| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Broken traits are broken traits.
I've instituted an easier method for them:
+1 to a save
+1 and class skill to a skill
+2 to a skill
Or some other trait that seems sensible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meanwhile, the Half-Orc's Sacred Tattoo IS a Luck bonus.
Sweet, sweet Luck bonus. Mmmmm.
I can't be the only one bugged by this. Half-Orcs get a luck bonus from a tattoo while Halflings get a racial bonus from an ability that has luck in the freaking name.
At least they get adaptable luck, but still, that tattoo should be a racial bonus!
All of the conditional requirements amount to barriers to entry.
1.Do you have the necessary prereqs y/n
2.Are you Cha based, or have a good reason to keep your Cha high (a channeling cleric, maybe?). y/n
3.Do you not have the divine grace class feature y/n
If the answer to all of the above is yes, then congratulations. Divine Protection is utterly amazing for you. If the answer is no to 1, you can't get it. If the answer to 2 or 3 is no, it is a little better than iron will and friends.
That's what it looks like on paper.
That's how it plays out in practice.
Sneak attack looks like a highly conditional source of melee damage bonuses (ranged is a nightmare to get working) that requires a defensively weak d8 class with terrible accuracy to run around to the back of something big and scarey to shank it.
Sounds like it might suck on paper.
Oh, hey.
On paper==I didn't think about it enough.
While I consider leadership as too strong I allow the squire or torchbearer feats (without changing to leadership at level 7 and limited to non casters/4th level casters) for martial PCs (max 4th level casters).
The idea is that I don't want spellcasting cohorts or spellcasters with cohort bodyguards. But a fighter with a weapon bearer squire cohort would be ok.
|
Meanwhile, the Half-Orc's Sacred Tattoo IS a Luck bonus.
Sweet, sweet Luck bonus. Mmmmm.
I can't be the only one bugged by this. Half-Orcs get a luck bonus from a tattoo while Halflings get a racial bonus from an ability that has luck in the freaking name.
At least they get adaptable luck, but still, that tattoo should be a racial bonus!
Yeah, it's rather wonky. Although, to be frank, this sounds like a distinction between the two that was made without accounting for a trait doubling the bonus entirely.
It's corner enough that I'd probably be able to ask a GM to change it at any table. However, I'd then have to explain that I want it because Fate's Favored is broken. And I'd probably get turned away for pulling the same thing with Sacred Tattoo as well.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the world that it's only usable by a subset of a subset of a subset of characters.I think that on paper it's balancedIn what world?
Just because it's only broken for some characters doesn't mean it's not broken. I think most could see it at a glance; I certainly could.
When I first read it I thought it was wildly overpowered, but after considering it for a while I'm not so sure. I still think it's a bit too good, but not as wildly problematic as I originally thought it was.
For most classes that qualify, Divine Protection represents a +2 bonus or so - clerics, warpriests, inquisitors and druids don't normally invest heavily in charisma. If they do invest in charisma to use this feat, they're spending PB they could be spending elsewhere so the feat has a hidden cost. The problem child is the oracle, since he's heavily invested in charisma anyway.
But consider the oracle - he's the only divine caster who doesn't cast from wisdom, so his will save will be worse than any of the other divine casters. The cleric, warpriest, inquisitor and the druid all get strong fortitude saves - the oracle does not. Generally speaking, the Oracle has by far the worst saves in any divine class lineup. The poor fort save in particular is very problematic for melee oracles.
Let's compare a caster cleric at level 5 with a caster oracle at level 5. Both characters have a +5 modifier in their casting stat, a +2 modifier in constitution, and no bonus in dexterity or their non-casting mental stats. We'll ignore resistance bonuses to keep the math simpler, they'll affect both characters the same anyway.
The cleric has a fort save of +6, a reflex save of +1, and a will save of +9(!).
The oracle has a fort save of +3, a reflex save of +1, and a will save of +4(!).
Obviously the cleric is miles ahead of the oracle. The result is similar if you replace the cleric with other divine casters.
Enter Divine Protection. The cleric does not qualify, so he spends his feat on Great Fortitude instead.
The cleric has a fort save of +8, a reflex save of +1, and a will save of +9.
The oracle has a fort save of +8, a reflex save of +6, and a will save of +9.
Note that the gap has closed considerably. Fort saves and will saves are identical at this level, but the oracle has a solid advantage on reflex. He also scales better, since unlike the cleric he'll be getting save boosts to all three saves every time he upgrades his charisma.
My conclusion is still that the feat is flawed by scaling too well, but I don't necessarily think it's a terrible idea to give Oracles a feat option to help their saves keep up with other divine casters. My main issue with the feat is that the scaling is too good. Limiting it to only affecting Fortitude and Will saves and adjusting the scaling to be +1/2 modifier rather than a straight 1-1 trade would make the feat more palatable, but still give Oracles an excellent option to catch up in the saves game.
Divine protection could be fixed by using wisdom for oracles.
For most classes that qualify, Divine Protection represents a +2 bonus or so - clerics, warpriests, inquisitors and druids don't normally invest heavily in charisma.
Presumably this changes for high wealth/high level campaigns? A cleric who starts with 14 Charisma could wind up getting +7 or so to all saves from the feat with the right equipment / wishes.
For most classes that qualify, Divine Protection represents a +2 bonus or so - clerics, warpriests, inquisitors and druids don't normally invest heavily in charisma.Presumably this changes for high wealth/high level campaigns? A cleric who starts with 14 Charisma could wind up getting +7 or so to all saves from the feat with the right equipment / wishes.
14 to 24 charisma, so a +6 cha item and 4 consecutive wishes for increased charisma? Sure, that'd make Divine Protection better for him, but he's now spending 100k on wishes and 54k on a headband of mental prowess +6 (90k - 36k for inspired wisdom +6), whereas the other cleric would have a higher pb, a free feat slot, and 156k to spend on shoring up his saves while enjoying more spell slots and a higher save DC on all his spells.
Moreover, with the suggestion I made at the end of my post the 24 charisma Divine Protection cleric would be looking at a +3 bonus to fortitude and will saves. Certainly a useful bonus, but probably not worth the investment price.
Gunslinger. Getting rid of AoOs with guns for the price of one feat is, just, really strong.
Deft Shootist is the feat.
Not what I was referring to, but Deft Shootist certainly does the trick if your GM is canny enough to ban feats from the 2008 Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting. (Obviously, I wasn't.)
Gunslinger is the feat from that one, and it removes all AoOs, no questions asked, whether you have a grit point or not. You need a +4 BAB to qualify, though, so you may be able to get Deft Shootist first.
|
|
Gunslinger. Getting rid of AoOs with guns for the price of one feat is, just, really strong.
Deft Shootist is the feat.
Not what I was referring to, but Deft Shootist certainly does the trick if your GM is canny enough to ban feats from the 2008 Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting. (Obviously, I wasn't.)
Gunslinger is the feat from that one, and it removes all AoOs, no questions asked, whether you have a grit point or not. You need a +4 BAB to qualify, though, so you may be able to get Deft Shootist first.
Apologies, didn't know there was a feat just called Gunslinger.
And yes, if you tried you could grab Deft Shootist by level 3, although you'd probably be passing up Rapid Reload to rush Dodge and Mobility at that rate.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kudaku, it's broken because you took One Feat, it dovetailed with your primary stat, and you got +5 to all your saves, and you're now blowing away that cleric in saves.
It was basically put into the game to give Oracles super saves. It works awesomely for them, not so much to other casters...but it is still better then ANY OTHER SAVING THROW FEAT OUT THERE.
And it SCALES.
it's horribly bad game design. If they wanted oracles to have Cha to saves (seriously, what Oracle is NOT going to take this feat as a Cha caster?!?), then it should have simply been an extremely powerful class ability, ala the paladin.
I propose it an equivalent: If you have no Su, SP, or spellcasting ability, you get to add your Strength Modifier to all your saving throws to reflect your reliance on your own athletic ability and discipline. Req: Any 4 Combat Feats
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kudaku, it's broken because you took One Feat, it dovetailed with your primary stat, and you got +5 to all your saves, and you're now blowing away that cleric in saves.
It was basically put into the game to give Oracles super saves. It works awesomely for them, not so much to other casters...but it is still better then ANY OTHER SAVING THROW FEAT OUT THERE.
And it SCALES.
it's horribly bad game design. If they wanted oracles to have Cha to saves (seriously, what Oracle is NOT going to take this feat as a Cha caster?!?), then it should have simply been an extremely powerful class ability, ala the paladin.
I propose it an equivalent: If you have no Su, SP, or spellcasting ability, you get to add your Strength Modifier to all your saving throws to reflect your reliance on your own athletic ability and discipline. Req: Any 4 Combat Feats
==Aelryinth
Oh god I hope they do that. Fighters of the world, unite!
I wasn't really planning to add Divine Protection as a bonus feat, just kicking the idea around. I find it interesting that people would see it as a move against Fighters though. Some people say Fighters need to dump while others rail against dumping. I think that Fighters tend to get stuck with low Will saves and no way to counter the effects that failing them inflict (many casters can at least go, "Uh oh, it is a Will save monster, time for Protection from X")
My obsession with Fighters and low Will comes from the fact that one of my current PCs is only borderline playable due to this issue. Obviously I could have changed my point buy and feat selection to make his Will save better, but being a longtime veteran of APs who frequently got criticized for his PCs being too well rounded and "invincible" I lowered my guard and got stuck as the worthless bozo PC this time. I'll take Iron Will when I get the chance, but then I'll just fail Will saves 70% of the time instead of 80%.
I sometimes think that the game might work better if bad saves weren't quite so bad. It would certainly put a bit of a damper on certain caster shenanigans.
Kudaku, it's broken because you took One Feat, it dovetailed with your primary stat, and you got +5 to all your saves, and you're now blowing away that cleric in saves.
It was basically put into the game to give Oracles super saves. It works awesomely for them, not so much to other casters...but it is still better then ANY OTHER SAVING THROW FEAT OUT THERE.
And it SCALES.
it's horribly bad game design.
Did you read the part where I outlined an alternate and rather less powerful version of the feat that's more in line with what I want? Just curious, since you seem to have latched onto the math example. Might be wrong. :)
Just to be perfectly clear, I agree that Divine Power as it's currently written is too good a feat. With that said, I think having a feat that lets Oracles have at least mildly competitive saves compared to the other divine casters is a non-terrible idea. Divine Power overshot that goal by quite a bit, but it doesn't mean it's not a good idea to have a feat there that has extra synergy for oracles. :)uivalent: If you have no Su, SP, or spellcasting ability, you get to add your Strength Modifier to all your saving throws to reflect your reliance on your own athletic ability and discipline. Req: Any 4 Combat Feats
So it's a feat that helps fighters, late-game strength-rogues, strength-slayers, strength-brawlers, late-game cavaliers, strengthbucklers, and non-totem non-spell sunder late-game barbarians have better saves? I'm not crazy about it stacking with superstition, but I wouldn't really mind a feat that helped those classes have at least a small chance of surviving will-targeting effects.
Hm... You could make it a morale bonus to avoid stacking with Heroism and Superstition... Maybe not all three saves, pick two? You may just have given me an idea for some homebrew. :)
Sidetrack aside, I think you and me approach feats from different sides. Let's say I want to make slings better. They certainly need the help. I write something like this:
Expert Slinger:
Benefit: You can reload any weapon with 'sling' in the name as a free action.This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are using a sling or sling glove, you roll a D8 for damage (if medium-size) rather than a D4.
Now, the feat I just suggested gives the effect of three other feats (Juggle Load, Ammo Drop, Weapon Specialization). Would you agree that it's better than any other sling feat out there? Would you consider it overpowered?
Let's consider another example. Say I write an alternate version of Iron Will that grants a scaling bonus to will saves based on your fighter level: +2 is the baseline, goes up to +3 at fighter 2, and a +1 every two fighter levels thereafter. It mirrors the progression of a strong will save for another class perfectly. It's miles better than any other saves feat out there for a fighter. Is it overpowered?
I sometimes think that the game might work better if bad saves weren't quite so bad. It would certainly put a bit of a damper on certain caster shenanigans.
Breaking up the escalating gap between a strong and a poor save as the game goes on is a very popular first step when trying to fix 3.x's endgame. Having a strong save start at +2 and a weak save start at +0 but otherwise have the same progression, for example.
I sometimes think that the game might work better if bad saves weren't quite so bad. It would certainly put a bit of a damper on certain caster shenanigans.Breaking up the escalating gap between a strong and a poor save as the game goes on is a very popular first step when trying to fix 3.x's endgame. Having a strong save start at +2 and a weak save start at +0 but otherwise have the same progression, for example.
The fix could even be seperate of classes, but part of character advancement. +1 to all saves at every even level. +2 "Class" bonus to good saves at the first level of the class so multiclassing wouldn't let them stack. That also makes the MMOS dip far less attractive.
Like take 1 level of Vivisectionists and 5 of slayer and then take 5 levels of arcane trickster (pretend that you don't need the requirements) and how much sneak attack damage do you have?4d6 sneak attack, adding is hard apparently.
Yeah... I don't get it...
So if I took 1 level of oracle, 7 levels of barb, and 8 levels of Rage Prophet, how many rounds of rage do I have? Oh! I got to add???? Better ban that...
|
|
Deft Shootist is the feat.Gunslinger. Getting rid of AoOs with guns for the price of one feat is, just, really strong.
I know it's not as powerful as some of these other ones, but it certainly makes my life miserable when I'm running combats with my 2-gunslinger party!
The feat is almost vital for the gunslinger IMO, due to the longer reloading times and due to reloading firearms normally triggering an AoO. To be functional gunslingers need it, which requires Dodge and Mobility, and he'll need Rapid Reload too. That's four feats just to be able to load at your full rate of attack without getting shanked at least once every round for it.
Remember that bow users don't get an AoO for reloading; it's a free action to draw and string an arrow!
|
|
I propose it an equivalent: If you have no Su, SP, or spellcasting ability, you get to add your Strength Modifier to all your saving throws to reflect your reliance on your own athletic ability and discipline. Req: Any 4 Combat Feats
==Aelryinth
Hey, high DEX rogues and gunslingers need a DEX to all saves feat too! ;)
(just kidding, although I'll point out that they are in the low will save club too... oh! hey monk! I didn't see you there... ;) )
uivalent: If you have no Su, SP, or spellcasting ability, you get to add your Strength Modifier to all your saving throws to reflect your reliance on your own athletic ability and discipline. Req: Any 4 Combat FeatsSo it's a feat that helps fighters, late-game strength-rogues, strength-slayers, strength-brawlers, late-game cavaliers, strengthbucklers, and non-totem non-spell sunder late-game barbarians have better saves? I'm not crazy about it stacking with superstition, but I wouldn't really mind a feat that helped those classes have at least a small chance of surviving will-targeting effects.
It'll help Rogues who don't take Minor Magic; won't help Barbs since their Rage Powers are a Supernatural effect at later levels, unless they totally avoid the strongest powers of their class. Cavs okay, swashies okay.
If you made an Iron Will that scaled for Fighters, you're making a Fighter Power, i.e. a Rage Power equiv. It should be stronger then a normal feat.
As for the Sling, you just made a feat that turned it from a crappy weapon taking three feats to a weapon that might be on a par with a bow. It's definitely not an overpowered Feat.
All feats are relative n their own way.
the problem with Divine Protection is it gives a great bonus, AND it scales, AND it's restricted to Cha-using Divine casters.
Iron Will is available to anyone, and simply doesn't compare.
The best counter example would be if NO other saving throw feats existed but the core ones, but the Fighter only took one feat to get all 3 of them, and they scaled by level.
Would THAT be balanced in comparison? MAYBE- Fighters don't get spellcasting to up their saves, and their prime stat doesn't mesh with great saves.
Well, that's exactly what got done here. Most people have a hard time justifying why a primary, 9 level spellcaster gets Cha to all saves when they don't need it, but Rogues or Fighters that do, don't.
==Aelryinth
It'll help Rogues who don't take Minor Magic; won't help Barbs since their Rage Powers are a Supernatural effect at later levels, unless they totally avoid the strongest powers of their class. Cavs okay, swashies okay.
Barbarians, (strength) rogues and (strength) swashbucklers that intentionally choose subpar options to qualify? Yeah, I'd be OK with helping them out. :)
If you made an Iron Will that scaled for Fighters, you're making a Fighter Power, i.e. a Rage Power equiv. It should be stronger then a normal feat.
Okay, let's follow that line of thought. Is there inherently a difference between making a new feat that all classes can take (provided they qualify) but benefit fighters extra and a feat that anyone can take (provided they qualify) but benefit oracles extra?
That's the thing for me - I do think Oracles need a way to improve their saves, ideally one that is less attractive to the other divine casters. Divine Protection does that admirably. Granted, it overshot its target by quite a bit, but it's not inherently a bad idea. If we scale it back the way I suggested earlier, would you still be opposed to the existence of the feat? If so, what is your issue with the feat?
As for the other classes - I'd be perfectly happy to see other classes with terrible saves get better options as well - fighters, rogues, swashbucklers (!) and cavaliers could certainly use the help. Frankly I think Swashbucklers need the help even more than the fighter.
Divine Protection
--> Overpowered. By itself.
Not to mention the fact that it intrudes into a core feature of the Paladin class.
|
|
Or two feats, since we've established the Gunslinger feat as a viable and pre-req free alternative to Deft Shootist.
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and ignore that feat... yeahhhhhh...
Like take 1 level of Vivisectionists and 5 of slayer and then take 5 levels of arcane trickster (pretend that you don't need the requirements) and how much sneak attack damage do you have?4d6 sneak attack, adding is hard apparently.Yeah... I don't get it...
So if I took 1 level of oracle, 7 levels of barb, and 8 levels of Rage Prophet, how many rounds of rage do I have? Oh! I got to add???? Better ban that...
You'd have 16+con mod, all from the barbarian levels and assuming no feats or FCB to boost it.
Okay I'll help lay it out as both of you are missing what a vivisectionist does, you either didn't understand or didn't read it's ability.
At 1st level, a vivisectionist gains the sneak attack ability as a rogue of the same level. If a character already has sneak attack from another class, the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack’s extra damage dice (so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on).
So I have 1 vivi level for 1 effective rogue level (ERL)
Now add 5 slayer, it gets sneak attack at lv3 and every 3 lvs.So I'm lv6 now.
A slayer 6 has 2d6 sneak attack but my vivi says to stack it's levels with the sneak attack providing levels to get an ERL of 6 = 3d6 sneak attack.
Now I'll quote the arcane trickster
This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th). If an arcane trickster gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack.
So add 5 levels of it and I'll be 1 vivi 5 slayer 5 AT being an eleventh level character. If I had a rogue level instead of a vivi level I'd have 4d6 sneak attack. But the vivi says to stack the levels to determine the ERL, so I'm ERL of 11 for 6d6. But wait, now the arcane trickster says that if you get sneak attack from another source you add this much damage to that source. So now do you add the AT sneak attack again or not? but either way you're looking at 6d6 or 8d6 instead of 4d6
It'll help Rogues who don't take Minor Magic; won't help Barbs since their Rage Powers are a Supernatural effect at later levels, unless they totally avoid the strongest powers of their class. Cavs okay, swashies okay.Barbarians, (strength) rogues and (strength) swashbucklers that intentionally choose subpar options to qualify? Yeah, I'd be OK with helping them out. :)
If you made an Iron Will that scaled for Fighters, you're making a Fighter Power, i.e. a Rage Power equiv. It should be stronger then a normal feat.Okay, let's follow that line of thought. Is there inherently a difference between making a new feat that all classes can take (provided they qualify) but benefit fighters extra and a feat that anyone can take (provided they qualify) but benefit oracles extra?
That's the thing for me - I do think Oracles need a way to improve their saves, ideally one that is less attractive to the other divine casters. Divine Protection does that admirably. Granted, it overshot its target by quite a bit, but it's not inherently a bad idea. If we scale it back the way I suggested earlier, would you still be opposed to the existence of the feat? If so, what is your issue with the feat?
As for the other classes - I'd be perfectly happy to see other classes with terrible saves get better options as well - fighters, rogues, swashbucklers (!) and cavaliers could certainly use the help. Frankly I think Swashbucklers need the help even more than the fighter.
Well, the problem with Divine Protection is that it IS NOT available to all classes, only a small fraction of them, and it blatantly only works correctly for Oracles, other divine casters just get a minor bonus out of it.
It is so strong, they should have just made it a class feature. Except that would have stepped on Paladin toes. So instead they just made Oracles have to spend a feat for it.
yeah.
Feats that are good for someone but better for fighters is an old idea. The whole 'Only Fighters get stamaina benefits' for feats is part of that way of thinking.
I personally do exactly that, renaming Feats that are better for Fighters as Techniques and elevating them to equal Rage Powers.
My favorite is Iron Will. As a technique, this improves by the Fighter's Bravery Bonus.
However, Techniques can only be taken with Fighter bonus feats, so its a Rage Power equivalent. Furthermore, this is not a 9-level spellcasting class with lots of magical options behind it.
Having a great defensive feat that only gets BETTER for Oracles makes no sense at all. Especially since it dovetails with primary casting stat and can get monstrously huge because of it. Even the Grace of Paladins works off a SECONDARY stat!
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or two feats, since we've established the Gunslinger feat as a viable and pre-req free alternative to Deft Shootist.Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and ignore that feat... yeahhhhhh...
Considering I've had mixed, usually poor, success convincing my DM to let me bring 3.5 Pathfinder Setting stuff in, I usually grab Deft Shootist. The prereqs are both moderately useful anyway.