Never enough feats


Gamer Life General Discussion


4 people marked this as a favorite.

There are never enough feats for a character! I always want to do more and find myself limited. I just wanted to say that. Please go about your day.

The Exchange

CoughcoughFightercoughcough


Tirq wrote:
CoughcoughFightercoughcough

Yes yes. The main benefit of the class.


I agree. Even fighters don't get enough feats for everything :)

(why must maneuver-enhancement be so feat-intensive?)

The Exchange

Are wrote:

I agree. Even fighters don't get enough feats for everything :)

(why must maneuver-enhancement be so feat-intensive?)

You could always be a Monk... They ignore prereqs for maneuvers in their bonus feats.


I've never liked how you have to be smart to, say, effectively Feint.


coughComplete4thEditioncough

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

I totally understand. Fighters may have the most feats but they have so many choices that it feels like it isn't enough. It gets worse when you have a feat heavy build like a sword and board fighter. You want thinks like Step Up but have to take Improved Shield Bash.

Liberty's Edge

Our House Rule is a feat every level + any bonus feats from your class. Even then people still feel there are not enough feats to cover everything they want to do. There are just too many options for every class that you still have to make choices and choose when you want to do something or if you even will do it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
coughComplete4thEditioncough

very uninterested.


I've always thought, and this goes back to my early days, that Player Characters should be allowed to try to do anything they can imagine their characters could (reasonably) do, and let the dice decide the outcome.

In the very first iteration of PVQ that I ran a Player, playing a thief, wanted to leap off of a table and swing across a room hanging on the chandelier, Hollywood style.

Then: roll a d6 and if you roll a 1 or a 2, you do it!

Today (Could be): Do you have the proper "Feat" that will allow you to try that? No? Too bad, so sad (or could be the same as the above, depending on the group, DM, and style - I'm just saying it doesn't always have to be RAW, but it is there, like a big ugly bird).


I'd point at 3.5e, since it has less feat branching and the feats are stronger than they are in Pathfinder.

The Exchange

That's a skill check... but I see what you mean.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
coughComplete4thEditioncough
very uninterested.

Well, I sympathize with your plight. A feat every third level just isn't enough, especially at low levels when you often have to blow your first one on your archetype's necessity. (Weapon finesse, power attack, point blank shot, etc.)

Terquem wrote:
I've always thought, and this goes back to my early days, that Player Characters should be allowed to try to do anything they can imagine their characters could (reasonably) do, and let the dice decide the outcome.

This is still how it works. Want to swing from a chandelier in a TSR game? Tell the DM what you're attempting, and he tells you what to roll. (d6, ability check, etc.) Want to swing from a chandelier in a WotC game? Tell the DM what you're attempting, and he tells you what skill to roll and [preferably] the DC you need to hit.

Similarly with regard to actions that are covered by feats you don't have, the DM simply applies a penalty to the check or a lesser benefit to success. I don't ever recall reading a DMG that says "If those suckers don't have the right skills/feats, too bad so sad!" (If I'm wrong, please anyone correct me.)

I admit I'm guilty of misinterpretation myself. Until a recent discussion on this very topic, I had thought that skill-less rulesets don't allow 'off script' actions. Hey, it's not on my character sheet and the rules don't cover it, so it's not allowed right? (I know better now.) Point is, many of us have a tendency to draw the worst possible conclusions from rulesets that we've played briefly at best, or possibly played under poor DMs.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
... A feat every third level just isn't enough...

It is a feat every other level in Pathfinder.

I too am not interested in the Complete 4th Edition, nor do I think it fixes the lack of feat problem in 3.x or PF.


CalebTGordan wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
... A feat every third level just isn't enough...
It is a feat every other level in Pathfinder.

Oh, is that what TCG is playing? Wish I were telepathic...

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

You're not?


Nope, but I rolled up a 1st level PC once. Weird, huh?

It's funny, 3.5 has the feat per 3 levels issue and 'the necessities' problem. PF gives more feats, but still charges feat slots for the necessities. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) 4e also gives more feats, but replaces the necessities with two feat taxes that nearly every PC takes at some point.

I'm not saying you'll like C4 if you don't like 4e. But it does fix the feat tax (aka the necessities) issue, which is one of the big reasons I favor it. Some players could be given 3 feats per level and still want more, but beggars can't be choosers, right? ;)

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Out of curiosity, how many feats are there in 4th ed?

I would say that in PF there really are few necessary feats for each class. There are necessary feats for specific builds, like the sword-and-board fighter or the blaster wizard. I take completely different feats as a fighter if I am going to be building a two-weapon master, a mobile soldier, a two-handed weapon brute, or an archer. Each has different feat needs, some more heavy than others. Even in the feat light builds you end up looking at a few feats and cutting them from the wishlist because the slot you want them for is needed for another feat.

Sure, for the fighter you need to take Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and the greater versions of those feats. While there may be a few other necessities, I can't think of any at this moment. Maybe Selective Channeling for clerics, but that is a maybe dependent on if someone wants to play a heal-bot or not. Spell Focus and Combat Casting are not as necessary as they might seem.

So to say that there are necessities seems a bit much, because it implies that if you play X class you must take Y feat. I haven't found that to be true (the four feats for fighter mentioned above being the exception,) and I don't think it causes the problem of so many feats, too little slots.

While the fighter doesn't have specific bonus feats (example: the class doesn't give Weapon Focus for free) just about every other class does. Alchemists gain Brew Potion, rangers and monks can choose from a list of feats, and Wizards gain Scribe Scroll for free, just as examples. This was also in 3.x, but Pathfinder did adjust things in a good direction in this regard.

I think the problem comes from option bloat, not lack of slots or lack of specific feats being given to cover necessary feats. In 3.5 it was huge problem when it came to any part of the game. Classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, magic items; they all had way too many options. Pathfinder isn't anywhere near that amount of options bloat, but it does have hundreds of feats to choose from, the majority of them combat focused. Going back to my fighter example, there are so many options that you could probably build hundreds if not thousands of effective fighters who varied only in their feat choices.

TLDR: The real problem is too many options to choose from, not that classes force you to choose specific and necessary feats.


CalebTGordan wrote:
Out of curiosity, how many feats are there in 4th ed?

Eh...enough that I don't want to count them? Someone with DDI or more time on their hands could probably tell you.

CalebTGordan wrote:
I think the problem comes from option bloat, not lack of slots or lack of specific feats being given to cover necessary feats. In 3.5 it was huge problem when it came to any part of the game. Classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, magic items; they all had way too many options. Pathfinder isn't anywhere near that amount of options bloat, but it does have...

Bloat is a problem because inevitably certain options become redundant, but I don't have a problem with lots of options in principle.

Anyway, when I say 'feat tax' and 'necessity,' I'm not talking about stuff like Weapon Spec or Cleave. I'm talking about stats and capabilities that the game expects PCs to have, but charges them a feat slot to get. For example, 3.x at a certain point expects PCs to be able to swap accuracy for damage. (Not everyone will agree, but due to ABs vastly outstripping ACs and geometric hit points, I think it's pretty clear.) But rather than having a standardized combat option in the combat chapter, PCs get charged a feat to be able to power attack or multishot or whatever. Hence, eventually having one of those feats is a necessity.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Anyway, when I say 'feat tax' and 'necessity,' I'm not talking about stuff like Weapon Spec or Cleave. I'm talking about stats and capabilities that the game expects PCs to have, but charges them a feat slot to get. For example, 3.x at a certain point expects PCs to be able to swap accuracy for damage. (Not everyone will agree, but due to ABs vastly outstripping ACs and geometric hit points, I think it's pretty clear.) But rather than having a standardized combat option in the combat chapter, PCs get charged a feat to be able to power attack or multishot or whatever. Hence, eventually having one of those feats is a necessity.

What besides Power Attack do you think is a "necessity"? (I personally disagree on Power Attack being necessary--it is a great feat for many characters to take, but I don't feel like every character ever should always take it.)

I have heard the argument in discussions of both 3.x and Pathfinder that Power Attack should indeed be a flat out combat ability anyone can do (like an attack of opportunity or fighting defensively). Or at least that there should be some version of it as a free option, with Power Attack being designed and included as an improvement (in the same way that Combat Expertise is an improvement upon fighting defensively). Generally speaking YMMV on what else might be considered worth de-feating and making a standard option -- the only other thing I can think of off the top of my head is Weapon Finesse. That ain't too bad.

Maybe Combat Casting for spellcasters, but that is less of a necessity in PF than it felt like it was in 3.x, in my personal experience anyway.

As to the OP
I do think that yes, sometimes there are too many feats and not enough opportunities to take them. I can understand not wanting to risk getting things to be too power creepy/broken, but I think the frustrating part is generally if you ever want a complex, but interesting fighting style (be it TWF or a combat maneuver build) you have to take so many feats and level to a certain point just to feel like your character reflects your concept for the build you want. And often if you want that specialization, it means you must sacrifice taking other feats, especially more skill based ones or less-combat oriented ones, which is frustrating.

I wonder if everyone were offered a limited set of "bonus feats" that they could take at even levels would help flesh out characters without letting things utterly go crazy would help?

I also do agree that some feats need to be consolidated or be made a standard ability (though Power Attack isn't actually one of them).


DeathQuaker wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Anyway, when I say 'feat tax' and 'necessity,' I'm not talking about stuff like Weapon Spec or Cleave. I'm talking about stats and capabilities that the game expects PCs to have, but charges them a feat slot to get. For example, 3.x at a certain point expects PCs to be able to swap accuracy for damage. (Not everyone will agree, but due to ABs vastly outstripping ACs and geometric hit points, I think it's pretty clear.) But rather than having a standardized combat option in the combat chapter, PCs get charged a feat to be able to power attack or multishot or whatever. Hence, eventually having one of those feats is a necessity.
What besides Power Attack do you think is a "necessity"? (I personally disagree on Power Attack being necessary--it is a great feat for many characters to take, but I don't feel like every character ever should always take it.)

Other than Power Attack and its respective copy-cat feats that do the same thing for other combat styles, there's Weapon Finesse which you mentioned. That one makes all kinds of non-sense! Oh, and that archery feat that allows you to safely shoot into melee. Seriously? We might as well penalize 2-hand-wielders for swinging their big unwieldy weapons adjacent to walls/terrain/allies, and then charge them a feat to ignore the penalty! /rant

I've heard some gamers go so far as to say that all of the 'improved' combat maneuver feats should be free, but I don't think I'd go that far. Though to be fair, those maneuvers might as well not exist if you don't have the feats; the feats are as much enablers as they are improvers. So I can see the logic.

Grand Lodge

DeathQuaker wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Anyway, when I say 'feat tax' and 'necessity,' I'm not talking about stuff like Weapon Spec or Cleave. I'm talking about stats and capabilities that the game expects PCs to have, but charges them a feat slot to get. For example, 3.x at a certain point expects PCs to be able to swap accuracy for damage. (Not everyone will agree, but due to ABs vastly outstripping ACs and geometric hit points, I think it's pretty clear.) But rather than having a standardized combat option in the combat chapter, PCs get charged a feat to be able to power attack or multishot or whatever. Hence, eventually having one of those feats is a necessity.

What besides Power Attack do you think is a "necessity"? (I personally disagree on Power Attack being necessary--it is a great feat for many characters to take, but I don't feel like every character ever should always take it.)

I have heard the argument in discussions of both 3.x and Pathfinder that Power Attack should indeed be a flat out combat ability anyone can do (like an attack of opportunity or fighting defensively). Or at least that there should be some version of it as a free option, with Power Attack being designed and included as an improvement (in the same way that Combat Expertise is an improvement upon fighting defensively). Generally speaking YMMV on what else might be considered worth de-feating and making a standard option -- the only other thing I can think of off the top of my head is Weapon Finesse. That ain't too bad.

Maybe Combat Casting for spellcasters, but that is less of a necessity in PF than it felt like it was in 3.x, in my personal experience anyway.

As to the OP
I do think that yes, sometimes there are too many feats and not enough opportunities to take them. I can understand not wanting to risk getting things to be too power creepy/broken, but I think the frustrating part is generally if you ever want a complex, but interesting fighting style (be it TWF or a combat maneuver build) you have to...

I know that feel, DeathQuaker. I've been wanting to play some pretty skill-heavy rogue builds lately, but find that in order for them to still be effective in combat I have to take Improved Feint which requires Combat Expertise (an ability of which I rarely, if ever, take advantage) in addition to Weapon Finesse. All this means that I can't take any of the feats I really want for flavoring the character until level 7, and most of my GM's home campaigns don't usually last long enough to get there.

I like your idea on the even-level bonus feats. Specifically, I think that if added they should be restricted to non-combat feats to allow for more characterization.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Other than Power Attack and its respective copy-cat feats that do the same thing for other combat styles, there's Weapon Finesse which you mentioned. That one makes all kinds of non-sense! Oh, and that archery feat that allows you to safely shoot into melee. Seriously? We might as well penalize 2-hand-wielders for swinging their big unwieldy weapons adjacent to walls/terrain/allies, and then charge them a feat to ignore the penalty! /rant

I wouldn't mind Precise Shot if it did not have the Point Blank Shot prerequisite. Being good at shooting up close should not lead to me being good at shooting far away but avoiding moving targets that I want to avoid. (Come to think of it, I hate the Point Blank Shot prerequisite for most archery feats about as much as I hate the Combat Expertise and Power Attack prereqs for Combat Maneuvers.)

Precise shot should also allow you to ignore soft cover, at least partially, as it follows the same thing--being able to fire into melee and hit your desired target.

I get why the penalty to shoot into melee exists. The verisimilitudinous alternative is that you risk hitting your allies--and I have played some versions of D&D where people played it that way (although whether it was a house rule or a set rule I do not recall, as it was very long ago). And it SHOULD be hard to shoot into melee--this is not something that comes naturally (where as focusing on hitting hard even if you're not aiming carefully is more of a everyman sort of thing). I am okay with a feat that reflects training to allow you to do that with ease. But it should be a good feat, and it should be accessible by any archery focused character at 1st level (not just a human or a fighter).

Quote:


I've heard some gamers go so far as to say that all of the 'improved' combat maneuver feats should be free, but I don't think I'd go that far. Though to be fair, those maneuvers might as well not exist if you don't have the feats; the feats are as much enablers as they are improvers. So I can see the logic.

I've done combat maneuvers without the feats when opportunity presented itself (most often grapple or bull rush), so I don't agree that the maneuvers "might as well not exist if you don't have the feats." I think the bigger issue is not having the bonus to a maneuver which makes you guarantee success. I'm not that worried about the AOO. IMHO I think some folks' fear of attacks of opportunity is a little high. You just have to pick your opponent carefully, making sure it's worth the risk, or pick an opponent who has already made an AOO that turn (because unless they have Combat Reflexes, they can't AOO you then anyway).


Icyshadow wrote:
I'd point at 3.5e, since it has less feat branching and the feats are stronger than they are in Pathfinder.

I have found VERY few people realize this as well. Cleave in PF to me isn't worth taking. Power Attack had a huge nerf IMO as well. I understand getting rid of the chart and all but no options at all was overkill, making the feat less useful as you leveled.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
I'd point at 3.5e, since it has less feat branching and the feats are stronger than they are in Pathfinder.
I have found VERY few people realize this as well. Cleave in PF to me isn't worth taking. Power Attack had a huge nerf IMO as well. I understand getting rid of the chart and all but no options at all was overkill, making the feat less useful as you leveled.

Funny thing is, the people disagreeing with me either said "So what?" which didn't invalidate my point, or just called me a liar.

Had to debate this in another thread. I fail to recall which one it was, but I think it was the Paladin vs Fighter thread that popped up.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Terquem wrote:

I've always thought, and this goes back to my early days, that Player Characters should be allowed to try to do anything they can imagine their characters could (reasonably) do, and let the dice decide the outcome.

In the very first iteration of PVQ that I ran a Player, playing a thief, wanted to leap off of a table and swing across a room hanging on the chandelier, Hollywood style.

Then: roll a d6 and if you roll a 1 or a 2, you do it!

Today (Could be): Do you have the proper "Feat" that will allow you to try that? No? Too bad, so sad (or could be the same as the above, depending on the group, DM, and style - I'm just saying it doesn't always have to be RAW, but it is there, like a big ugly bird).

For that particular example, there aren't any feats needed, it's all skill/ability checks.


*cough* Could be *cough*

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

LazarX wrote:
Terquem wrote:

I've always thought, and this goes back to my early days, that Player Characters should be allowed to try to do anything they can imagine their characters could (reasonably) do, and let the dice decide the outcome.

In the very first iteration of PVQ that I ran a Player, playing a thief, wanted to leap off of a table and swing across a room hanging on the chandelier, Hollywood style.

Then: roll a d6 and if you roll a 1 or a 2, you do it!

Today (Could be): Do you have the proper "Feat" that will allow you to try that? No? Too bad, so sad (or could be the same as the above, depending on the group, DM, and style - I'm just saying it doesn't always have to be RAW, but it is there, like a big ugly bird).

For that particular example, there aren't any feats needed, it's all skill/ability checks.

It's even just a single Acrobatics or Dexterity check (which in old D&D would still be Dexterity check).

A better example might be where someone wants to taunt someone into attacking them, and a GM says you must have Antagonize to do it. Although I would not consider that a flaw of the system in and of itself, but a poor design decision made within said system--fortunately one from an optional, supplementary rulebook, which thus can be ignored easily.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
DeathQuaker wrote:

A better example might be where someone wants to taunt someone into attacking them, and a GM says you must have Antagonize to do it. Although I would not consider that a flaw of the system in and of itself, but a poor design decision made within said system--fortunately one from an optional, supplementary rulebook, which thus can be ignored easily.

For me that's actually a ROLEPLAYING issue, which is situational. Just like in real life you can taunt someone. How they respond to that taunt is highly situational in nature. If you want an auto-success taunt, either pick a class/feat that has that sort of thing... or go play WOW.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

LazarX wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:

A better example might be where someone wants to taunt someone into attacking them, and a GM says you must have Antagonize to do it. Although I would not consider that a flaw of the system in and of itself, but a poor design decision made within said system--fortunately one from an optional, supplementary rulebook, which thus can be ignored easily.

For me that's actually a ROLEPLAYING issue, which is situational. Just like in real life you can taunt someone. How they respond to that taunt is highly situational in nature. If you want an auto-success taunt, either pick a class/feat that has that sort of thing... or go play WOW.

You can also actually jump up on a table and swing off a chandelier. Or stab someone in the face with a weapon. Or shoot them with a bow and arrow. Shall we all go play WOW because we might want to do those things in an RPG too?

And auto-success in any case was not a presumed issue (in either case, if you are using a skill check at all, you have to roll successfully to achieve it).

And I think it's perfectly reasonable for a GM to ask for a roll if an outcome is uncertain, whether a social situation or otherwise. "Gee, this guy's pretty resilient, but he did just have his mother called an old harpy, and he does love his mom so much. I'm not sure how he'd react... let's say you make a Diplomacy check, and get a bonus for the particularly excellent insult you RPed out, but the DC will be versus his Will save because he is pretty stubborn..." As an example. Just as if I am not sure the thief could easily grab the chandelier and swing off it, I'd ask him to roll to check (maybe again granting him a roleplaying bonus for having such a ballsy idea). For me, it's the same situation.


Maybe try this out:

Principle Feat unlocks follow-up feats presuming non-feat prerequisites are met. Upon attaining "greater" level, those capabilities are unlocked. The feats that are unlocked are free.

Power Attack unlocks Bull Rush, Cleave, Overrun and Sunder.

Combat Expertise unlocks Dirty Trick, Disarm, Feint and Trip.

Dodge unlocks Mobility, Shot on the Run and Spring Attack.

Mounted Combat unlocks Ride-by Attack, Mounted Archery and Spirited Charge.

Point-blank Shot unlocks Deadly Aim, Far Shot, Precise Shot and Rapid Fire.

Each "principle feat" unlocks say four "improved" feats that are attached to the principle feat. (This could be more for some principle feats than others - in such cases, there will probably need to be two principle feats each containing four unlocked feats.)

Weapon Focus (Crossbow) unlocks Rapid Reload (Crossbow), for example. Later BAB - if you are Fighter 4th or otherwise considered equivalent to same from class goodies - unlocks Weapon Specialization (Crossbow). Later still Improved Critical (Crossbow) and Critical Focus (Crossbow) are unlocked.

Dazzling Display unlocks a seperate set of feats, once you have Weapon Focus.

Improved Unarmed Strike unlocks Improved Grapple and three other unarmed somethingorother feats at the BAB +1 range. Deflect Arrows, Stunning Fist, et al are not included.

Two-Weapon Fighting automatically unlocks/adds in Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting at the pertinent BAB junctures.

Kirthfinder does something similar to this already if memory serves.

Feat COMPRESSION really needs to happen. There is something in the neighborhood of what seems to be 300 - 400 feats already in Pathfinder. A class with no bonus feats gets a total of 10 over the course of 19 levels. This is a minute percentage of the total body of feats that have been published since the release of Pathfinder.


Feat compression happened in one bundle of houserules for 3.5e that I love.

But alas, it's a homebrew so most DMs wouldn't even touch it with a 10-foot pole.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:

Maybe try this out:

Feat COMPRESSION really needs to happen. There is something in the neighborhood of what seems to be 300 - 400 feats already in Pathfinder. A class with no bonus feats gets a total of 10 over the course of 19 levels. This is a minute percentage of the total body of feats that have been published since the release of Pathfinder.

Fighters on the other hand get 20 feats, 21 if they are Human. They are the designated masters of combat feats, the other classes are supposed to be making a more limited set of choices.


20/21 feats looks like it *might* cover 10% of the feats. :) In the CRB, that covers I think half of the combat feats?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:
20/21 feats looks like it *might* cover 10% of the feats. :) In the CRB, that covers I think half of the combat feats?

And so the problem you have is that you can't choose EVERYTHING? You have tons of feats so that you can have choices. As long as you can build character you want...WITHIN REASON, then who cares how many more feats are out there?

Also keep in mind that many of these feats are only intended for specific races, cultures, and classes.


LazarX wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
20/21 feats looks like it *might* cover 10% of the feats. :) In the CRB, that covers I think half of the combat feats?

And so the problem you have is that you can't choose EVERYTHING? You have tons of feats so that you can have choices. As long as you can build character you want...WITHIN REASON, then who cares how many more feats are out there?

Also keep in mind that many of these feats are only intended for specific races, cultures, and classes.

No, the problem is that feat bloat has vastly outstripped the options available to be selected. Proportional selectability would be nice.

CRB Fighter could select most or all of a "branch" (Power Attack tree, Critical Focus tree, Two Weapon Fighting tree, Combat Expertise tree, etc.) along with some or most of the Weapon Focus/Specialization tree with his bonus combat feats and retains the general feats to either accelerate the acquisitions, shore up crummy saves or otherwise beef up his flexibility.

The same Fighter can't do that anymore, which is the root cause of the thread.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
20/21 feats looks like it *might* cover 10% of the feats. :) In the CRB, that covers I think half of the combat feats?

And so the problem you have is that you can't choose EVERYTHING? You have tons of feats so that you can have choices. As long as you can build character you want...WITHIN REASON, then who cares how many more feats are out there?

Also keep in mind that many of these feats are only intended for specific races, cultures, and classes.

No, the problem is that feat bloat has vastly outstripped the options available to be selected. Proportional selectability would be nice.

CRB Fighter could select most or all of a "branch" (Power Attack tree, Critical Focus tree, Two Weapon Fighting tree, Combat Expertise tree, etc.) along with some or most of the Weapon Focus/Specialization tree with his bonus combat feats and retains the general feats to either accelerate the acquisitions, shore up crummy saves or otherwise beef up his flexibility.

The same Fighter can't do that anymore, which is the root cause of the thread.

The CRB fighter can still choose the exact same feats he could before and he'd still be just as effective. None of those feats has spoiled just because new toys are out. All it means that the fighter now has a greater tool selection for his box. The box hasn't gotten any larger so he's still limited into how many tools can fit.

Is there a crazy insane amount of stuff out there? Yes. But no sanely run game should include EVERYTHING published in a Pathfinder or Pathfinder compatible rulebook. Wise GM's choose what should be appropriate, and ban the rest.

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
Is there a crazy insane amount of stuff out there? Yes. But no sanely run game should include EVERYTHING published in a Pathfinder or Pathfinder compatible rulebook. Wise GM's choose what should be appropriate, and ban the rest.

Could not disagree more. I've always allowed everything available, and if I wasn't GMing for a bunch of newbies I'd be allowing 3.5 content as well.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
There are never enough feats for a character! I always want to do more and find myself limited. I just wanted to say that. Please go about your day.

Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might suggested granting a feat every level. You might try that.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Never enough feats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.