Yes. It's been suggested multiple times. They don't do it because it would theoretically make characters of other races step on Humans' toes.
Obviously, this ignores the simple fact that Humans can take the feat as well and still be 1 feat and 1 skill point ahead of everyone else.
I don't have the quote, but Jason flat-out stated that they haven't made a skill point version of Toughness because one extra skill point per level felt too weak to the design team.
You are free to disagree if you prefer.
Somehow I have trouble believing that.
Rule of thumb taught to me here on these boards is that if it is a choice that hands-down, everybody and there mother takes, it is probably too good.
That or the other options are too bad.
Rule of thumb taught to me here on these boards is that if it is a choice that hands-down, everybody and there mother takes, it is probably too good.
I'd probably try and find a way to cram it into all of my characters, so that's one.
I would be unlikely to take it for any character. There are too many other good feats. If I wanted skill points that bad I'd be more likely to play a class with lots of skill ranks, or boost my Int, or use my FCB.
Yeah... It's quite a pointless feat for classes with 6~8 skills points and classes that focus on Int.
IME, people are often too quick to claim something is OP because it's better than the crapton of crappy feats we have in the game. (Very similar to how some people will claim classes are OP because they are better than Rogues and Fighters).
I've seen people claim they would give Breadth of Experience to every one of their characters if it wasn't race restricted (apparently, a +2 to knowledge and profession checks is the best thing ever). They conveniently forget to mention that they never took that feat for their elf and dwarf characters.
I honestly can't see how spending a feat, the scarcest resource in the game, for an extra skill point would break or unbalance anything.
Skill Focus, and the various "+2 to two skills" feat nicely demonstrate where the designers originally set the power level. I am actually quite curious as to why they made that decision.
Because that's how they were in 3.5.
|
On the flip side, let's do an impromptu poll. If this feat was available, how many characters would you make that would NOT take it? And no cheating by saying "well I have this bard/rogue who..."Rule of thumb taught to me here on these boards is that if it is a choice that hands-down, everybody and there mother takes, it is probably too good.
I wouldn't take it for intelligence-based characters like my alchemist, occultist or wizard. I might take it for my paladin because paladins need fewer feats to function, but lack skills.
On the whole: worth it for some characters, not all of them.
Consider how many people automatically put FCB into hit points. Apparently skill points are less important to most people than HP, and yet nobody's saying Toughness is OP.
Somehow I have trouble believing that.
Wow. That is a $#!+y feat.
I know that campaign traits break the rule about being half feats, but since there is one that is Fast Learner all over again, which is toughness+ if you stay single class, I'm getting some mixed messages here.
I like having a lot of skill points, but let us be real here. Many skills become unimportant as you level even with the efforts Pathfinder has made to tone down the skill obviation spells, like knock. Spells and magic items tend to replace the need for skill challenges as you go up in levels.
I think allowing the third party Pathfinder compatible feat Zayne and edduardco mentioned earlier in the thread would be just fine for home games. I don't see it overpowered in any way. If anything, the +2/+2 or +3 feats (and Human Spirit... yuck.) need improving.
Rule of thumb taught to me here on these boards is that if it is a choice that hands-down, everybody and there mother takes, it is probably too good.
Power Attack is OP! Ban it!
|
In my home group we give all characters 2 additional skill points every level. We've found it really helps to flesh out characters. There are a couple options where it seems like people have an abundance, but the benefit seems to outweigh it.
So imo a feat granting additional skill points would make sense, but not as much as just increasing the amount of skills characters have.
Power Attack is OP! Ban it!You say that like it's a joke, but from a design perspective power attack is OP/an example of bad design (unless your design objective was to reduce the amount of interesting player choice and also create trap options).
OP would mean it is too powerful. It isn't. From a design perspective, it could just as easily mean that everything else is broken because they aren't on par.
I'll be the first to admit that a ton of stinkers get published. Far more than OP feats do. I mean, there's easily 10 useless feats geared at non-casters for every good feat and that's being conservative I think.
|
On the flip side, let's do an impromptu poll. If this feat was available, how many characters would you make that would NOT take it? And no cheating by saying "well I have this bard/rogue who..."
My current character (martial arts barbarian) would not take it. Not enough feats.
My monk and inquisitor from previous campaigns also needed feats more than skill points.
My bard and druid might have taken it. They didn't have particularly feat-heavy builds and there were skills I would have liked them to invest in more.
I would probably take it if I were to play a cleric, fighter, or paladin, because all of them are typically skill-point starved. But it depends on whether I was trying to do anything fancy with them (eg shield bash pally).
I typically spend FCB on skill points, with the exception of the monk and inquisitor, who used their human race benefits (1/4 ki point and spells known).
Rogues. In 3.5.
I mean I'm just guessing, but dollars-to-donuts it was the fact that rogues are skill-monkeys so they must CLEARLY be equal to (at least) bardic spellcasting, if not cleric spellcasting.
And NOW, since we have a well-established pattern of "you get a total of +4 to skills, at best, with weird and varied limitations" it's just "how things are."
On the flip side, let's do an impromptu poll. If this feat was available, how many characters would you make that would NOT take it? And no cheating by saying "well I have this bard/rogue who..."
Rule of thumb taught to me here on these boards is that if it is a choice that hands-down, everybody and there mother takes, it is probably too good.
I'd probably try and find a way to cram it into all of my characters, so that's one.
I would take it depending on the class and concept. It is not an "every build" feat for me, but if I want an extra skill point, and I don't want to put more points into intelligence or give up FCB points then I would.
OP would mean it is too powerful. It isn't.Compared with what? Wizards? Sure.
But consider: how many martial builds are there that don't take power attack? Well, most of the TWF sneak attack builds don't, and some dex build use piranha strike instead, and archers use deadly aim. So, builds that are avoiding the usual damage mechanics, and power attack by two extra names. Conclusion: it's massively overpowered compared with martial characters who don't have it.
Which raises a question: what are feats for? I don't think the designers actually have a document laying out the purpose of feats. Which is a shame, because if they were designing a system from scratch that would be a very useful thing. If the point of feats is to scale damage with level, well then power attack works... but why not just key damage off level directly? If the point of feats is to give players exciting options to customise, then power attack is really badly designed. Because it isn't customising - either you have it or you kind of suck.
That is not how must of us define OP. OP generates equate to "an option so powerful it causes problems at the table". The option being good enough that it creates a very noticable difference just makes it a good option.
Feats are basically designed to allow you to break the rules in various ways. That was the point in 3.5 and in PF. In 3.5 it was explained in the rules compendium.
PS: And comparing a feat to a class is not even in the same ball park. The rogue is better than power attack, and it is considered the weakest class by many.
|
|
I think there's two kinds of OP, both legitimate uses of the word.
1) So powerful that it causes problems with balance at the table. Maybe it invalidates a lot of monsters or encounters, or it makes one class better than other classes at those other classes' nominal niches.
2) An option so much better than the other options you can pick from, that it's almost mandatory. Like Power Attack.
It's not OP, it's just how you do that thing.Right. It's the way you do that thing, because trying to do that thing without that feat makes you rubbish.
You can actually do decent damage even as a sword and boarder without power attacking, but power attacking just makes one and two handed builds better. Therefore a two-hander who does more damage does not "need" power attack. Rubbish is not the right word. Suboptimal would be a better term since that can always refer to a lesser option. It is just like a druid not taking natural spell. He does not have to do it to meet the bar, but if he takes it he can more easily meet the bar.
Feats are basically designed to allow you to break the rules in various ways. That was the point in 3.5 and in PF. In 3.5 it was explained in the rules compendium.Yes, that was obvious from the mechanics. Perhaps I should have been more specific.
What is the purpose of feats for the designers? How are feats intended to make the game more fun?
They make the game more fun by allowing the character to be more effective. That might not be your idea of fun, but it is for many people.
As for your first question it has been answered. The idea is to break the rules and improve the players characters. That is the idea from a design perspective. Not all feats will be equal. Instead of blaming the feat, maybe the problem is that power attack should be an option without being a feat. That is not a "feat/power attack" problem to me. That is a "martials not getting enough love" problem.
I don't think the are designed as traps. The problem(well not really a problem) is that various groups play at different power levels, and yes it does take some level of system master to know not to take certain options(feats, spells, etc).
I think the varying of feat strengths allows you to play the game at different power levels, and most of us optimize to some extent, but I don't think that is the sole intent of feat. As an example the exotic weapon proficiency feat is normally subpar, and that is being nice, but it still exist. Since it is no secret that the feat is "not that good", but it has still not changed then it giving you more weapons to use means you have more options. It has done it's job.
Do I like that some feats are basically worthless? No. But I think that in the context of "feats allow you to do ____" they are doing their job even if they give you an option that is not viable in most game.
In case you are wondering I would rather all feats be at least decent instead of taking up space, since almost nobody takes them.
It is hard to say something is a trap option because I have seen people say they expect for a level 8 ____ to only do 15 points of damage, and others have had their rogues outdamaged by a level 5 warrior and still called the rogue OP for damage.
Now in most games such ideas would lead to trap options, and while I don't agree with the points in my above paragraph it is not my place to say "you are doing it wrong", but I did point out that was not how most people played the game so neither of those idea is "OP".
What I am saying is that many things I would not touch with a 10 foot pole have a place in someone's game somewhere. I guess they(those groups) need their feats/choices also.
As for your cheesy comment, that varies by table. It is not an objective term unless you do something extreme.