How do you feel feats should work?


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

This came to me after an argument in another thread and as I thought about it I don't think we disagree on a fundamental level just on specifics. I've seen many ideas that I like, but realize they have to work in a variety of situations and can have ripple effects.

The main meat of one of the arguments iv seen is something of Spells Vrs Feats. Basically premise being spells scale and don't require any kind of allegiance to get while feats don't always scale and sometimes require a certain allegiance to get. (such as feat chains) I don't disagree that this is not necessarily perfect. I will say one pro however is a lot of feats can all be used together, and at once for combined effect for example dodge, toughness, power attack, weapon focus, improved cit, all can be happening at the same time for all intents and purposes.

So I'm just curious to see the different opinions on how they should work (just feats for this thread please)
what I ask is that you keep the following in mind.
1. we don't want to have to redesign the whole system on this thread so if the upgrades make it to where Joe Lotsafeats starts annihilating everything that comes at him then that is an issue.
2. keep it constructive don't just call names or say its stupid use reason and example if need be.
3. I would like them to be on equal terms don't boost 3 or so that you like without accepting that others would have to be improved as well.
4. Its ok if you think that nothing should be changed and there fine the way they are please give reasons why but accept others won't have your opinion and vice-versa.
5. It would be nice if it kept all styles comparable not the same but comparable so that a sword and board fighter still feels worth doing and a two-hander still has its advantages

Now I do like the idea of some feats being combined. I don't see a balance issue with all the disarm, trip, etc. feats becoming one feat that improves as you level. two weapon fighting is a candidate but I would have to see extensive number crunches to show that it wouldn't be to powerful when compared to alternative. EX. will it make the two weapon fighting too good not to take?

I'd like to also see if anyone thinks what the baseline should look like. It seems most people think power attack is a exceedingly good feat. It scales not everyone takes it or uses it every time but still feels essential to most melee builds. While some people feel dodge is not worth taking despite the fact it give a direct +1 ac that stacks with everything its opposite effect would be weapon focus and that makes you specify a weapon instead of a flat bonus.


Feats vary to much to really give them all a base value, but I do think that certain feats need to be improved, and some tax feats need to not be tax feats and/or improved. As a whole I like the system as is, but certain feats just make me ask "why".

Combat expertise requires investment in a dump stat to let a melee type do something besides hit point damage, assuming they want to go the combat maneuver route. That makes no sense to me.

Whirlwind attack has way to many prereqs, and the prereqs are actually better than the feat they lead up to.

I think dodge should be a scaling feat. Having it increase by +1 every 4 or 5 levels is not a bad idea. It would allow for the melee types to take some of the money they use on AC, and get items that are not part of the big 6.

The same goes for the feats that give a bonus to saves.

I dont know of anyone thinking power attack is exceedingly good. The common thing I see on the forums and in real life is that it should be an option that should not be a feat. If you want to swing harder at the risk of accuracy then you should just be able to do it.

As for sword and board maybe have feats that give them DR. That way they are trading offense for better defense than what they have, not that they don't put out decent damage, but the 2 hander, and a twf'er who is not dealing with DR do enough damage to make it not an optimal choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with you on a lot of that I think whirlwind attacks preq don't make a logical build up to it either the previous few are about staying mobile (or being hard to hit) whirlwind you stand and attack. I think if there going to be chains they should at least be linked.

Now do you feel that that increase to AC might make dodge a NO DUH feat for every class. 1 feat for +4/+5 ac? if its too good it becomes a automatic take then it shouldn't be a feat right?


I generally like the way the "Kirthfinder" houserules document handles it by making most feats scaling. TWF gets boosted to ITWF and then GTWF at the higher levels. It helps out those who have a limited number of feats not spend them all just to keep one type of combat competitive and those with feats to spare actually have room to spend them on things for flavor or diversity.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

I agree with you on a lot of that I think whirlwind attacks preq don't make a logical build up to it either the previous few are about staying mobile (or being hard to hit) whirlwind you stand and attack. I think if there going to be chains they should at least be linked.

Now do you feel that that increase to AC might make dodge a NO DUH feat for every class. 1 feat for +4/+5 ac? if its too good it becomes a automatic take then it shouldn't be a feat right?

I dont think it will be taken for every class, but I think any build(not really class) designed to fight on the front lines will take it, just like almost all two handers take power attack.

The Exchange

Combat stamina is the scaling buff to combat feats. Its effects are not amazing but appreciated. Also Fighters have had some love in the weapon masters handbook, and a little in armor masters handbook. Things get skewed when a weapon based character teams up with casters making their damage amazing but...who deserves the credit there.

casters getting 4+ spells per day for each feat a fighter gets is a joke (based on an 9th level caster with 4 base spells per level at max lvl). Spells scale automatically and have power jumps with each added spell, with no prerequisites. And then they get bonus feats so they can scribe scrolls, brew potions, craft wands, and wondrous items. And they get meta magic rods...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

I agree with you on a lot of that I think whirlwind attacks preq don't make a logical build up to it either the previous few are about staying mobile (or being hard to hit) whirlwind you stand and attack. I think if there going to be chains they should at least be linked.

Now do you feel that that increase to AC might make dodge a NO DUH feat for every class. 1 feat for +4/+5 ac? if its too good it becomes a automatic take then it shouldn't be a feat right?

One option to make dodge a worthy feat in the PF system would be to eliminate it completely and retool the save boosting feats.

Lightning Reflexes = +2 ref +2 dodge bonus
Great fortitude= +2 fort and natural armor
Iron Will = +2 will and Morale to AC

Note that theze are not intact.granted bonuses which overlap, but additions onto whatever value the feat.taker has (and therefore stack with them.)

Anyways, dodge and.mobility are silly prerequisites. We need to stop thinking in terms of prereqs and focus on making valuable feats worth taking on their own and holding for the entire game for their own value.

If you have such a feat, and wish to expand it into something more powerful/flexible by a HEAVY margin, then by all means create an expansion feat which requires the first.

Whirlwind Attack without prerequisites is the minimum standard of value for such feats.


To put the level of scaling required to balance this into perspectice, I have playtested a Fighter homebrew which got 5 total feats every 2 levels and basically free access to exotic weapons AND 3.0/3.5 feats on approval basis without breaking the game.


wraithstrike wrote:


Combat expertise requires investment in a dump stat to let a melee type do something besides hit point damage, assuming they want to go the combat maneuver route. That makes no sense to me.

I can't agree more with combat expertise. I've taken to given it as a free first level bonus feat ignoring pre-requisites to all full bab classes in my campaigns.

I feel the issue with a lot of feats is some of them should just be combat options by default for primary martial (full bab) and maybe some 3/4 guys but I'm not sure.

So you have your base list of combat maneuvers: Disarm, grapple etc...

I think there should be another list for the full bab classes which basically represents the first feat in a lot of these chains.

So things like: Cleave, Vital Strike, Power attack, Combat Expertise, Two weapon Fighting.

Would all just be Bonus maneuver for Full Bab Classes. I think this would really help them be less feat starved, give them more versatility in battle, and more importantly make the full Bab classes feel like the martial masters they should be.

And I think it would help get use out of some situational things like vital strike, it's usually not worth taking but if full Bab got it for free I'm sure there would be the odd situation where you would want to use it.


combat expertise is interesting to me because its basically a reverse power attack but is usually undesirable by everyone it probably because of a greater focus on offense then defense plus the way it works is little weird.

now you technically do have a base list of combat maneuvers you can do you can do all those combat maneuvers without the feats at all (just aoO are a thing)

i don't think you should automatically get all combat maneuver feats as you level up cause then how do you represent a character being extra good at a combat maneuver how do i express my character being particularly trained in disarming or sundering? I think i like the one feat maneuver method better one feat equals all the improves greater of the maneuver etc.

Vital strike probably needs to be tweeked a little anyways the concept of it i like.

As far as retooling the saving boosting feat I don't know how I feel about a feat gaining several loosely related effects means that if I have to be good at this one thing i have to also be good at this. also then you get things like great fortitude combined with toughness might as well just have a feat that boosts con all together. I think i would more like to see something like great fortitude: +2 fort then at level 5 re-roll save 1/day lvl:10 +4 to fort save lvl:15 reroll 3/per day lvl:20 always roll twice taker better. mian problem is I still think that then you have a SUPER capstone where every feat suddenly becomes uber at 20 so maybe just stop at the lvl 10 or 15 effect.

I think i prefer combat stamina as an option as opposed to an automatic ability I as a player might not like having to keep up with stamina and all the extra abilities my feats have.

I think the master craftsman feat should also allow you to make magic items without the item creation feat to address that issue and that would solve a lot of problems and is my personal house-rule.

You might be right wraithstrike now that i think about it if all feats where about as good as that version of dodge they would be other temptations so might not bother with dodge. Im also thinking you might have to do a lot of retooling cause if one feat can reduce your chance to be hit by 25% what if 3 make it 75% so now its a war of i better take accuracy feat so i don't get behind the defense feats. then classes without a lot can't catch up so you have to buff them so now its not power creep but power inflation.

I think i addressed everyone's suggestions keep them coming and feel free to counter any of the points above it makes me and everyone have to kind of reason through which is good!


Ideally I'd want feats to be bought with gold and time like wizard spells. But that's a foolish dream.

More realistically I think all feat chains should be collapsed into three feats max. The second feat would only require the first, and the third the second. First-step feat prerequisites should be simple and easy.


You know i think i would prefer for all feats to work like descriptions of your characters like my character is tough = toughness or my character is quick (lighting reflexes or improved init) instead of them being purely mechanical constructs sometimes.


The way they do in 5e. :P

Okay, okay, I'll be more constructive.

1) About twenty-five percent of the PF feats are inarguable trap options. Those all go in the garbage.

2) About fifty percent of the PF feats aren't trap options, but are highly situational. Those can either go in the garbage with the trap options or get folded into better feats as additional bonuses.

3) Only level and ability score restrictions on feats. No tax feats whatsoever, no class restrictions, none of that crap. Yes, this means the "Improved" feat chains are folded into the original feats. GMs who don't like their players getting all that power in one go can play another game. Pathfinder is fantasy superheroes, and it's time we all admitted that.

4) A ritual casting feat (hey, I told you I liked the way 5e does 'em).


Ffordesoon wrote:

The way they do in 5e. :P

Okay, okay, I'll be more constructive.

1) About twenty-five percent of the PF feats are inarguable trap options. Those all go in the garbage.

2) About fifty percent of the PF feats aren't trap options, but are highly situational. Those can either go in the garbage with the trap options or get folded into better feats as additional bonuses.

3) Only level and ability score restrictions on feats. No tax feats whatsoever, no class restrictions, none of that crap. Yes, this means the "Improved" feat chains are folded into the original feats. GMs who don't like their players getting all that power in one go can play another game. Pathfinder is fantasy superheroes, and it's time we all admitted that.

4) A ritual casting feat (hey, I told you I liked the way 5e does 'em).

i'm not saying your wrong on the trap options but could you define them a bit better. some people say anything that ins't optimized is a trap and there is some disagreement there.

as far as feat chains go what about feats that are specifically meant to work off each other or rather from each other? like the martial arts chains, or say combat reflexs and panther style.

Im ok with ritual casting for every class as a option but i think i prefer it as kind of a side thing not mainstream built into every class.


I think this is a very good patch:

The elephant in the room: Feat taxes in Pathfinder


And situational feats are just fine for a campaign where a lot of that situation will come up. Not every feat needs to be applicable in every situation.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Ffordesoon wrote:

The way they do in 5e. :P

Okay, okay, I'll be more constructive.

1) About twenty-five percent of the PF feats are inarguable trap options. Those all go in the garbage.

2) About fifty percent of the PF feats aren't trap options, but are highly situational. Those can either go in the garbage with the trap options or get folded into better feats as additional bonuses.

3) Only level and ability score restrictions on feats. No tax feats whatsoever, no class restrictions, none of that crap. Yes, this means the "Improved" feat chains are folded into the original feats. GMs who don't like their players getting all that power in one go can play another game. Pathfinder is fantasy superheroes, and it's time we all admitted that.

4) A ritual casting feat (hey, I told you I liked the way 5e does 'em).

i'm not saying your wrong on the trap options but could you define them a bit better. some people say anything that ins't optimized is a trap and there is some disagreement there.

as far as feat chains go what about feats that are specifically meant to work off each other or rather from each other? like the martial arts chains, or say combat reflexs and panther style.

Im ok with ritual casting for every class as a option but i think i prefer it as kind of a side thing not mainstream built into every class.

Feat slots are a valuable resource. With this in mind you should choose feats that are actually going to be useful, and improve your character. The best feats would definitely be missed if the GM said "you can't use this".

Trap feats tend to be basically a waste of a feat slot, and if the GM says "you can't use this feat" you likely wouldn't miss it. When you read a feat it has flavor text, giving you some idea of how it would play out in a movie or book. The mechanical text is how it actually works in the game. Sometimes the two do not match up, and/or the feat gives you an almost useless function which leads to the feat the GM can take away and it wont' matter.

Example of a good feat: Power attack is a feat that is very good for two-hander. Taking it away would have a very negative result on the character build.
Deadly Aim is "power attack" for archers. It is also a good feat.

Example of a trap feat: Prone Shooter is not worth feat. It is way too situational. I don't even know if it is worth a trait since you can go through an entire campaign and never be prone.

Whirlwind Attack is another. It doesn't help that the feat is already not that good, but on top of that you need several other feats to qualify for it. On top of that being surrounded is not really a good thing. Even if you have a high AC the enemies can just use aid another to make sure that at least one of them has decent chance to hit you.


RDM42 wrote:

And situational feats are just fine for a campaign where a lot of that situation will come up. Not every feat needs to be applicable in every situation.

There is a world of difference between Cold Resistance 20 situational and Galley Slave situational.

Far to many feats are on the Galley Slave end of the spectrum.

I would suggest that the rule of thumb with situational feats be that the more situational they are, the more they should blow general purpose options out of the water. If it is only going to come up very, very rarely in most campaigns, it should be balls to the wall amazing. If that ends up being too imbalancing in the campaigns where it does come up, then it probably shouldn't be made into a feat in the first place.

While we are at it, can we roll up the 20 or so different double skill booster feats into a single +2/+2->+4/+4 feat, to pair with Skill Focus's +3->+6.


something like useful in almost all situations +1 at the other end
useful almost never +8 (shouldn't even make ones like this really)
or more likely useful sometimes or on something not to helpful +4?


Snowblind wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

And situational feats are just fine for a campaign where a lot of that situation will come up. Not every feat needs to be applicable in every situation.

There is a world of difference between Cold Resistance 20 situational and Galley Slave situational.

Far to many feats are on the Galley Slave end of the spectrum.

I would suggest that the rule of thumb with situational feats be that the more situational they are, the more they should blow general purpose options out of the water. If it is only going to come up very, very rarely in most campaigns, it should be balls to the wall amazing. If that ends up being too imbalancing in the campaigns where it does come up, then it probably shouldn't be made into a feat in the first place.

While we are at it, can we roll up the 20 or so different double skill booster feats into a single +2/+2->+4/+4 feat, to pair with Skill Focus's +3->+6.

It can be completely normal average in a campaign where it comes up more and not valuable at all in a campaign where it doesn't. It doesn't need to be something which is good in every campaign.

If you aren't in a campaign where it's liable to come up often, here is the shocker - take something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think feats should have bigger number to be interesting.

The problem with situational feats is that they are situational. You can make a situational feat stronger, it doesn't change that it's situational.

If you make Lightning Reflexes into a +20, the feat is binary: completely useless (when you're not required to roll a save) or decisive (when you do)

This is not good gameplay. This is not fun.

Here is what a feat should do: Add active options that you can use often.

Lightning Reflexes:
You get a +2 bonus on all Fortitude saving throws.
Once per day you can use this feat to use the Defensive Roll Rogue Advanced Talent. If you do so, you lose the bonus granted by this feat on reflex saves until your next long rest.


All feats are useful except when they aren't.


RDM42 wrote:
All feats are useful except when they aren't.

Great.

How does stating that blindingly obvious information help meaningfully improve an RPG?

Actually, lets approach this from another angle.

How would you improve the Pathfinder feat system? Unless you think it is perfect as is, of course.


RDM42 wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

And situational feats are just fine for a campaign where a lot of that situation will come up. Not every feat needs to be applicable in every situation.

There is a world of difference between Cold Resistance 20 situational and Galley Slave situational.

Far to many feats are on the Galley Slave end of the spectrum.

I would suggest that the rule of thumb with situational feats be that the more situational they are, the more they should blow general purpose options out of the water. If it is only going to come up very, very rarely in most campaigns, it should be balls to the wall amazing. If that ends up being too imbalancing in the campaigns where it does come up, then it probably shouldn't be made into a feat in the first place.

While we are at it, can we roll up the 20 or so different double skill booster feats into a single +2/+2->+4/+4 feat, to pair with Skill Focus's +3->+6.

It can be completely normal average in a campaign where it comes up more and not valuable at all in a campaign where it doesn't. It doesn't need to be something which is good in every campaign.

Interesting so wouldn't weapon focus (except since its a specific weapon maybe that makes it like you say) or power attack (although you could say that since sometimes you might need the extra hit bonus it can be situational) would be ones usable in most situations, and toughness and dodge would be usable any time you are being attacked and hit. hmm i suppose if your very specific no feat is usable always every time in every action

Hmm I think one thing i've noticed is most of you guys think the combat maneuver feats should be condensed to one feat and the preq dropped

Overly niche feats seem to be generally disliked understandably so.(maybe NPC's could use them?)

some people (not all) like scaling feats better then static I think im still not sure about this one for some feats.

so when you guys say trap you mean that they seem good but once you take it you might not use it the whole campaign and its wasted correct? Hmm it would be a ordeal but ranking every feat on a list and cutting them off at some point would be maybe the way to fix that (like i said a lot of work)


Nothing is ever perfect, but nice false dichotomy there.

I don't see situational feats, however, as a problem.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I was always partial tbut nlesvongnpower attack and combat expertise as prerequisites but collapsing all the improved manuever feats intended two, one for the ones that chain of combat expertise (Improved finesse Manuevers) and one for the ones that chain off of power attack (improved power manuevers.). I think folks would be likely to take at least one of them and use them. .


Quote:


I don't see situational feats, however, as a problem.

How about so situational that they are are useless in campaigns that aren't tailored towards them (i.e. the vast majority of campaigns), and mediocre to useless even when in the ideal campaign. "Will not be seriously considered by 99.99% of players or GMs ever" can safely be rounded to "Will not be used", and given that most of those 99.99% are still going to have their time wasted reading options that they are never, ever, ever going to want, its also safe to call that option "bad".

Once again, "Cold Resistance 20" vs "Galley Slave". One is reasonable situational, the other is just bad. How do you feel about situational feats that approach Galley Slave levels of "situationalness". Because IMO Pathfinder has far too many feats in that category.

RDM42 wrote:

Nothing is ever perfect, but nice false dichotomy there.

Either it is perfect, and it can't be improved, or it isn't perfect and it can be improved. I don't see what's false about that. I also note that you didn't actually answer my question (either of them, actually, but one was semi-rhetorical so that's OK). Lets try this again.

How would you improve Pathfinder's feat system?


Not perfect but isn't in severe need of improvement?


RDM42 wrote:

And situational feats are just fine for a campaign where a lot of that situation will come up. Not every feat needs to be applicable in every situation.

Okay. What's an example of a campaign in which Elephant Stomp is "just fine."


RDM42 wrote:
Not perfect but isn't in severe need of improvement?

Then why the *BEEP* are you posting in a thread on the homebrew forums about changing how feats work??


137ben wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

And situational feats are just fine for a campaign where a lot of that situation will come up. Not every feat needs to be applicable in every situation.

Okay. What's an example of a campaign in which Elephant Stomp is "just fine."

Thats funny. I could swear that ' not every' leaves room for some feats to just be bad. So i guess my answer would be; tweak indvidual feats, the entire sysytem does not need an overhaul.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I wrote a feat design philosophy article way back when that might be relevant.


The 3.x system takes a foundational stance on character function design that they can't do x until they have a y qualifier.

From a design standpoint I think that this is a poor choice, but Paizo/WotC's design goals for their iterations of the 3.x system isn't exactly explicitly stated. 3.x, and Pathfinder specifically, have a very gamist mindset when it comes to design, which is clearly seen with their combat feats.

I akin the pathfinder system to the English language. Germanics mashing with romance languages, compounded on itself until it sort of forgets what it's roots were, now riddled with seas of self absorbed nuance.
It might sound like I hate 3.x. I don't, it's what I grew up on, and coming back to it now and again I just see things that make me frustrated. I adore their class/level stacking system and what they accomplished was a great feat.

For myself, when it comes to design, I try to emphasize the emulation of premodern combat over a videogame-esque strategy 'balance'. The fact that a spear fighter in 3.x is so neutered in comparison to how easy it is to employ the tactics you'd be able to do with a small amount of real world training is something that irks me to no end.

On the topic of feat trees versus scaling feats, I think it all comes down to simply the amount of feats that the baseline character is given. For an easy example, look at 5e. Few to none feats, but few to none needed for an 'optimal' character build.

I think there is also an underlying design issue (imo) with 3.75's OBSESSION with OP mechanical builds, and then the bloat and core options consisting of 75% 'trap' options. It essentially limits the amount of builds a character can optimally choose. I'm obviously speaking hyperbole with this point, but it exists. If PvP balance is really that much of a design goal then why create so many suboptimal choices? I understand that many of the small working parts that may be independently suboptimal may sometimes work together with eachother in a synergistic way, but that is not the universal case.

At the end of the day the reason why I come back to 3.x is not because it is a what I would judge for myself to be a well-designed game, but because it's community is currently so pervasive that if i can find no one to play other games with, I can still get my roleplay fix reliably. And also, the design 'flaws' and successes the system contains has taught me to be a better designer than i was before. And for that I am thankful.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

How I think it should work, is feats should all be things almost everyone could take.

Then martial characters should have some mundane mirror of the casting system with CL, slots per level, and things known.

Abilities should scale with this mundane CL, and their DC should scale with the level of slot they require.

there should be some kind of Mundane craft skill, etc.

each class would have their own rules of what ability modifier is used and when they take a failure chance. (A monk would gain a failure rate in heavy armor like arcane spells)

Levels 1-3 would be basically what we can do now, while 4-9 would be about equal to what casters do but in a mundane fashion. They can be countered like spells can but only if you're in range of the effect. Like someone is chanting an inspirational litany you could, provided you prepared or know the proper maneuver, counter it with your own maneuvers.

Etc.

to be clear I also think there should be a sub class of this more reliant on spirituality, and comes into a weird middle ground between magic and non-magic. this version probably would have arcane failure rate on armor.

most attacks would use normal AC, most buffs wouldn't stack or you could only Exude 1 buff at a time.(you can't inspire bonuses to attacks AND to will saves AND etc, unless you had a higher level slot ability that could specifically do those)

Most of these would be concentrate as swift or free actions(instead of whatever I just said).

And several abilities would be useful outside of combat, such as Maneuvers under the crafting school. Like the 5th level maneuver "Create Bridge" with a "cast" time of 1 hour and the ability to make a bridge of "C"L+10 feet in length. etc. it's of course outclassed by the 7th level spell Create Structure with a Cast time of 10 rounds, which could make a bridge, or maybe a wall, etc.

main casting stats would be Con, Int, and Wisdom. with con favoring unprepared, int favoring prepared, and wisdom gots both.


RDM42 wrote:
137ben wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

And situational feats are just fine for a campaign where a lot of that situation will come up. Not every feat needs to be applicable in every situation.

Okay. What's an example of a campaign in which Elephant Stomp is "just fine."
Thats funny. I could swear that ' not every' leaves room for some feats to just be bad. So i guess my answer would be; tweak indvidual feats, the entire sysytem does not need an overhaul.

yeah i feel like you guys are being a bit hard on him. Mostly ok thhe way it is but with changes to certain feats is just as viable an opinion as change the whole system. I kind of feel that ust don't use the bad feats is what a lot of players probably do now.


Cyrad wrote:
I wrote a feat design philosophy article way back when that might be relevant.

I like some of it and don't like other parts I think it Makes sense that finesse weaposn are auto finesseable. I don't like the manuvers being two massive feats i think i would prefer one feat that scaled from improved to greater etc. instead of one feat to encompass 1/2 of all of them. Also i don't like the power attack and martial mastery options being automatic at that point what feats do I take? Do you make other good options then at what point do those become automatic?

edit oh sorry quoted the wrong link meant to quote dark sephtiroths elephant in the room one!


Bandw2 wrote:

How I think it should work, is feats should all be things almost everyone could take.

Then martial characters should have some mundane mirror of the casting system with CL, slots per level, and things known.

Abilities should scale with this mundane CL, and their DC should scale with the level of slot they require.

there should be some kind of Mundane craft skill, etc.

each class would have their own rules of what ability modifier is used and when they take a failure chance. (A monk would gain a failure rate in heavy armor like arcane spells)

Levels 1-3 would be basically what we can do now, while 4-9 would be about equal to what casters do but in a mundane fashion. They can be countered like spells can but only if you're in range of the effect. Like someone is chanting an inspirational litany you could, provided you prepared or know the proper maneuver, counter it with your own maneuvers.

Etc.

to be clear I also think there should be a sub class of this more reliant on spirituality, and comes into a weird middle ground between magic and non-magic. this version probably would have arcane failure rate on armor.

most attacks would use normal AC, most buffs wouldn't stack or you could only Exude 1 buff at a time.(you can't inspire bonuses to attacks AND to will saves AND etc, unless you had a higher level slot ability that could specifically do those)

Most of these would be concentrate as swift or free actions(instead of whatever I just said).

And several abilities would be useful outside of combat, such as Maneuvers under the crafting school. Like the 5th level maneuver "Create Bridge" with a "cast" time of 1 hour and the ability to make a bridge of "C"L+10 feet in length. etc. it's of course outclassed by the 7th level spell Create Structure with a Cast time of 10 rounds, which could make a bridge, or maybe a wall, etc.

main casting stats would be Con, Int, and Wisdom. with con favoring unprepared, int favoring prepared, and wisdom gots both.

I have to say I dislike this approach having to memorize feats per day sounds awful reminds me to much of how 4th edition worked and I quit DnD because of 4th. Whats the difference between martial and mages when you have every class use the artisisan spell casting system. honestly i've never been a big fan of artisan method anyways just seems to be the best way to handle it on pen and paper. Its also grandfathered in and kind of is how one expect dnd wizards to work nowadays even though most fantasy is written with spells working that way.

I prefer feats to be bonuses that can be used at will or always on (toughness and power attack for example)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

I have to say I dislike this approach having to memorize feats per day sounds awful reminds me to much of how 4th edition worked and I quit DnD because of 4th. Whats the difference between martial and mages when you have every class use the artisisan spell casting system. honestly i've never been a big fan of artisan method anyways just seems to be the best way to handle it on pen and paper. Its also grandfathered in and kind of is how one expect dnd wizards to work nowadays even though most fantasy is written with spells working that way.

I prefer feats to be bonuses that can be used at will or always on (toughness and power attack for example)

If I could rewrite the whole system it'd behave like SoP.

Also the difference is like how arcane is good at one thing, divine is good at another, Physical would be good at long duration buffs(hours per day) and breaking on-going effects, altering the battlefield. Altering the campaign through back door stuff, etc.

Spiritual would be about self buffs and some blasting I think. Detection stuff, etc. making maneuvers not suck, literally eating magic.

Also they're still fundamentally played as a full martial character, however now you can attack every save, CMD and AC, and still feel effective.

They also wouldn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

The game is just balanced around resource expenditure, you see it a lot more in their recenter classes who have abilities per day or stuff like panache or inspiration points.


I like the spiritual approach for a whole new class like sounds very DBZ anime ish I think it would be cool to have a hardback with that theme kind of like the horror one but anime.

Yeah the martial power route was something they did in 4th. I don't mind it at all as a side add-on but all the base martial having it kind of takes away from the flavor I'm used to playing.

It actually sounds like the book of the nine swords. I wouldn't mind seeing the classes brought to pathfinder but i don't want the base ones to becomes them I thought it was cool but it really wasn't my thing.
Make me feel like then your left out of a way to have a character who is just good with weapons and does mundane things.


*sigh* I've come to this thread late...As a preface, I don't think it's possible to rebalance the feats in game without a significant rewrite of them. Either accept them as they are, or you have your work cut out for you (or me, in this case) if you want to rebalance the whole thing.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
You know i think i would prefer for all feats to work like descriptions of your characters like my character is tough = toughness or my character is quick (lighting reflexes or improved init) instead of them being purely mechanical constructs sometimes.

I'm confused. Is this not already the case? That is, if you describe your character as tough, they ought to have toughness (or a high constitution)? Doing otherwise seems...inconsistent.

Ffordesoon wrote:
3) Only level and ability score restrictions on feats. No tax feats whatsoever, no class restrictions, none of that crap.

I can't agree with this. Feat trees allow for progression of themes beyond what simple level scaling can accomplish. Eg. change deadly stroke to be an extension of vital strike (following the theme of "one devastating attack").

Snowblind wrote:
If it is only going to come up very, very rarely in most campaigns, it should be balls to the wall amazing. If that ends up being too imbalancing in the campaigns where it does come up, then it probably shouldn't be made into a feat in the first place.

This is very important. The goal should be for feats to, in general be "on par with each other" (whatever that means). If you have something more porwerful because of expected relevance, a campaign where it is constantly relevant makes it an overbearing option.

Alright I must ask something contentious, and back up my opinion on it with nothing but speculation...Should power attack (and friends) exist? I don't mean as a feat, I mean as an option at all. From what I can tell, it's a false choice in game. I don't seem to see a time where a player decides "I'm not going to power attack in this instance" other than at low level where weapon damage dice (and hit chance) is far more significant. But I don't have the play experience to know this for sure; So to others in the thread, is it common at medium to high levels that a martial with power attack would choose not to use it? And if so, what circumstances and how common is that situation?

My reasoning for removing it is two-fold. Combat in pathfinder is an abstraction. What your fighting style is, whether precise swings or savage, reckless blows, doesn't matter in terms of mechanics. It all boils down to bab + damage. In that case, saying "I'm going to swing for more damage" doesn't make sense, as your existing bab + damage represents that well enough. What you end up with, then, is a statistical increase in damage per round. More importantly, with the benefits of haste, other modifiers and especially pounce or multiple natural attacks, you end up with a very very large damage modifier. I expect this can create a balance problem at higher levels between a martial character with power attack and one without it, because the potential damage power attack offers becomes a very significant amount (as it's one of the few scaling feats). This is one major difference between Pathfinder and 5e. All numbers in 5e are a lot smaller by virtue of few feats and everything being 2-6 proficiency bonus over 20 levels.

However I do like scaling feats, and would like all feats to do one of two things: They provide a modifier to an existing ability (weapon focus, skill focus, vital strike), or they should provide some new ability (step up, circling mongoose, bodyguard). If the former, the feat should scale with level. If the latter, the feat should naturally scale with level as the user improves in other areas (damage for circling mongoose, bab & dex for bodyguard).

*Edit: One final thing of note. Feats should be to expand, improve and customize a character concept. They should not be gateways to one. This is why I think weapon finesse & agile maneuvers and the like should be freely available options, so that dex builds aren't behind a blockade. Similarly all combat maneuvers should not provoke attacks of opportunity so long as the initiator is considered armed when attempting the maneuver.


^^ No im not saying there not I'm just saying I like it that way. although I'm sure there is some that are not. now that i think about it i don't need all of them to be that way i do like the martial arts form s in general. maybe the theory then some of there implementations.


Ugh. The 3.x/PF casting system is horrible and gamey, why would you want to emulate it for martials for whom it makes even less sense?


No, it makes a lot of sense as one form of magic- ritual magic prepared in the morning and released at will.

It is pretty ridiculous for martials though. The key is breaking out of the assumption that its ok for martials to be weaker because they have more theoretical lasting power.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ranishe wrote:


Ffordesoon wrote:
3) Only level and ability score restrictions on feats. No tax feats whatsoever, no class restrictions, none of that crap.
I can't agree with this. Feat trees allow for progression of themes beyond what simple level scaling can accomplish. Eg. change deadly stroke to be an extension of vital strike (following the theme of "one devastating attack").

I think the opinion is the progression should come from an increase in BAB or skill ranks, not from requiring you get a whole new feat.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

No, it makes a lot of sense as one form of magic- ritual magic prepared in the morning and released at will.

It is pretty ridiculous for martials though. The key is breaking out of the assumption that its ok for martials to be weaker because they have more theoretical lasting power.

it really doesn't make sense with pathfinder though, since you DO NOT cast the spell and then release it later, you literally memorize the spell and forget it when it is cast.

the point is people prepare to do something, and didn't prepare to do it more than X. other people would just have maneuvers known, but they wouldn't be able to do as many per day as the prepared guy. The idea is people have limited stamina, but the guy who prepared specific things out get's more of them.

I also was thinking the full physical one would have the ability to try to push out another maneuver but have to make a fort save, if they fail they still do the maneuver but become fatigued and unable to perform maneuvers for the rest of the day.


Bandw2 wrote:
Ranishe wrote:


Ffordesoon wrote:
3) Only level and ability score restrictions on feats. No tax feats whatsoever, no class restrictions, none of that crap.
I can't agree with this. Feat trees allow for progression of themes beyond what simple level scaling can accomplish. Eg. change deadly stroke to be an extension of vital strike (following the theme of "one devastating attack").
I think the opinion is the progression should come from an increase in BAB or skill ranks, not from requiring you get a whole new feat.

For things like Skill Focus, Weapon Focus, Alertness, Vital Strike, Two Weapon Fighting I agree. But this shouldn't preclude other feats that expand on existing behavior in a new way. For example, something like Double Slice, Two Weapon Rend or Two Weapon Defense should have prerequisite feats (in this case, Two Weapon Fighting). Whether these feats should then also scale with BAB / ranks / level is then a decision to be made, but rolling Double Slice into Two Weapon Fighting (for example) will lead to very complex & overloaded feats, and taking Double Slice without Two Weapon Fighting doesn't make much sense, whether in the realm of mechanics or fluff.


The way I feel feats should work (and pretty much any other character option in the game), is that when you choose said feat or option, it gives a mechanically viable benefit that reinforces the story concept that its based on.

If there is going to be a basket-weaver feat, then it better darn well make basket weaving an option that works in the game world (if even only to grant magical crafting options, and/or social/economic benefits) that makes it viable.

Otherwise the "option" should instead just be left to character description, and not actually take up character option resources.

When it comes to feats, if they are going to be placed in a position that competes against scaling, changeable options, then they should have equivocal power mechanically.

However, when it comes to "fixing martials", I've been toying with the idea of changing the attack action to expand out to a technique system, where one performs a technique instead of an "attack", which opens the door to expanding and scaling options, similar to spells.

For example, cleave and whirlwind attack would be techniques instead of feats.. And once learned (through being taught, reading a manual, or witnessing it, etc), is simply added to your known techniques, like a wizard's spells known, and can be applied when circumstances would be appropriate.

This can take a lot of pressure off feats, and they can go back to being simpler options.
Though I still prefer feats to grant new mechanical options that change gameplay feel, rather than just increasing bonuses.
But that's how I feel about other aspects too (spells, magic items, etc).

Basically, I want a person to go "I'm making a Tough Guy, so I'm going to pick this feat called Die Hard" and have it change the way that character feels in the game compared to if he had picked a feat to be a powerhouse or nimble acrobat. Tough Guy should be able to wade into combat, and survive despite getting hit a lot, and even take advantage of the surprise and positioning this reckless abandon can bring him.
And it has to be a big enough change to really feel different, not something luck of the dice can emulate on a character who didn't pick the option.


Kaisoku wrote:
Basically, I want a person to go "I'm making a Tough Guy, so I'm going to pick this feat called Die Hard" and have it change the way that character feels in the game compared to if he had picked a feat to be a powerhouse or nimble acrobat. Tough Guy should be able to wade into combat, and survive despite getting hit a lot, and even take advantage of the surprise and positioning this reckless abandon...

This is not feats job. This is something that should be determined by stat distribution and class selection.

For instance the feat you're describing is called the Barbarian class.


Atarlost wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:
Basically, I want a person to go "I'm making a Tough Guy, so I'm going to pick this feat called Die Hard" and have it change the way that character feels in the game compared to if he had picked a feat to be a powerhouse or nimble acrobat. Tough Guy should be able to wade into combat, and survive despite getting hit a lot, and even take advantage of the surprise and positioning this reckless abandon...

This is not feats job. This is something that should be determined by stat distribution and class selection.

For instance the feat you're describing is called the Barbarian class.

Then precisely what DO you want out of feata?


Atarlost wrote:
This is not feats job.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, "Tough Guy" can be a Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, Monk, or even Wizard really, if he's going for a different kind of concept.

My reasoning? Since feats are selectable by anyone, they can deal with general themes that can either boost or add a facet of a character over and above the class, skill or equipment options.

1 to 50 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / How do you feel feats should work? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.