What feats do you wish existed?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 325 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Matthew Downie wrote:
Adacanavar wrote:
look in the equipment chapter of the core book wielding a two handed weapon with 1 hand is at a -6 attack penalty.
I'm fairly certain there is no such rule.

In appropriately sized weapons read it with logic in mind it may not be what they intended but it is in the RAW -2 for each size category and it does not say you can't wield a two handed weapon as one handed if you are willing to take the penalty.

And under weapon size category's it says that two-hands are required to wield it effectively meaning you can wield it with one hand ineffectively. You would take a -6 penalty for the size and could only add your strength bonus rather than strength and a half. It is right there in black and white.


Adacanavar wrote:
In appropriately sized weapons read it with logic in mind it may not be what they intended but it is in the RAW -2 for each size category and it does not say you can't wield a two handed weapon as one handed if you are willing to take the penalty.

"A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder."

"The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all."
I really don't see where you're getting -6 from. (Though it would be a reasonable house-rule.)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Thinking more about this, it would be nice if there were a way to conceal spellcasting. Maybe a feat to make an opposed Bluff vs. Spellcraft to fool others into not even realizing a spell is happening. Perhaps a metamagic feat.

A metamagic feat to disguise a spell as a different spell would be great for illusionists. I could see it as a +1 spell level metamagic that lets you use the gestures and sounds of a different spell of the same level, or maybe just add +10 to the Spellcraft DC to identify.


more feats to enhance creatures summoned by summon monster/nature ally

feat to give an ability similar to pounce to regular melee characters

feats to bring melee characters closer to the power lvl of casters at higher lvl.


Adacanavar wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Speaking of 3.5 feats that didn't make it, the feat that I hear about the most is Monkey Grip.
Monkey grip didn't make it because it exists by default look in the equipment chapter of the core book wielding a two handed weapon with 1 hand is at a -6 attack penalty.

This is not a thing.

Monkey Grip didn't make it because it was a must-have feat that tossed all one-handed weapons into the scrap heap. I'm fine with not having it. If they want to introduce it with some much heftier requirements than "base attack bonus +1", well, maybe.


Adacanavar wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Adacanavar wrote:
look in the equipment chapter of the core book wielding a two handed weapon with 1 hand is at a -6 attack penalty.
I'm fairly certain there is no such rule.

In appropriately sized weapons read it with logic in mind it may not be what they intended but it is in the RAW -2 for each size category and it does not say you can't wield a two handed weapon as one handed if you are willing to take the penalty.

And under weapon size category's it says that two-hands are required to wield it effectively meaning you can wield it with one hand ineffectively. You would take a -6 penalty for the size and could only add your strength bonus rather than strength and a half. It is right there in black and white.

There is no mention in the text of a -6 penalty for "wielding a weapon ineffectively". You simply can't do it. Size categories are a different thing entirely from weapon size.

Shadow Lodge

Monkey grip was actually a terrible feat, changing 2d6 to 3d6 for -2 to hit was a terrible trade, and almonst all guide masters of 3.5 agreed on this. Only on very niche builds and combined with many other broken traits to get to riduclous sized it was made useful. Is the equivalent of -2 enchacement bonus for flaming property. I however think is flavorful, many tropes require the use of gigantic weapons


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two-Handed Weapon Defense. Like Two-Weapon Defense, but with a two-handed weapon.


blahpers wrote:
Adacanavar wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Speaking of 3.5 feats that didn't make it, the feat that I hear about the most is Monkey Grip.
Monkey grip didn't make it because it exists by default look in the equipment chapter of the core book wielding a two handed weapon with 1 hand is at a -6 attack penalty.

This is not a thing.

Monkey Grip didn't make it because it was a must-have feat that tossed all one-handed weapons into the scrap heap. I'm fine with not having it. If they want to introduce it with some much heftier requirements than "base attack bonus +1", well, maybe.

Er. No. One handed weapons were "in the scrap heap" because THF was the best style for everything (just as it is in Pathfinder). Monkey Grip was awful, because essentially it was a worse version of power attack you couldn't turn off.

No one attempting to optimize anything in 3.5 took the feat unless taking the feat was a core part of the build (usually by being part of an optimization challenge).

Which, frankly, makes it kind of hilarious that Super Genius Games included Monkey Grip in their "Book of Hilariously Overpowered Feats".

Slightly less funny when you realize that a Paizo developer helped put that book together and stuff like that is what he thought was overpowering for martials.


ElementalXX wrote:
Monkey grip was actually a terrible feat, changing 2d6 to 3d6 for -2 to hit was a terrible trade, and almonst all guide masters of 3.5 agreed on this. Only on very niche builds and combined with many other broken traits to get to riduclous sized it was made useful. Is the equivalent of -2 enchacement bonus for flaming property. I however think is flavorful, many tropes require the use of gigantic weapons

So, it's bad by itself but broken with other things? Well, that's why few used Monkey Grip by itself. If you're only getting a 1d6 increase from Monkey Grip, then you were not taking advantage of its full potential.

Sczarni

Here's a feat I wish existed: either "reverse Power Attack" or "reverse Vital Strike". We've got a feat that trades to-hit for damage and a feat that trades it for AC. Then we've got a feat that trades the rest of your attacks this round for more damage dice, on the assumption that your iteratives probably aren't going to hit. But how about a feat that lets you trade something for an attack bonus?

Maybe it's like Vital Strike: you forfeit the rest of your attacks to line up one good shot and make sure it hits. Or it could be like PA/CE: you take a scaling penalty to something else that round in exchange for a scaling bonus. I don't know how the numbers would shake out, but it would be nice to have something for when you're up against a high AC monster and you just need to land an attack.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A slew of powerful fighter only feats that all other classes, even ones that say they can use fighter only feats, can't use. Fests to make the fighter over all more worth while and shore up its defenses.


Greater Weapon Finesse


Feats that promote dynamic combat would be nice, it's basically nonexistent in Pathfinder.


TheSideKick wrote:
A slew of powerful fighter only feats that all other classes, even ones that say they can use fighter only feats, can't use. Fests to make the fighter over all more worth while and shore up its defenses.

That would be neat. Examples could be

- Real bravery: prerequisites: Bravery class feature. Benefit: The fighter is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions only while the fighter is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.

- Boot camp training: Prerequisites: Fighter 1, can only be taken at 1st level. Benefit: The fighter gets 1/2 his class level on profession (soldier), Climb, survival, and on checks to stay alert and awake during his watch. (not THAT powerful but helps with the fighter's lack of skills)

- Equipment training: Prerequisites: Weapon training or Armor training class feature. Benefit: The fighter adds his weapon training bonus or his armor training bonus to the hardness of applicable equipment he is wielding or wearing. If the fighter's weapon or armor is targeted by a spell that allows a saving throw he can add his weapon- or armor training bonus to the saving throw as applicable.


@ the secret fire:
the secret fire wrote:
Your apparent need to lecture me on the historical length of weapons suggests that you do not understand the problem here, or with anime physics, in general. Long weapons are part of the historical record...enormously massive weapons are not. Furthermore, weapons are not and have never been built with ultra-massive blades and small pommels, which describes that woman's sword exactly. This is an anime trope, no two ways about it.

Very long weapons exist in history. Very heavy weapons exist in history. Though some cannot be wielded effectively because of how awkward they are or for very long considering how much they weigh, there are some pretty massive swords out there.

Actually, there's some pretty massive things out there that people move or throw about just to prove they can. Caber tossing anybody?

the secret fire wrote:
A sword built as hers is, unless it had some sort of incredibly dense material in the pommel, would be completely unbalanced...suitable as a frost giant farm implement, perhaps, but useless as a weapon. Moreover, if you were somehow strong enough to overcome the gross imbalance of the weapon, unless that pencil-thin pommel was forged out of "unobtanium", you'd bend the pommel at the hand guard the first time you attempted to halt the blade's momentum. This is no earthly sword.

Yes the pommel is meant to counterbalance the blade. Having a longer handle also lets one use one hand as the fulcrum and the other to generate more force.

But, although I am not actually suggesting it in this case, consider a sword could be made out of a lighter alloy, or possibly have large portions of the blade itself be hollow. Angle iron, channel iron, and i-beams use perpendicular joints to create strength. Some knives use cut outs on a small scale. Some cutting industrial tools use it on a larger scale. I am under the impression that blood grooves are to lighten the blade up somewhat.

While none of that alone could make a massive weapon that could be wielded by an average person, put it all together and you could have a massive weapon that may be wielded by a very strong person.

The back story on that particular iconic says that she can't really use the giant's sword until she rages, adding the important +4 to strength.

the secret fire wrote:
I have actually seen the sword purported to have been wielded by William Wallace. It is encased in glass in a tower just outside of Stirling, Scotland, site of his most famous victory. I obviously didn't get to hold it, but best guess is that the blade is slightly shorter than I am tall, putting it in the 6'1" - 6'2" range. This makes sense, as claymores were generally forged to be as long as their wielder was tall. 6'2" would have made William Wallace a giant in his time, and I believe that he was, but I assure you, he was not seven feet tall.

I'm too poor to travel.

One site said it was close to seven feet. The wiki says it's 5'4" but there is some reasons to believe that it's not genuine or not in it's original condition.

Go ahead and focus on the not important part.

the secret fire wrote:
The difference in mass between a real-world claymore and that...chunk of metal...the PF barbarian is depicted carrying would likely be in the realm of an order of magnitude, at least (assuming she's not three feet tall). Sorry, no...if you honestly think any human could actually wield the thing depicted on pg 31 as a weapon, your understanding of physics and warfare leaves something to be desired. Arguments that this is all fine and good because fantasy are certainly viable, and I don't want to tell anyone else how to play the game, but anime physics, it most certainly is.

In the game, a strength 10 person carries 33 lbs. without difficulty, is a little inconvenienced by 66 lbs., and can still get 100 lbs. their head. It's just really awkward and they probably won't be doing it for long.

Take into account the outliers.

Say a human is pretty strong to begin with (so the equivalent of rolling an 18) and adds their +2 there, for a 20. That's 133 lbs. for a light load, 266 lbs. for a medium, and 400 lbs. for a heavy load.

If "A character can lift as much as double his maximum load off the ground, but he or she can only stagger around with it. . . . " Then "The record for a raw deadlift (a deadlift performed without the aid of a deadlift suit, where only a weight belt is allowed) is 460.396 kg (1,015.00 lb) by Benedikt Magnusson." is about a strength 22 character (507.5 lbs. being half).

I think swinging around thirty to forty pounds of metal as a weapon is ridiculous. I think it would leave the person open all the time and isn't practical at all. I still think a few strong people have the capacity. I also think it would be scary as f*@# to see somebody doing it, which might be enough for some people who can to do so in a fantasy medieval setting.

I also think that people too willing to shout anime haven't really paid attention to myth and legends. Beowulf ripped a monster's arm off and beat him with it. A "terrible barbed spear, thrown with the foot, that has to be cut out of its victim. . . . " sounds like a terrible weapon to use, but hey, it was one of Cú Chulainn's things.

I am saying in real life, something like it could occasionally be possible, and that's not enough reason to say wielding oversized weapons is impossible in a fantasy setting.

Edit: And I don't have "an apparent need to lecture" you in particular so much as I sometimes have a near pathological need to over explain. You, however, seem to phrase things in such a way as to encourage persons to "Come at me, bro." However, that could just be my interpretation of your speaking/writing style.


Umbranus wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
A slew of powerful fighter only feats that all other classes, even ones that say they can use fighter only feats, can't use. Fests to make the fighter over all more worth while and shore up its defenses.

That would be neat. Examples could be

- Real bravery: prerequisites: Bravery class feature. Benefit: The fighter is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions only while the fighter is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.

- Boot camp training: Prerequisites: Fighter 1, can only be taken at 1st level. Benefit: The fighter gets 1/2 his class level on profession (soldier), Climb, survival, and on checks to stay alert and awake during his watch. (not THAT powerful but helps with the fighter's lack of skills)

- Equipment training: Prerequisites: Weapon training or Armor training class feature. Benefit: The fighter adds his weapon training bonus or his armor training bonus to the hardness of applicable equipment he is wielding or wearing. If the fighter's weapon or armor is targeted by a spell that allows a saving throw he can add his weapon- or armor training bonus to the saving throw as applicable.

There is actually a recent third party supplement that espouses these ideas.

The Genius Guide to Bravery Feats


A schmital strike feat chain, which can be combined with the schmobility/schrping attack line so you can actually have a viable move and attack style character that doesn't ride-by charge on a horse or have to jump through six hoops to grab wings for fly by.


Dot for ideas.

Liberty's Edge

I would like a feat that allows me to increase the damage multiplier on a critical hit.
Who wouldn't like a keen falcata with 17-20/x4?


Mythic Improved Critical.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
A slew of powerful fighter only feats that all other classes, even ones that say they can use fighter only feats, can't use. Fests to make the fighter over all more worth while and shore up its defenses.

That would be neat. Examples could be

- Real bravery: prerequisites: Bravery class feature. Benefit: The fighter is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions only while the fighter is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.

- Boot camp training: Prerequisites: Fighter 1, can only be taken at 1st level. Benefit: The fighter gets 1/2 his class level on profession (soldier), Climb, survival, and on checks to stay alert and awake during his watch. (not THAT powerful but helps with the fighter's lack of skills)

- Equipment training: Prerequisites: Weapon training or Armor training class feature. Benefit: The fighter adds his weapon training bonus or his armor training bonus to the hardness of applicable equipment he is wielding or wearing. If the fighter's weapon or armor is targeted by a spell that allows a saving throw he can add his weapon- or armor training bonus to the saving throw as applicable.

There is actually a recent third party supplement that espouses these ideas.

The Genius Guide to Bravery Feats

and this is on its way as well.


I'd like to introduce a feat called 'multiple item crafting', that allows a mundane crafter (not magical items) to work on multiple projects and advance them all at a certain increase in time.

It basically means that a crafter may make one item under normal circumstances, but if he/she wants to craft the same item multiple times that this is possible for a limited amount of extra time.

Off course the amount of items created should be limited as well. I'd like to think that for every 5 ranks the crafter can make an additional item if increasing the time needed (+10% for each additional version).
Off course this means that all raw materials, for each individual item, should be available as well.

Perhaps this should even be an option that is available normally, but enhanced by the feat. Normal add 50% of time for every additional item while the feat allows you to reduce that to 10%.

It's not even that strange a option/feat because if you are making 2 items that are the same you can make them faster if you create them at the same time. You could even allow the feat to give a slight reduction in raw materials (10% less cost).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Alternate Class Feature

Benefit: Pick a alternate Class Feature of an Archetype of your Class (which can be the standard Class Feature if you are already using an Archetype). You gain this Class Feature in addition to the one you would normally gain. For scaling Class Features, this applies to one rank of the Class Feature. This allows you to combine Archetypes that could not otherwise be combined, and/or to gain standard Class Features in addition to the Archetype Class Features that replace them.

Special: You can take this Feat multiple times, to gain different alternate Class Features, and/or to gain multiple ranks of a scaling Class Feature (you cannot gain more ranks of a scaling Class Feature than normally allowed by your Class Level).

Special: You can use this Feat to gain an alternate Class Feature at a level (normally even) at which you do not gain a Feat by taking this Feat one Character Level before, but the benefits do not activate until you gain the Class Level at which you would gain the alternate Class Feature.

Special: You do not need to take this Feat to gain alternate Class Features (usually Weapon/Armor Proficiencies, Class Skills, or Bonus Languages) that you have gained by other means (usually by multiclassing or racial bonuses), as long as you have rendered the additional Archetype features (or standard Class Features) fully redundant.


christos gurd wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
A slew of powerful fighter only feats that all other classes, even ones that say they can use fighter only feats, can't use. Fests to make the fighter over all more worth while and shore up its defenses.

That would be neat. Examples could be

- Real bravery: prerequisites: Bravery class feature. Benefit: The fighter is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions only while the fighter is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.

- Boot camp training: Prerequisites: Fighter 1, can only be taken at 1st level. Benefit: The fighter gets 1/2 his class level on profession (soldier), Climb, survival, and on checks to stay alert and awake during his watch. (not THAT powerful but helps with the fighter's lack of skills)

- Equipment training: Prerequisites: Weapon training or Armor training class feature. Benefit: The fighter adds his weapon training bonus or his armor training bonus to the hardness of applicable equipment he is wielding or wearing. If the fighter's weapon or armor is targeted by a spell that allows a saving throw he can add his weapon- or armor training bonus to the saving throw as applicable.

There is actually a recent third party supplement that espouses these ideas.

The Genius Guide to Bravery Feats

and this is on its way as well.

Why is everyone all of a sudden helping Fighters? I mean, its not bad, its just that I have entire hardcover books on spells and caster options and besides Talented Fighter I see almost nothing specifically for fighter. Now there are suddenly new things for Fighters?

(After Bravery Feats and Way of Ki and the Talented stuff I think Rogue and Cavalier are the only underpowered classes in my campaign.)


Malwing wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
A slew of powerful fighter only feats that all other classes, even ones that say they can use fighter only feats, can't use. Fests to make the fighter over all more worth while and shore up its defenses.

That would be neat. Examples could be

- Real bravery: prerequisites: Bravery class feature. Benefit: The fighter is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions only while the fighter is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.

- Boot camp training: Prerequisites: Fighter 1, can only be taken at 1st level. Benefit: The fighter gets 1/2 his class level on profession (soldier), Climb, survival, and on checks to stay alert and awake during his watch. (not THAT powerful but helps with the fighter's lack of skills)

- Equipment training: Prerequisites: Weapon training or Armor training class feature. Benefit: The fighter adds his weapon training bonus or his armor training bonus to the hardness of applicable equipment he is wielding or wearing. If the fighter's weapon or armor is targeted by a spell that allows a saving throw he can add his weapon- or armor training bonus to the saving throw as applicable.

There is actually a recent third party supplement that espouses these ideas.

The Genius Guide to Bravery Feats

and this is on its way as well.

Why is everyone all of a sudden helping Fighters? I mean, its not bad, its just that I have entire hardcover books on spells and caster options and besides Talented Fighter I see almost nothing specifically for fighter. Now there are suddenly new things for Fighters?

(After Bravery Feats and Way of Ki and the Talented stuff I think Rogue and...

Have you checked out Rogue Glory? I'm playing a True Professional, you get just as many feats as a fighter, but without the combat restriction (replaces sneak attack)


I have a copy of Rogue Glory but I haven't seen it in action yet. With each third party thing I have a long vetting process before I let people use it and I've been a player in "third party not allowed" games for months.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:
Mythic Improved Critical.

Every time I have a good idea, somebody steals it before I even think of it. I don't think it is legal for PFS, though. At least, I can find no reference to Mythic Adventures in the Additional Resources page.


Gingerbreadman wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Subtle Spellcasting

You can cast spells without drawing attention to them.
Prerequisites: ability to cast spells
Benefit: when casting a spell you can attempt to keep it subtle. Make a Bluff check, with a -4 penalty for each spell component (V, S, M, F, DF). Anyone who does not win an opposed Sense Motive check against you doesn't notice your spellcasting. The Sense Motive check suffers penalties for distance, distraction etcetera as if trying to use Perception.
When you cast subtly, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from people who fail their Sense Motive checks against you.
Normal: casting spells is obvious. Even if they have no spell components, it is noticeable.

Yeah, this feats benefits sorcerers more than wizards; Cha-based casting, Bluff as a class skill, and Eschew Materials as a bonus feat. That's working as intended.

What this feat also does: settle the question of how noticeable spells are, and providing workable options to Enchanters/Illusionists.

This should be a metamagic feat because it does what silent spell does and much more. +2 or +3 seems appropriate.

Disagree about metamagic feat requiring extra spell level.

And this is why: You already have a -4 penalty for each spell component. So each Silent, still, estrous components meta magic feat you have already invented in, and already up the spell with, is already acting as a feat chain, in reducing the penalty for the bluff check.

Also, you are still just hiding your casting with the bluff check, by misdirection. You would still need to be able to speak for verbal components, have your hands free for somatic, and still need access to your spell pouch for Material components.

But yes, i miss subtle spell-casting ever since darksun, vanished.

Sczarni

How about a feat chain that makes poisons viable? Maybe Poison Use as a feat, or something that codifies the process of "milking the venom" out of an animal?

Actually, instead of a chain, how about two feats: one for ninjas and alchemists that involves acquiring poison on the cheap and administering it more effectively, and a second one for druids and rangers that involves milking venomous animals and applying it to weapons with a Handle Animal check?


Malwing wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
TheSideKick wrote:
A slew of powerful fighter only feats that all other classes, even ones that say they can use fighter only feats, can't use. Fests to make the fighter over all more worth while and shore up its defenses.

That would be neat. Examples could be

- Real bravery: prerequisites: Bravery class feature. Benefit: The fighter is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions only while the fighter is conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.

- Boot camp training: Prerequisites: Fighter 1, can only be taken at 1st level. Benefit: The fighter gets 1/2 his class level on profession (soldier), Climb, survival, and on checks to stay alert and awake during his watch. (not THAT powerful but helps with the fighter's lack of skills)

- Equipment training: Prerequisites: Weapon training or Armor training class feature. Benefit: The fighter adds his weapon training bonus or his armor training bonus to the hardness of applicable equipment he is wielding or wearing. If the fighter's weapon or armor is targeted by a spell that allows a saving throw he can add his weapon- or armor training bonus to the saving throw as applicable.

There is actually a recent third party supplement that espouses these ideas.

The Genius Guide to Bravery Feats

and this is on its way as well.

Why is everyone all of a sudden helping Fighters? I mean, its not bad, its just that I have entire hardcover books on spells and caster options and besides Talented Fighter I see almost nothing specifically for fighter. Now there are suddenly new things for Fighters?

(After Bravery Feats and Way of Ki and the Talented stuff I think Rogue and...

personally i just wanted fighters to have something unique to them that made them stand out more as a class and feel a little less generic.


Some feats I would like added from 3.5

Brutal Throw: Adds your strength modifier to thrown weapon attack rolls.

Any strength based build without ranged weapons will love this. Plus it allows for some hilarious thrown weapon builds.

Practiced Spellcaster: +4 to caster level for a casting class, to a maximum of your hit dice. Does not increase spells known or spells gained per level.

They have this as a trait for +2 to caster level. Would buff the Mystic Theurge and Arcane Trickster classes if added to pathfinder, as well as allowing more multiclassing options.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Alternate Class Feature

...

This is an excellent idea. The Rogue and Fighter, especially, have some powerful ACFs hidden pointlessly in archetypes, and freeing these up to be bought through feats is one big step towards making those classes viable.

I'm not sure you go far enough with this idea, but I definitely agree with the direction.


the secret fire wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Alternate Class Feature

...

This is an excellent idea. The Rogue and Fighter, especially, have some powerful ACFs hidden pointlessly in archetypes, and freeing these up to be bought through feats is one big step towards making those classes viable.

I'm not sure you go far enough with this idea, but I definitely agree with the direction.

I wouldn't do it for each class because some are way more powerful than a feat, but the Talented classes from RGGs seem to work out well enough. You can also use them as figure bonus feats and rogue talents.


the secret fire wrote:

{. . .}

I'm not sure you go far enough with this idea, but I definitely agree with the direction.

If you want to talk about going further, make most or all Class Features available a-la-carte, accessible by Feats. Probably want to have something bigger than a Feat for scaling Class Features, since getting every step of such a thing through a separate Feat becomes inconvenient at this point. D&D 2.5's Player's Option did something like this -- a cleaned-up/streamlined version would work wonders. I wonder if Pathfinder Unchained will do something like this? Or if you REALLY want to go far with it, make a hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds (which has real awesomeness potential, if Paizo and Green Ronin teamed up).

Liberty's Edge

Craft Ooze feat that is worth taking.

The current one is imo a joke. I need to have two item creation feats. Three ranks in a skill and be fifth level. As well as spending money on equipment to craft it. Only to get a ooze dumber than a bag full of hammers and no loyalty to the person who created it. If the devs really disliked the idea of players of having access to oozes why even waste time developing the feat.

Sovereign Court

Well Mem the thing is not every option is intended to be a viable player option. Some options are extremely situational and intended as NPC abilities or features.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Well Mem the thing is not every option is intended to be a viable player option. Some options are extremely situational and intended as NPC abilities or features.

I'm hard pressed to think of why an NPC smart enough to be a crafter would be dumb enough to create something he knows he can't control.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Pan wrote:
Well Mem the thing is not every option is intended to be a viable player option. Some options are extremely situational and intended as NPC abilities or features.
I'm hard pressed to think of why an NPC smart enough to be a crafter would be dumb enough to create something he knows he can't control.

Uhhmm... a sorcerer who tanked intelligence? or maybe wisdom?

Pan wrote:
. . . Some options are extremely situational and intended as NPC abilities or features.

I now want to make a low level game where they fight to the villain's lair, he unleashes his ooze, and it eats him instead of the PCs.

Villain: No, NO! They are over THERE you dumb puddle... why don't you... ohgodohgodOHGOD! IT BURNS!... *gurgle*.

Hero 1: Well... that was... anticlimactic.

Hero 2: What should we do now?

Hero 1: Loot. Free some hostages... avoid the ooze.

Hero 2: Can I poke it with a stick?

Hero 1: ...NO.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:
Well Mem the thing is not every option is intended to be a viable player option. Some options are extremely situational and intended as NPC abilities or features.

Like Rynjin said it's not even worth it for NPCS. Unless a npc wants to block a corrider to escape. Other than that both a pc and a npc can't even use the ooze to aid their teammates as it might turn on them. Which is going to go over so well. Not to mention yeah no I don't waste valuable feat slots on extremely situational let alone situational garbage feats. I consider it both a feat tax and a trap. It would not be too bad if the requirements were not so steep. All that to get a mindless non-loyal ooze. No thanks.

Te'Shen wrote:


I now want to make a low level game where they fight to the villain's lair, he unleashes his ooze, and it eats him instead of the PCs.

Villain: No, NO! They are over THERE you dumb puddle... why don't you... ohgodohgodOHGOD! IT BURNS!... *gurgle*.

Hero 1: Well... that was... anticlimactic.

Hero 2: What should we do now?

Hero 1: Loot. Free some hostages... avoid the ooze.

Hero 2: Can I poke it with a stick?

Hero 1: ...NO.

LOL

Sounds like a B-movie in the making. It came formless from Golarion outer planes. Only to be awakened by a hapless victim and a stick.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Body Check: When you bullrush something into a hard surface, if you have extra movement left, deal damage.

I'd think fall distance + Str would work.

Sovereign Court

A person could have a lot of reasons to churn out oozes. They could use them to dispose of garbage or cadavers, make traps with them, weird science projects, etc, etc. Not every feat is a combat/spell/pet way to inflict pain or win combats. Many feats are not related to combat at all and just part of personality or backstory. This is just one of those feats I guess.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:
A person could have a lot of reasons to churn out oozes. They could use them to dispose of garbage or cadavers, make traps with them, weird science projects, etc, etc. Not every feat is a combat/spell/pet way to inflict pain or win combats. Many feats are not related to combat at all and just part of personality or backstory. This is just one of those feats I guess.

All good and well. Except unless the oozes are in a enclosed acid immune area they will get out. Since the are both dumb and uncontrollable a person creating them runs the risk of them getting loose. Attacking pm random people in a town or village. Which I'm sure is going to make the local lad enforcement very happy, they can't be used in a trap not unless it's the type where the ooze can't get out or burn its way out. As again they can't be controlled.

I get your point except that if they made the ooze either with some intelligence or loyal then they would have their uses. Having no control and no means to communicate is s problem. Might as well ask or bribe a Otyugh instead. Somewhat intelligent and if feed reasonable loyal.

Sczarni

There's also the fact that Alchemists can get the Bottled Ooze discovery.

They can't control their oozes either, but at least they have the security in knowing that their ooze only last 1 round/caster level. Just throw the vial off of a catwalk or through a window, and the ooze will go after the closer targets before it finds its way to you.

Liberty's Edge

Silent Saturn wrote:

There's also the fact that Alchemists can get the Bottled Ooze discovery.

They can't control their oozes either, but at least they have the security in knowing that their ooze only last 1 round/caster level. Just throw the vial off of a catwalk or through a window, and the ooze will go after the closer targets before it finds its way to you.

Well that is a improvement somewhat. Being able to keep it bottled up is something. Again why the lack of loyalty on the part of the ooze. When there is the Summon Monster spells.

Shadow Lodge

Spell Penetration: Evocation - Spell Penetration for Evocation spells of levels 0-3
Improved Spell Penetration: Evocation - Spell Penetration for Evocation spells of levels 4-6
Greater Improved Spell Penetration: Evocation - - Spell Penetration for Evocation spells of levels 7-9

Yeah, start treating spellcaster feats like they do martial feats...lots of feat taxes, long feat chains, and overly-specialized.


Kthulhu wrote:

Spell Penetration: Evocation - Spell Penetration for Evocation spells of levels 0-3

Improved Spell Penetration: Evocation - Spell Penetration for Evocation spells of levels 4-6
Greater Improved Spell Penetration: Evocation - - Spell Penetration for Evocation spells of levels 7-9

Yeah, start treating spellcaster feats like they do martial feats...lots of feat taxes, long feat chains, and overly-specialized.

Alternately

Fighter Patch: (combat feat)
prerequisite: fighter level 6
You receive the benefits of all feats with improved or greater in their name that you qualify for.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nah, mine is more fun, since you get to see overly entitled wizard players frothing at the mouth and rage-quitting.


Kthulhu wrote:
Nah, mine is more fun, since you get to see overly entitled wizard players frothing at the mouth and rage-quitting.

I get the tongue-in-cheek, but in reality that'd be terrible. Classes need to be made more interesting by allowing more possible actions. I only play wizards because I find martial characters about as engaging as watching paint dry. I shudder at the idea of bringing classes fortunate enough to have options down to their level.


A feat-based spellcasting system to represent a true dabbler; someone who only learns a small handful of spells, and still have them be useful, without having to commit to multiclassing. Like, say, a fighter who only knows Bull's Strength and Bear's Endurance, or a rogue who only knows Invisibility.

101 to 150 of 325 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What feats do you wish existed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.