After reading through the 'Worst feat' thread and checking through several books, I am wodnering why are there so many feats? Things like 'Cooperative Crafting' can be neat if on NPC wizard twins who have their own magic item buisness but a waste on a 4-man band. Was there a requirement that a certain number of feats be made for the books put out such as APG/UM/UF etc?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
NPCs also need feats. Also what a waste is depends on the campaign and the DM.
Options are always nice to have. :-)
Feats that do not give you anything are a problem, though :-/
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feats do not really add options though, they take them away. The more feats you add the more restrictive the game becomes. There are many things that feats do that should (in my opinion) be things that one should simply be able to attempt. Cooperative crafting for example, why does that need to be a feat? Isn't it just aid other?
Lets say, for example, my character is being attacked by some tentacled monster. The beasts long arms whip out from 10 feet away. I say, "I wait for the beast to strike then hack at the blighted with my blade!" DM responds, "Do you have strike back?"
Couldn't it simply be a negative modifier to hit? Does it need to be a feat?
Edit: I hate iPhone spell check
A first level character practically has to choose between the ability to pick his own nose or the ability to wipe his own ass.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because, RAW, you couldn't strike at the beasts tentacle. There was nothing that allowed this in rules. Now, that may be a bad rule, but this feat was a way to help with this rule.
RAW, there used to be no inherent mechanism for striking at the beast's tentacle, which means any half-decent GM who isn't just treating Pathfinder as a computer game will give you some way of doing it. Making it a feat makes RAW say that nobody can even attempt it without wasting a precious feat slot on it. Making it a feat moves it from "There's no built-in mechanic but a reasonable GM will allow it in some form" to "RAW specifically states you can't do it."
There are other feats like that too. Why do I need a feat to call out to a monster to get its attention? Have you ever seen a movie where a character's specialty that they spent weeks training was calling out to a monster to get its attention?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are lots of feats because more content brings more money. It's really simple.
RPG companies are businesses. Businesses need income to exist. They make money by selling content. Feats are content.
If you don't think it is good content, don't buy it. Thanks to capitalism, if people don't buy bad content, they'll make no money and they'll have to make good content instead. If people do buy bad content, they'll keep making money and they'll keep making content like that.
So, there's two possibilities:
1) People are buying bad content for some bizarre reason
2) The content isn't bad, it just doesn't happen to suit you
|
|
I only have one basic problem with there being so many feats. I actually like that there are a ton of them because it gives you options. I don't mind that some of those options are actually restrictions because it makes the choice that much more important. My only issue is that you simply don't get enough of them as you level. With all the hundreds of feats out there, the fact that even a human fighter, with all the bonus feats that grants, never gets more than 20-25 of them, depending on the feats that are chosen and any possible archetype.
That's really my only complaint. For there to be so many feats available, there should be more available during the leveling process. In my home game, we have a house rule regarding feats. The feat players get every odd level is doubled. This gives the average player 25-35 feats, dependent on class, and fighters get 40+. I like that better. I understand why the RAW doesn't allow this, I realize some might think this is an excessive amount of feats, and it would never work for PFS, but it works for us.
I like that there are so many feats, I just wish we got more of them for our characters.
|
|
Feats were a very good idea that ot taken way, WAY overboard.
A great way to keep them around but avoid the problem of characters without a crapload of feats being staggeringly incompetent at life in general would be to make the feat description describe how the action works mechanically, and then tell what bonus the feat gives to the attempt to perform that action, instead of the current system where unless you have the feat, you can't even attempt the action.
RAW, there used to be no inherent mechanism for striking at the beast's tentacle, which means any half-decent GM who isn't just treating Pathfinder as a computer game will give you some way of doing it. Making it a feat makes RAW say that nobody can even attempt it without wasting a precious feat slot on it. Making it a feat moves it from "There's no built-in mechanic but a reasonable GM will allow it in some form" to "RAW specifically states you can't do it."
Precicely this. What happened to imagination and ingenuity in the rpg community? Now everything is RAW this and RAW that. For crying out loud are game masters and players not allowed to think anymore? The advantage over computer games is the adaptability of the players and game master to keep the game flowing.
More rules often leads to more restrictions not more options.
The rules are there to help you, use as much or as little as you want. The core rules include rule zero the right of the dm to change the rules. So if you dont want to have a feat to do a thing, dont use it and make up your own on the fly.
And you are making a pretty strong assersion about 'the advantage over computer games'. For me as an example, the biggest advantage is i get to play a tabletop rpg in a room with a group of my friends, not adaptability of rules.
. There are many things that feats do that should (in my opinion) be things that one should simply be able to attempt. Cooperative crafting for example, why does that need to be a feat? Isn't it just aid other?
The feats does more than one thing.
Besides aid another: doubles the gp value of items that can be crafted each day.This is what the feat does, it doesn't deny doing aid another (it adds the aid another bonuses) but it expands how much you complete each day.
. There are many things that feats do that should (in my opinion) be things that one should simply be able to attempt. Cooperative crafting for example, why does that need to be a feat? Isn't it just aid other?
The feats does more than one thing.
Besides aid another: doubles the gp value of items that can be crafted each day.This is what the feat does, it doesn't deny doing aid another (it adds the aid another bonuses) but it expands how much you complete each day.
I can see that being useful if the PCs really need the scratch for living expenses, but at higher levels the amount coming in doesn't meet the expenses for crafting other things.(It will take a long time making Antitoxins to pay for that +3 sword upgrade.)
There are lots of feats because more content brings more money. It's really simple.
RPG companies are businesses. Businesses need income to exist. They make money by selling content. Feats are content.
If you don't think it is good content, don't buy it. Thanks to capitalism, if people don't buy bad content, they'll make no money and they'll have to make good content instead. If people do buy bad content, they'll keep making money and they'll keep making content like that.
So, there's two possibilities:
1) People are buying bad content for some bizarre reason
2) The content isn't bad, it just doesn't happen to suit you
I'm more inclined to believe 1 is the most likely case.
But then, I'm an embittered cynic and hate everything and everyone.