|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we started a thread about Feats that Shouldn't Be.
One of the users in the thread, "The Boz" Posted a number of feat revisions up there, and wasn't getting any feedback about them, so I'm starting this thread to discuss his ideas, and for people to comment, suggest, or propose changes of their own.
Here is his document.
Feats that Shouldn't Be could either be rewritten into better feats, or removed and added as core mechanics anyone can do, or what have you.
Let's have it! :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, first house rule I make in any game I run is condensing feat trees. Virtually any feat tree with the X/Improved X/Greater X nomenclature can easily be condensed into a single feat which scales with level. For example: take Two-Weapon Fighting, then get your BAB to 6 and your Dexterity to 17, and you get the benefits of Improved Two Weapon Fighting automatically. While I'm at it, I often add an extra bonus to combat maneuver feats before they upgrade--for example, base Improved Dirty Trick causes Dirty Tricks to last longer when they land, as well as making it take a standard action to remove the trick once your BAB reaches +6.
Weapons usable with weapon finesse gain a 'finesse' quality which allows anyone to use Dexterity to atack with them. The Weapon Finesse feat incorporates Agile Maneuvers, and allows you to add your Intelligence modifier as precision damage on attacks with a finesse weapon.
I've also basically eliminated Combat Expertise from all prerequisites.
Arcane Armor Training in my games is a flat reduction to Spell Failure, rather than requiring a swift action, but that's a bit less related to the topic.
Without being a prerequisite, Combat Expertise becomes extremely weak. It's biggest problem is that it A) requires an unreasonably high Intelligence score and B) is not better than fighting defensively until surprisingly late in the game. The feat's AC bonus needs to be increased to at least +2 baseline with an additional +1 every four BAB thereafter.
You shouldn't need to have an IQ at least one standard deviation higher than average in order to know how to defend yourself.
So far I like a lot of what I'm reading.
I don't like condensing feat trees because whether or not we like it there's too much disruption to future and third party intentions so I'm not that thrilled with combat maneuvers being condensed into one feat. For example, say that I picked up a product that had a feat with Improved Trip as a prerequisite because it allowed for the character to do something unusual with tripping. I suppose that I can just call it 'Improved ( )' for the purposes of prerequisites but I think that there should be a clause to make it count as 'X' feat for the purposes of prereqs.
I like that Combat Expertise changes fighting defensively rather than be it's own thing. I still don't understand why that isn't how it worked in the first place.
Weapons usable with weapon finesse gain a 'finesse' quality which allows anyone to use Dexterity to atack with them.
I like this, and will probably steal it.
The result would be something like weapon finesse becoming a default option, with the finesse feat adding up to 1.0 dex to damage while using dexterity to attack in melee.So far I like a lot of what I'm reading.
Thanks :D
...I think that there should be a clause to make it count as 'X' feat for the purposes of prereqs.
That would be a REALLY painful and clunky way to implement something that really should be intuitive on its own right. I plan on being consistent with my own work, so you won't see feats require feats that no longer exist or are renamed, but any future updates should be intuitively solved on a case-by-case basis.
I like that Combat Expertise changes fighting defensively rather than be it's own thing. I still don't understand why that isn't how it worked in the first place.
That puzzled me greatly as well. I wanted to move a lot of those feat options into slightly inferior default options (power attack, for example), and then work on some rule/system consistency.
...I think that there should be a clause to make it count as 'X' feat for the purposes of prereqs.That would be a REALLY painful and clunky way to implement something that really should be intuitive on its own right. I plan on being consistent with my own work, so you won't see feats require feats that no longer exist or are renamed, but any future updates should be intuitively solved on a case-by-case basis.
It technically is, but while you won't have feats require feats that don't exist anymore I am more concerned with feats in splatbooks and third party material that print material assuming that certain feats exist because they are in the core book.
I don't readily use outside house rules and third party material because of stuff like that. For the most part I have to look at the material for a long time to look for inconsistencies and overlaps before I allow things and while this particular problem it is easy to assume that Improved Maneuver counts as the Improved X feat of whatever maneuver you chose I don't have 100% full confidence that players will get that when I'm not looking, leading to having to spending time to answer questions. This is particularly true for a lot of my players who despite not being fully new to the game do not take the time gain any real system mastery.
As a GM it is easier for me when new rules do not disrupt too many things and as a player its easier to get a GM to allow it. Overall it is just easier for rewritten feats to be more powerful rather than be condensed, effectively becoming a replacement effect that does not disrupt other options that are dependent on the idea that core book feats exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I propose that leadership be removed and be replaced with something like:
"At the GM's discretion, an NPC with appropriate talents may join the adventuring party. This of course, depends on whether it suits the story, style of adventure, the players and their characters. A cohort may have lesser or greater loyalties to one or more of the party members, usually depending on how he or she is treated and any prior relationship. Additionally, characters may seek to attract larger numbers of lesser followers, again, if apropos to the adventure and if the requisite maintenance is performed by the character, by GM discretion. The GM should be aware of how the addition of NPCs and followers affects the party's overall strength and capacity to overcome obstacles."
I propose that leadership be removed and be replaced with something like:
"At the GM's discretion, an NPC with appropriate talents may join the adventuring party. This of course, depends on whether it suits the story, style of adventure, the players and their characters. A cohort may have lesser or greater loyalties to one or more of the party members, usually depending on how he or she is treated and any prior relationship. Additionally, characters may seek to attract larger numbers of lesser followers, again, if apropos to the adventure and if the requisite maintenance is performed by the character, by GM discretion. The GM should be aware of how the addition of NPCs and followers affects the party's overall strength and capacity to overcome obstacles."
Leadership SHOULD be part of the game baseline. As you grow more powerful, people are going to want to follow you. No questions asked.
Without being a prerequisite, Combat Expertise becomes extremely weak. It's biggest problem is that it A) requires an unreasonably high Intelligence score and B) is not better than fighting defensively until surprisingly late in the game. The feat's AC bonus needs to be increased to at least +2 baseline with an additional +1 every four BAB thereafter.
You shouldn't need to have an IQ at least one standard deviation higher than average in order to know how to defend yourself.
Another possible fix for Combat Expertise that I've seen floated around here before is that the feat allows you to add your Intelligence modifier to both your CMB and CMD. I'm sure how well that'd work out in practice, but it sounds like an excellent bump in the feat's ability.
I propose that leadership be removed and be replaced with something like:
"At the GM's discretion, an NPC with appropriate talents may join the adventuring party. This of course, depends on whether it suits the story, style of adventure, the players and their characters. A cohort may have lesser or greater loyalties to one or more of the party members, usually depending on how he or she is treated and any prior relationship. Additionally, characters may seek to attract larger numbers of lesser followers, again, if apropos to the adventure and if the requisite maintenance is performed by the character, by GM discretion. The GM should be aware of how the addition of NPCs and followers affects the party's overall strength and capacity to overcome obstacles."
You know , this is already how it works outside leadership , this is pretty much just a note to remember the GM he can add NPC party members :P.
Precisely!
Precisely!
Ic :P.
Well , i like the idea behind leadership , since i love having an inteligent follower to a charismatic PC , but i could get pretty much what i want from a summoner with the eidolon or sorc(arcane) with the improved familiar anyway, all i lose is playing a bard heh.
Just a thought but shouldn't elven battle training grant proficiency in the listed weapons if you received training with them?
It technically is, but while you won't have feats require feats that don't exist anymore I am more concerned with feats in splatbooks and third party material that print material assuming that certain feats exist because they are in the core book.
Yes, I understood your concern. I won't expand the description of every single changed feat as "this counts as X", especially in the cases where I have folded one feat into a default ability (such as power attack/improved power attack). But I will probably add some sort of disclaimer in the opening description for GMs to use discretion and common sense in resolving requirement incompatibilities.
Just a thought but shouldn't elven battle training grant proficiency in the listed weapons if you received training with them?
No, that would make the feat way better than comparable ones (such as, you know, the proficiency feats). I even toyed with the idea of making proficiency with one of the listed weapons a prerequisite, but then rejected that idea due to being inelegant (do you get it for that weapon alone? or all weapons, even if not proficient? do you automatically get it later if you become proficient?).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Proficiency feats are terrible. You shouldn't be balancing against them. I remember working out that for a feat you should be able to get multiple proficiencies. I think it was 4, and that was just based on other things Paizo released which were able to be stated as "equivalent to a feat".
Here's the thread.
Proficiency feats are terrible. You shouldn't be balancing against them. I remember working out that for a feat you should be able to get multiple proficiencies. I think it was 4, and that was just based on other things Paizo released which were able to be stated as "equivalent to a feat".
Here's the thread.
agreed, i grant simple weapon proficiency with all with the feat, and martial weapon prof nets you proficiency with a whole weapon group.
"Proficiency feats are terrible."
I agree. I tried to see if I could fix it, but I am no longer sure. My most recent thought on the matter was to make it cost 1 skill point for a martial weapon, 2 for an exotic. Any thoughts on that?
Feats are not skills, and the two don't easily translate (why should a rogue or druid find it easier to use a dwarven waraxe than a fighter or paladin?). Stick with weapon groups. They do the job very nicely for martials. And exotics should be traits (or get a 2-for-1 with vaguely similar weapons).
|
|
Weapon groups aren't bad.
As I mathed out with some people during ARG Playtest, FCBs are equivalent to a feat; Through this equivalency, we determined, that using Paizo precedents, (and our intuition that Proficiency feats suck) 1 feat is worth a new weapon every 4 levels. That sounds like a decent "at least".
Weapon groups are nice though, and if you give weapon groups with 5 weapons in them, thats not much more powerful than 1/4 level (more frontloaded, but same at 20).
the thing is complete martial weapon proficiency is a bit overvalued. You have proficiency in 30 + weapons but use 2 maybe 3 at the most. Fact of the matter is complete martial weapon proficiency is mainly for the purposes of qualifications, like eldritch knight. Chucking a handful of proficiencies at someone doesn't really increase their power.
Weapon proficiency could be combined with weapon focus.
I like the idea of condensing "improved" and "greater" versions into one feat. I think it makes sense for them to simply scale with level and not havingto spend additional feats to keep your style relevant at higher levels. This goes especially for TWF which ends you up with spending three feats so you can do with two weapons the same thing as a two-handed fighter does with one, except slightly worse.
Other feats scale as well, like leadership or power attack and even skill focus. So why shouldn't TWF and other things like it?
The only feats that don't need to scale are those working independently of hit dice and what comes with it, the same as only those spells don't scale, to which the hit dice of the target don't matter (or at least within a margin don't matter), like dominate or charm.
Proficiency with weapon groups instead of weapons also makes sense in my opinion, i still think it's a pretty hefty tax since you are still likely to only take it because of a specific weapon you want to be able to handle.
I would actually do the same to Weapon Focus and Specialization.
|
(Playing devil's advocate a bit here, but) I am wondering if removing feat scaling all together wouldn't be a bad idea.
Many feats only give the character an ability or a flat bonus. There are only a handful that scale by level (or BAB) such as Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Combat Expertise, and Skill Feats to name most of them.
Instead of combining feat trees such as Two-weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc into one feat that scales, what about making the other scaling feats not scale?
For instance, if you compare Power Attack and Deadly Aim to other feats at higher levels, it is unbalanced compared to other feats.
The main problem with that is that those feats are the backbones of the majority of non-caster classes. Removing their scaling ability - whether automatic or by a feat chain - just further cripples them in comparison to casters.
|
|
The main problem with that is that those feats are the backbones of the majority of non-caster classes. Removing their scaling ability - whether automatic or by a feat chain - just further cripples them in comparison to casters.
I can certainly see that perspective, but (still playing devil's advocate) people are making arguments that because feats like Power Attack scale by level, other feat trees should scale by level as well.
I would think that this idea could lead to an unbalance favoring non-caster classes. A character with one condensed feat tree may not sound like that big of a deal, but a character with three or four condensed trees would mean that they have 3 to 9 additional feats that they would have normally not have. For a class like the Fighter where feats are their power, this would be a huge boon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a class like the Fighter where feats are their power, this would be a huge boon.
Yes, it would. Whether or not that huge boon is enough to turn the balance against everything casters can currently do within the Core Rulebook alone is very much another question.
I personally think it isn't. Fighters already get double the amount of feats as other classes and they're still considered one of the most limited and expendable classes in the game. I don't think increasing that to triple or even quadruple will change that balance. Feats, at least the ones Fighters and similar classes can take, are still just not that good compared to spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...people are making arguments that because feats like Power Attack scale by level, other feat trees should scale by level as well...
That is not at all the argument people are making. It isn't "Hey, Power Attack is scaling, let's make other feats like that so that PA isn't OP", but rather "Feats are lolworthy and underpowered, let's make them scale! Power Attack is a good example." People are even talking about removing PA altogether (an idea I dislike), along with all other "trade X for Y" feats.
Also, no amount of feats could EVER overpower non-casters when compared to casters. Ever. A level 20 commoner with every single feat ever (except for spellcasting feats) and no ability to use spells or SLAs will be far, FAR below the power and utility of a magus, paladin, ranger, bard... The comparison becomes hilarious when you start to include wizard, druid, cleric, sorcerer, oracle, witch, etc...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People prefer to overlook that fact for any number of reasons, the worst offender I've seen being "realism" and whatnot.
Casters can be as overpowered as they want because they wield magic. Melee classes don't have magic, and thus have a limit.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is funny considering that even non casters at high level are beyond all realism, being able to not only survive, but walk away from an orbital drop without so much as a helmet, or taking a bath inside an active volcano for a short period of time.
Games like Pathfinder are about awesome fantasy people doing awesome fantasy things, there is no need for anyone to take the backseat just because they don't have magic.
Regarding weapon proficiency:
It is impossible to price correctly. Spending a whole feat to get proficient with just one weapon is hilariously expensive. Getting proficient with a dozen weapons with just one feat is wasteful; it's like getting a set of knives when you order a brand new shamwow. The crux of the matter is the non-incremental pricing of feats. If there were feat points instead of feats, I could definitely see an Exotic Weapon Proficiency (single weapon) feat cost 1 feat point, compared to a Rapid Shot's 6. Exotic/Martial/Simple thing just further complicates the issue.
That is exactly why I think getting it out of feats and into skill point expenditures would be a bright idea.
Regarding weapon proficiency:
It is impossible to price correctly. Spending a whole feat to get proficient with just one weapon is hilariously expensive. Getting proficient with a dozen weapons with just one feat is wasteful; it's like getting a set of knives when you order a brand new shamwow. The crux of the matter is the non-incremental pricing of feats. If there were feat points instead of feats, I could definitely see an Exotic Weapon Proficiency (single weapon) feat cost 1 feat point, compared to a Rapid Shot's 6. Exotic/Martial/Simple thing just further complicates the issue.
That is exactly why I think getting it out of feats and into skill point expenditures would be a bright idea.
An option would be to simply move gaining additional proficiency into a favored class bonus.
1 favored class bonus = 1 simple/martial weapon proficiency
1 favored class bonus = 1/2 exotic weapon proficiency
An option would be to simply move gaining additional proficiency into a favored class bonus.1 favored class bonus = 1 simple/martial weapon proficiency
1 favored class bonus = 1/2 exotic weapon proficiency
This is a wonderful idea! Maybe it should give out some sort of "debt" option, so that you can start at level 1 with an EWP, but other than that, nice!
The BABness is not bad either, but it ends up automatically showering you with things even if you wouldn't want them, like it or not.
I propose that leadership be removed and be replaced with something like:
"At the GM's discretion, an NPC with appropriate talents may join the adventuring party. This of course, depends on whether it suits the story, style of adventure, the players and their characters. A cohort may have lesser or greater loyalties to one or more of the party members, usually depending on how he or she is treated and any prior relationship. Additionally, characters may seek to attract larger numbers of lesser followers, again, if apropos to the adventure and if the requisite maintenance is performed by the character, by GM discretion. The GM should be aware of how the addition of NPCs and followers affects the party's overall strength and capacity to overcome obstacles."
There is an old quote from Monte Cook (author of the 3rd Ed. DMG, where the Leadership feat first appeared). He basically said that gaining followers and henchmen was in the purview of the DM, but that many just arbitrarily disallowed it because it was too complicated and unregulated. They put the feat in the game (in the DMG as a DM option mind!) to give DMs a baseline to work from, AND to give players something to point to and say "see, it's in the DMG, we could use this".
An option would be to simply move gaining additional proficiency into a favored class bonus.1 favored class bonus = 1 simple/martial weapon proficiency
1 favored class bonus = 1/2 exotic weapon proficiencyThis is a wonderful idea! Maybe it should give out some sort of "debt" option, so that you can start at level 1 with an EWP, but other than that, nice!
The BABness is not bad either, but it ends up automatically showering you with things even if you wouldn't want them, like it or not.
this extends further out into the game though, for example prestiges that use martial weapon proficiency (for example eldritch knight).
I'd have it available as an alternate favored class bonus between any race and any class that has 3/4 BAB or better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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, crawl, or stand up.
Have yet another version! Get it here. As announced, things have been proceeding very slowly, mostly due to NaNoWriMo.
I have been having fun lately not just with rebalancing and redesigning the feats, but also with envisioning various different character archetypes that might use them.
Here's a backline halfling slinger with a freakishly high Strength score:
Ammo Drop, Arc Slinger, Two-Handed Thrower, Small Marksman (thrown), Weapon Focus (thrown). With an 18 Strength, his basic sling deals 1d4+6(+2 within 50 ft) damage.
Want a more beefy version? Bam!
Ammo Drop, Sling Flail, Precise Shot, Bullseye Shot, Vital strike. Give that guy a heavy shield for additional AC, watch him snipe out enemies or bash their heads in for 1d3+4(+6 at BAB 6 for Vital Strike). What's that? People wanted a ranged attack combat maneuver feat? Impact Shot. Bam. Done.
(sorry, I am talking nonsense, it is a Thursday, so that means that the long day at work was especially long)