to attack with a weapon. The Finesse feat now encompasses Agile Maneuvers, and lets you add your Intelligence modifier as a precision bonus to damage rolls, in addition to Strength.
Also, Whirlwind Attack has prerequisites of Power Attack, Cleave, and sufficient BAB to upgrade Cleave to Great Cleave. Because those prerequisites actually make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone remember what we did in AD&D 1.0 before feats?
We used our imaginations and the DM would either say yah or nah. Then it was up to the dice.
Now we have feats. They could be looked at as the creation of people with imagination for people without imagination (but we aren't talking about 4th ed here?)
Feats are a means of making moves, attacks and so forth, that we had thought up over the years, regulation for play.
With that said, feats could be rewritten into a better format. The game cannot be played without feats. In 1.0 we had proficiencies, 2.0 brought traits to the table. When 3.0 came to be a lot of the earlier options became feats.
I think what we need is a more distinct separation of what are feats, skills and things the characters can perform without need of a feat.
Also, the feats which are overly similar to one another should be condensed into a single feat. i.e. skill feat +2 to any 2 skills. This may be taken multiple times but does not stack with skills already covered by this feat.
Some feats do need to be scalable by level, and some are already.
Some feats can be removed and instead be duplicated by most of their prereqs. This has happened, in a way, with equipment tricks feat. If you have certain feats to augment it you can pull off some fantastic maneuvers.
A special note on selective channeling...should it be a feat? I don't think I can answer that, but what I can do is give some examples of non-controlled healing.
Surrounded by undead the party was taking some heavy hits. The cleric used mass healing and not only healed the injured party, but also took care of the undead.
Our group was separated inside a small town while fighting goblins. The cleric stayed in the center of town. The cleric saw we were taking damage and cast mass heal, but we didn't see the cleric cast. This happened several times healing both the party and the goblins. This added to the games entertainment. Especially when someone yelled, 'we're fighting baby trolls!'
Well, that is my two copper pieces.
|
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.
I understand that folks feel that including Selective Channeling mechanic with the base feat could be considered overpowered or lessen the the challenge index of the game. With that same logic that channeling does not discriminate friend from foe with the base ability, if a cleric channels positive energy to heal his her party and there are undead present within the range I believe that burst deal damage without the cleric having to commence another channel for harm?
Everyone has their valid points, I have mine. I play a heal support Cleric and do have Selective Channel because its practically needed.
I still think it should be part of the base package.
With that same logic that channeling does not discriminate friend from foe with the base ability, if a cleric channels positive energy to heal his her party and there are undead present within the range I believe that burst deal damage without the cleric having to commence another channel for harm?
This. I don't have near as much issue with the need or lack thereof for Selective Channel as I do "either you can heal living things or harm undead (or vice versa if you're a Neg channeler) but not both in the same action".
If I am a TWF class that needs the feats, power attack isn't a no brainer.
If I am a ranger specialist that needs the feats, power attack isn't a no brainer.
A lot of builds aren't going to take power attack, or at least won't take it until later in the build than other builds.
It is a really good feat, highly likely to be taken by most melee classes fairly early.
But not always, and not even invariably at low levels depending on what you need when.
I agree. But that's exactly why I say Power Attack could be a given. It has drawbacks. Getting PA may be a No-Brainer, using it is not. Even a TWF ranger will probably take PA and/or Deadly Aim. Or both. (Specially since many TWF feats can't be taken before your reach certain levels)
See, if PA has a penalty, you're already paying for its benefit. No need to pay twice.
With that same logic that channeling does not discriminate friend from foe with the base ability, if a cleric channels positive energy to heal his her party and there are undead present within the range I believe that burst deal damage without the cleric having to commence another channel for harm?This. I don't have near as much issue with the need or lack thereof for Selective Channel as I do "either you can heal living things or harm undead (or vice versa if you're a Neg channeler) but not both in the same action".
Yeah... That's a pretty stupid rule. In my gaming table I just handwaved it away. It's not like Channel Energy is broken or even a selfish buff (unless you are an Dhampir Cleric,using negative energy to heal yourself while hurting your allies, in which case, you are a jerk), so why penalize it? Let the Cleric do his job!
In-combat healing may not be optimal, but it can save lives!
So... PA has real drawbacks. Sometimes you need a sure hit more than you need the extra damage.
Quicken spell is so good, it's more than worth its penalty. Worst case scenario, you misused 1 spell slot. So what? You have dozens of them!
Natural Spell has no drawback or limits. And it greatly increases your character power.All of them are false choices. But Quicken (and Metamagic in general) and Natural Spell are too good to be given for free, because using them is a no-brainer. It's not the case of PA.
Mortuum was just calling PA a no brainer :)
Bored now. Everybody is dug in and nobody will change their opinions. I've already tried to compromise and it was discarded without a counter proposal. no point in arguing anymore.
I'm going to wander off the thread.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW, on the PA issue, I have always viewed it more as a "hit harder, less accurately without granting additional openings to your defenses". As such, I have always viewed it as a legitimate feat as the last part would require a specialized focus on the technique. Sure you can hit stuff harder, but I bet you open your defenses up as well when you try it (edit)if you have not been trained how to do it properly.
I also don't view it as a "must have" for every martial character I have played. I don't view any feats as "must have" for every character I create. the feats are dictated by the concept. The more options, the more concepts I can play with. Even those where the concept relies on "trap" feats.
Just my 2cp and I will leave y'all to your debate. ;)
Everyone has their valid points, I have mine. I play a heal support Cleric and do have Selective Channel because its practically needed.
I still think it should be part of the base package.
There is one sure way to solve the problem to appease everyone (I'm not saying it is really a problem, it's just an expression). An Arch-type variant of the Cleric who has Selective Channel from the start.
My game master at the time thought that positive energy would heal the living and destroy the dead at the same time seeing as how it was positive energy on both counts...just a side note.
I'd really like to see a Cleric archetype that focused more on domain powers and Channel Energy than spells.
Not sure how to do it, though. There is not much Clerics can sacrifice, besides armor proficiencies and spell slots. Maybe their spontaneous casting?
I'd really like to see a Cleric archetype that focused more on domain powers and Channel Energy than spells.
Not sure how to do it, though. There is not much Clerics can sacrifice, besides armor proficiencies and spell slots. Maybe their spontaneous casting?
I would recommend spell slots. Say if you take away 2 spell slots for each channel energy.
|
|
I'd really like to see a Cleric archetype that focused more on domain powers and Channel Energy than spells.
Not sure how to do it, though. There is not much Clerics can sacrifice, besides armor proficiencies and spell slots. Maybe their spontaneous casting?
Deity's favored weapon (could have it become Selective Channel or Channel Smite as a bonus feat)
Domain Spells (replace with additional domain or subdomain for additional Domain Powers)
Spontaneous Casting (Extra Channel or Improved Channel as bonus feat).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't have a problem with the number of feats that currently exist.
I do have a few problems with certain feats-- most of them are the prereqs to a large number of other feats. Point Blank Shot, for instance. What if I want to build my archer as a long-range sniper, who would rather eat his own bow than find himself within 30 feet of his enemy? That guy doesn't want to take PBS, but it's the prereq for so many other good feats, he pretty much has to throw away a feat slot for it.
It'd be nice if combat maneuvers were a viable option even if you don't have the Improved feat for them. Maybe they really are, and your average player just overemphasizes the drawback of eating an AoO. But for the most part, if you want to be good at a combat maneuver, you burn two feats. And the first feat doesn't actually help you with the maneuver-- Combat Expertise doesn't make you any better at tripping or disarming, and Power Attack doesn't help you bull rush.
Stunning Fist, and the other monk bonus feats, should really just be monk class features. Why exactly would anyone other than a monk take these as a feat? And why wouldn't they just take a one-level dip in monk and get all the other monk class features with it?
But really, I don't think the problem is that there's too many feats. Heck, if anything I'd be happy if they came out with some more. Maybe at some point there'll be enough feats that an archer can be effective without taking PBS, or a fighter without Power Attack, etc.
Rather then a revision to eliminate feats, I think the wisest thing to do is not to publish too many new ones.
Edit: Sorry didn't notice this was in the house-rule forum.
I don't think there is a way to remove feats, save for making "Pathfinder 2.0" or something like that. And I don't think we'll see that for at least another 4~5 years.
But I agree. Paizo should put less emphasis on publishing as many feats/spells/archetypes as they can in each book and start focusing on publishing just a few solid options.
Really, most Rogue archetypes could be a feat. Or simply not exist.
Bloat is an inevitable problem all evolving RPG system succumb to. It happened to 3.5 and will probably happen to PF too. But so far, Paizo is dealing well with this, They put new stuff without overloading it 'til it breaks its back.
But in the last 1~2 years, that hasn't been totally true. There is more bloat in UM and UC than in all other books combined.
Bloat scares me.
The only way to avoid bloat is to take the route GURPS took. They put (almost) all the options in the main book, and then use other books to show how to interpret those options in different lights. I'm reasonably sure that's not actually doable in a D20 system (GURPS 4th was built around this approach).
(Ok, the other way would be to just not publish new options, which I don't think is a viable business model.)
If its viable for anyone wouldn't it be Paizo though? Since they can crank out setting material and AP's and such?
How many APs and settings get by with no new feats, traits, spells, items, etc? D20 just isn't designed for that kind of thing. New options is one of the selling points.
I know it's OCD but somehow I have no problem with those options appearing in those sources, but as soon as they show up in a setting agnostic hardcover I feel like they are now part of the core assumption and I'll be a jerk if I don't allow them. I know it's a weird hang up but I bet I'm not alone.
|
Here is an idea, the rules are a guideline not a mandate.
I once played in a game where the GM cored the classes down to just 5.
Ranger
Barbarian
Witch
Druid
Bard
and then limited the races
Human
Half-elf
Elf
Dwarf
and finally cored down the feats to just those needed for those classes and the campaign.
Cored down the traits as well.
It works, if only for a one shot game.
I know it's OCD but somehow I have no problem with those options appearing in those sources, but as soon as they show up in a setting agnostic hardcover I feel like they are now part of the core assumption and I'll be a jerk if I don't allow them. I know it's a weird hang up but I bet I'm not alone.
I think most people are farther one way or another. Either they think they must allow everything or they disallow everything except a few specific books. Either way, I'm not sure there's enough people that agree with you to build a business plan around.
Plus, not everyone buys the APs. Probably half their sales are for those setting agnostic books which would barely exist without the extra options they offer. (Seriously, what would you put in a Ultimate X book but options for X?)
Creep is a damn nuisance, bloat is a lot of possibility, but you want to avoid your character being too bloated (although some spellcasters are all over that).
I want my char on one a3 page or two a4. Not more than this.
My wizard won't have enough spells even if he fills up two blessed books.
Bloat scares me.Bloat doesn't scare me. Creep scares me. Having lots and lots of feats doesn't concern me anymore than having lots and lots of spells.
It is the balance that concerns me, and generally only if it is overpowered.
i just thought they were likely to go hand in hand.
Actually, the more content there is, the less likely any one option will be more powerful that what's already out there, assuming writers are aiming for balance. However, the more options, the more likely some obscure combo will provide an unintended benefit. But that's what the stacking rules (and similar stuff) are meant to control.
|
|
i just thought they were likely to go hand in hand.Bloat scares me.Bloat doesn't scare me. Creep scares me. Having lots and lots of feats doesn't concern me anymore than having lots and lots of spells.
It is the balance that concerns me, and generally only if it is overpowered.
I don't think anyone would argue a feat like "Childlike" adds to creep, but some would say it adds to bloat.
I don't mind more options. I love more options. They just need to be balanced.