Feats that shouln't be!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 132 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I'd like to see more of the feat chains resolve into a single feat that scales with level.

For example:

Weapon Mastery

This gives you bonuses when you fight with your chosen type of weapon. This exclusive focus means you are less familiar with other weapons, and take a -1 penalty to hit with them.

+1 to hit at BAB 1
+2 damage at BAB 4
+1 to hit at BAB 8 (stacks)
+2 damage at BAB 12 (stacks)


Alignment Channel and Elemental Channel. They are kind of nice, except that you need to take the feat again for different alignments/elementals.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Any "pay twice" feats.

So Power Attack/Combat Expertise/Cleave/Lunge, where you take a penalty for a bonus. Those shouldn't be feats they should be options.

This goes double for Metamagic feats. Paying a feat slot AND a higher level spell slot AND (if you're spontaneous) increased casting time? These should be options not feats.

Yes!

In Mutants & Masterminds 1e/2e, certain actions were considered 'stunts' or 'challenges' and you could perform them with a penalty, such as 'Fast Stealth' or climbing while retaining your Dex bonus to AC. If you took the feat, it eliminated the penalty. Some challenges were generic like 'Fast Task' (to do something faster, doing a feint-bluff as a move action, instead of a standard action, for instance, at a -5 penalty) or 'Simultaneous Tasks' (doing two standard action checks at the same time, such as an acrobatic leap combined with a stealth check, as you attempt to leap out of sight), while others were specialized, such as attempting to Intimidate multiple targets or speeding up a Craft check or Disguise check.

I kind of love that idea, that a ton of options, at penalties, are available for various skills, and that a feat could reduce or remove those penalties. (Metamagic could work similarly. Modifying a spell on the fly requires a Spellcraft skill check to avoid losing the spell. Taking the appropriate feat removes that penalty.)

Back when PF was in Beta, I suggested that Fighters have a weapon damage bonus equal to half their level (like the old 1st edition monks) and a class defense bonus that added to their armor class, and then that they be able to switch numbers around to fight defensively (reducing accuracy to up AC) or recklessly (less AC, more accuracy) or precisely (less damage, more accuracy), etc. switching numbers around from their BAB, damage bonus and class defense bonus to AC, sort of like Power Attack, and the M&M feats Accurate Attack (+atk, -dmg) and All-Out Attack (-AC, +atk) and Defensive Attack (+AC, -atk).

Anyone who was *not* a Fighter, would have to purchase these options as feats (and wouldn't necessarily have class defense bonuses or class-based weapon damage bonuses to trade off with, and have to trade off their AC or damage bonuses from other sources).

Under such a system, every Fighter would be able to juggle numbers between AC, attack rolls and damage rolls (with the exact amount of juggling possible based on level), depending on the situation.

Dark Archive

mdt wrote:
Darkholme wrote:


Weapon Proficiency: My god are these things terrible feats. I could *MAYBE* see spending one skillpoint for proficiency in a new weapon. But a feat? Totally unreasonable for a feat to give you a single weapon proficiency. If you want to use a weapon you can't, your best bet is basically always to dip into another class. I don't think I know anyone who takes weapon feats. yuck.
Here you go, you may like this better

Wow. I've actually done something very similar in the past.

Weapon Groups, New Weapon Groups Based on BAB, classes granted weapon groups comparable to what they already offered.


MrSin wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:
But if the options should be standard for everyone, it raises the possibility of feats for improved versions of PA, CE, DA, Cleave, etc. So while the current feats might be numerically wrong, they should IMHO be feats.
Can you explain that logic? I don't think its about being numerically wrong as much as it is that everyone gets them so they aren't really options. Options are good! Fake options am bad.

But not everyone does take those feats. When did you last see a wizard with Power Attack? Some rogues and clerics might, and most rangers, depending on build. Not many people bother with cleave. Some casters have Silent Spell; some have Scribe Scroll. It's rather the point of feats as options. They make the characters different.

And if everyone had PA as a baked-in option (which wizards would of course ignore), fighters and barbarians would want a feat to get double PA. And so on.


Darkholme wrote:
mdt wrote:
Darkholme wrote:


Weapon Proficiency: My god are these things terrible feats. I could *MAYBE* see spending one skillpoint for proficiency in a new weapon. But a feat? Totally unreasonable for a feat to give you a single weapon proficiency. If you want to use a weapon you can't, your best bet is basically always to dip into another class. I don't think I know anyone who takes weapon feats. yuck.
Here you go, you may like this better

Wow. I've actually done something very similar in the past.

Weapon Groups, New Weapon Groups Based on BAB, classes granted weapon groups comparable to what they already offered.

Yep, we've found it works really well. I've managed to convert another GM over to it so far. :) Plus it gives the ability for character builds with Exotic Weapons at 1st level, since you can use your WPs for EWP as long as you have the base group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just gonna go ahead and say Gnomes of Golarion.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Any "pay twice" feats.

So Power Attack/Combat Expertise/Cleave/Lunge, where you take a penalty for a bonus. Those shouldn't be feats they should be options.

This goes double for Metamagic feats. Paying a feat slot AND a higher level spell slot AND (if you're spontaneous) increased casting time? These should be options not feats.

I'm not so sure about the latter. To me, Metamagic is (mostly) the kind of thing that should be a Feat. I can see in some cases why they would make high CL prices for some of them (Quickened Meteor Swarm, for example, is a scary thought)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm not saying remove the higher level slot movement for metamagic, I'm saying remove the feat prerequisite to use metamagic.

You still shouldn't be able to Quicken Meteor Swarms.


Is it that bad to hold a Greater Metamagic Quicken Rod as a rifle to cast a Quickened Meteor Swarm? Or however else you're supposed to use that item as such?


I'd hold it as a shotgun, personally. Also, I think some metamagic feats being feats and some options available to any caster (like casting defensively; that eliminates AoO's so I guess you could have a similar check for Somatic/Verbal/Material components) works fine, although some feats that help with using them could also work.


mdt wrote:
Darkholme wrote:


Weapon Proficiency: My god are these things terrible feats. I could *MAYBE* see spending one skillpoint for proficiency in a new weapon. But a feat? Totally unreasonable for a feat to give you a single weapon proficiency. If you want to use a weapon you can't, your best bet is basically always to dip into another class. I don't think I know anyone who takes weapon feats. yuck.
Here you go, you may like this better

I agree intimidation can come from many aspects. Typically with a fighter it would be the massive muscles, armor, and possibly macabre trophies of combat they could carry, not their CHA.

I'm also considering making reflex saves be dependent on you being able to get out of the area of effect. Sorry I just don't see a way to evade a dragons breath weapon whirling in place. This would effect Evade and Improved Evasion. An area effect should at least clear the area.

I am suddenly tempted to go through them all, and revise as needed. I'm not a big Feat person as I think it limits players and gets them to playing the rules in stead of playing the game and relying on their stats to help them do many of these same things. It sort of coaxes players into playing one trick ponies instead of a character with an amazing dex (or any other stat).


I dislike how the conversation is moving steadily away from feats and towards skills, ability scores, and general system mechanics.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I'm not saying remove the higher level slot movement for metamagic, I'm saying remove the feat prerequisite to use metamagic.

No, that's what I mean. Metamagic, the ability to alter just about any spell in often-drastic ways, is to me the kind of thing a Feat should be.

Although maybe some Metamagic shouldn't be feats (or maybe shouldn't be metamagic). For example, I could see stuff like Empower, Intensify, and Reach being a basic form of Metamagic any caster should be able to do. But stuff like Elemental, Rime, Quicken and Thanoptic? I think those are worth Feats.

The Boz wrote:
I dislike how the conversation is moving steadily away from feats and towards skills, ability scores, and general system mechanics.

That's because a lot of the problems with some Feats are rooted in said mechanics.


Personally the only Metamagic feat I see that shouldn't be a feat is Heighten just because it does nothing to the spell except let you use a lower level spell in a higher spell slot for a slightly increased DC.

The Exchange

Free meta magic just doesn't fit the mechanics we have for spell casting. I could only see heighten, still, & silence being free as you know so much about your spell you know some tricks if you dedicate your self to it. The other meta magic feats seem to change the spell instead of how it is cast.

Sorcerers could be cool as the meta magic class, but instead they have to share it with the world. I think they have a decent bloodline for it though.

Although i think we are missing a reverse meta magic feat, that makes a spell its opposite (hate -> slow). Obviously that would have taken pages to specify which spells are opposite (ie, is shield the opposite of magic missile)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say silent and still should probably stay feats. They just shouldn't be metamagic feats. Removing material components doesn't cost an increased spell slot, why does removing somatic or verbal components?


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
I'd say silent and still should probably stay feats. They just shouldn't be metamagic feats. Removing material components doesn't cost an increased spell slot, why does removing somatic or verbal components?

The reason is simple: they want to penalize you if you do it. If we made skill checks to cast spells, they would be spellcsating penalties instead. But since we do not make spellcasting checks, the only way that they can penalize a caster is by increasing the spell level.

Another way to penalize the caster might be to reduce the caster level instead. The rationale is that by being silent or still you cannot harness as much power to cast the spell.


SeeleyOne not enough creative.

When me GM, houserule is "Any spellcaster okay skip verbal component if mouth full green slime."

All carry glass bottle tiny slime.

Sometimes, just worth it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I despise feat trees that remove the use of prereq feats.

For example:

Great Cleave (once obtained makes Cleave useless; however unless you're playing a 2-hand ranger you have to take Cleave first)


Dot for later reading.


NaNoWriMo started, so I don't want to do any more work on the feat rework until I get some nice feedback...
Here's the current write-up. Please give me feedback and stuff.


Cartwheel dodge should just come with evasion.


Instead of a feat to apply still/silent, I believe a Concentration check* should be required with penalties. The feats still/silent would then be replaced with the option to take a skill focus feat in Concentration.

*I think a Concentration check failed by 5 or more should give the caster a spell blight (minor for 4th level or less, major for 5th level or higher).


Journ-O-LST-3 wrote:
Cartwheel dodge should just come with evasion.

I think Cartwheel Dodge should be free to anyone who meets the listed prereqs (Improved Evasion and 12 skill points in Acrobatics).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Boz wrote:

NaNoWriMo started, so I don't want to do any more work on the feat rework until I get some nice feedback...

Here's the current write-up. Please give me feedback and stuff.

I think the reason you haven't been getting much feedback is that you've been asking for it in the wrong place. This isn't the houserules section of the forum, and people tend to not pay too much attention to you when you threadjack.

That being said, while I haven't read through your options thoroughly yet, I do like the idea, so I'm going to make a new thread specifically to discuss them, linked from here.

Here it is


Thank you, kind ser, you are a gentleman and a scholar.


Gnomes of Golarion is an astoundingly poorly designed book.

Caustic Slur, Helpless Prisoner and Babble-Peddler are all horrid feats, but worse than their minimal usefulness (and in the case of Caustic Slur, downright harmful), is the potential effect they can have on roleplaying.
They all cover aspects of the game, that should really only be covered by roleplaying. And that is a crime, and REALLY poor design.
It should not take a feat to sweat-talk/annoy the jailer to loosen your ropes a bit, it should take roleplaying (and perhaps a diplomacy/bluff roll on top of that roleplaying).

They are also mind-affecting effects, meaning that constructs, plants, undeads, and so on, are immune to them.
This is the only good thing about them, because that means they are something besides just using bluff.
They should never have been.

Luckily they are constrained to Gnomes.
But I still think that I will instantly kill any character that turns up with one of them.


I think the single worst feat tax in recent memory was Meditation Master from Faiths and Philosophies. It's required for every other meditation feat and all it does is give you a once a day +1 to any d20 roll. It almost does NOTHING. After reading the meditation feats compared to everything else in Faiths and Philosophies I became convinced that Paizo regrets the very existence of the Monk class.


Combat Expertise
Benefit: You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you attempt a combat maneuver.

Mobility
Benefit: You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area, or you stand up.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Any feat that gives +2 to 2 skills. It should be a single, generic feat, like skill focus, which can be taken multiple times and applies to the 2 skills chosen when the feat is taken. Don't get me wrong, I like the cute names of those feats, particularly the ones that help tie together two disparate skills, but they're a pretty big waste of space.


Sebastian wrote:
Any feat that gives +2 to 2 skills. It should be a single, generic feat, like skill focus, which can be taken multiple times and applies to the 2 skills chosen when the feat is taken. Don't get me wrong, I like the cute names of those feats, particularly the ones that help tie together two disparate skills, but they're a pretty big waste of space.

This and skill focus aren't combat feats, so I won't be going over them soon (if ever), but I do like the idea. Split focus is a good name for such a feat...

101 to 132 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Feats that shouln't be! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion