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
What is the difference between this and just granting all such abilities freely? Can I say that my (level 1) character learned these techniques prior to the start of the adventure as part of his training in a martial academy (town guard, adventurer's guild, monster hunting apprentice)? If not, can I go to a trainer in this town to learn the ability? If not, can I just take the feat to learn the technique(but if such a technique is relatively freely available, why would I spend such a rare resource as a feat on it, and if it's still worth a feat why are you also offering it relatively freely)?
My issue with this line of thinking is the same can be said of any skill (craft especially), except those still take skill ranks. Handing out power & options without limit takes a lot away from their uniqueness & importance, and also from the potential power such things have. For example couldn't Weapon Focus / Specialization be accomplished through "taught, reading a manual, or witnessing it"? The purpose of feats (and features and skills etc) is to mechanize the abilities your character claims to be learning / practicing. Creating another set of options that are not feats (and thus have no limit) but aren't free options just complicates the game for no real gain.
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.
Of course, if all it takes to make a Tough Guy is a single feat, of which a character gets 10+ over their lifetime...most characters are going to end up the same aren't they? Imagine a set of feats, say around 10. Extra hit points, DR, energy resistances, bonuses to fort saves, ability to fight at low / negative health. Now you can take some, and have a Tough-ish Guy or take them all and have a real Tough Guy or take none of them because you're not building a Tough Guy. Then, you have to figure out how powerful each of those feats are, and your end result will change how your player feels by whatever amount. That is, when you get at least 5+ feats over an average campaign, you can't have every one significantly change how your player feels, especially when you're also gaining skills and other class features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still don't see why every feat needs to be able to work in every style of campaign.
...
Nobody is saying that but you. Straw-manning is mean. Stop it.
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...
I actually really like this whirlwind and cleave being combat maneuvers that the class gets at level X.
Still don't see why every feat needs to be able to work in every style of campaign. Some might only work well if you have a constant ocean going campaign, for example. And that's ok.
yeah that is not the complaint I've seen its that some feats are only usable in one particular circumstance. Additionally it may still even in that circumstance not be as good as other options
How do you guys feel about specific feats only being good for specific instances but are really geared more for npcs.
lets say you want your npc to be sniping the party and you want to give him all those weird sniping feats. normally a PC might not take them but maybe if your making a npc for on specific purpose then suddenly you have a way to do it and if a player says what you made that up you can be like nu-uh here it is!
If you think about some of them as DM tools does it reduce the number of Bad feats?
Then precisely what DO you want out of feata?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.
Finer scale customization. The gross themes should be handled by stat arrays and classes. Kaisoku's "tough guy" is a guy with lots of con even if he insists on building it as a non-barbarian. If something can be described in terms of strong, tough, quick, meditative, careful, or dashing it's a strength, con, dex, int, wis, or cha build. Any of those is only appropriate for some classes. The tough guy is only really a good fit for barbarian and kineticist (the latter of which is horrible theming).
Which style of kung fu your monk favors is a good example of what a feat should do.
you know that does make a lot of sense feats probably should be more like training then natural facets of the character I can see where your coming from.
1. i do generally give DM's free reign to make up as they wish but some people may not feel as comfortable with that plus there is also pathfinder society (i don't do it but i'm told some do)
2. Yeah I guess you would have to read though and decide do I feel this is going to come up enough to make it worth it as a player and I guess that is when you can fall into the "traps" but i would also say they are not exclusively for NPC either.
3. I think that to specific no matter the bonus however is bad. Every second Tuesday of the month I get +16 to this check is not going to work out ever. (heh unless you have a npc assassin that only hunts people on second Tuesdays)
|
Perhaps I don't have much to contribute, but I used to really like feats for the customization, now I view them like gear, a boring trawl through endless lists to find one I want to take. Then I give up and end up taking Power Attack, because I can't be arsed with it any more.
I'd rather have feats more like 5e or Fantasycraft, where they are much meatier choices. Yes every feat is not perfect for every character, but every feat feels like it gives you something in those systems.
3E is the system I grew up with and I give it a lot of leeway (and PF is essentially 3E), but the sheer number of feats out there that are just boring is incredible.
Hmm it really makes me feel that maybe pathfinder should put out a character optimization guide listing a number of feats under each class that would help one to make the character they have in mind and show what options they could do to build a concept. it would be like the class guide but more indebt and going though all their books.
I know there is a lot of optimization guides out there but they really only have one 2 build in mind and if we all followed them their would be about 2 characters ever for every class. It would be nice to have an organization of like here is every feat relateing to two weapon fighting here is everyone related to this combat maneuver that sort of thing.
@Ranishe
Been typing my posts via phone, so limited myself from going into enough detail or giving examples.
To explain and assuage, my thoughts are that most combat concepts (primarily defensive and combat styles) will have about 3 feats to master. My example of "Die Hard" was maybe the first or second feat of a 3 feat set for "take hits well" theme.
The idea is that the average person, with 10 character feats, will be able to master a single combat style (3), be decent at a secondary style or two (2), master or spread out some defensive ability (2-3), and still have a couple left for alternative character options (2-3 for crafting, skill boost, social, magic, etc).
To compare: currently the twf related feats counts into the 16 (12 if you pick only a single weapon combo).
.
Regarding the idea of techniques:
I only touched briefly on the subject, since this thread was about feats. But to explain my idea further, a character would gain automatic access to a number of techniques at each +1 BAB, sort of like a wizard's automatic spells per level. Further techniques can be learned from training with a master (pay gold, or story element), read from training manuals (found as teasure), or by having an ability to pick it up by fighting against it or watching it in combat (ability + skill check).
Technique are used as a standard action, but can do things like hit 3 adjacent enemies, or move half speed and make an attack that deals minimum damage dice roll, or deal damage plus a maneuver... or higher level techniques that allow a full move and deal 1x strength bonus damage to any enemies within reach, or an attack that deals minimum damage even on a miss.
Techniques will have minimum BAB requirements to learn, so higher level combat abilities can allow a fighter to produce similarly powerful combat attacks to spells or abilities (like death attacks).
I personally prefer to avoid per-day uses on martial abilities, so high powered attacks (like insta kill effects) would be kept behind specific parameters (requirements like hitting AC, plus a skill check, followed by fort save, and even then it may require a setup, like spending rounds/effort observing a target, and/or requiring a weakness like a target has to be stunned or dazed, etc).
But that's just my preference, its not intrinsic to the whole techniques concept.
Anyways, thumbs are tired. Hope that makes more sense.
For some examples I've been toying with, I just recently posted a bunch in the Automatically Improving Feats thread.
These feats are purposefully built over the top (in an effort to be inclusive and push the limits on playtesting), kind of like the kyrt-ryder's playtest with 5 feats every two levels, plus a bunch of gimmies, which didnt end up overpowering the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feats would be better served by actually being FEATS.
Things that let you do extraordinary, Herculean acts of strength, ridiculous cunning or luck, incredible agility, etc.
Most Feats do not fall into this category, Too many Feats either let you do something you should be able to do already (Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Unseat, etc.) or just give piddling +1-4 bonuses to a skill or attack roll (Weapon Focus, Alertness, Skill Focus, etc.).
Cut ALL of those. Make the ones that make sense like Power Attack built in system bonuses.
Retool the remainder into stuff that allow you to do things that are incredible in some way. Whirlwind Attack is a good example, now that it's not buried 6 Feats into a chain.
We need more Feats like Smash From the Air, and less Feats like Weapon Focus.
Making them automatically improve is a band-aid that works well within the system, but if we're talking about actually FIXING Feats, you have to make them exciting to take and provide options you otherwise couldn't have taken (without shaking your head and going "But I SHOULD be able to knock a guy off a horse without 3 Feats...").
@kaisoku now on my phone too. I like your talent system idea, although it is not one that I'd implement in my own games. One thing to keep in mind is if the extra techniques as a group of mechanics add enough depth to warrant the added complexity. Reminds me of the skill system in Divinity Original Sin.
I keep seeing it referenced but no one has answered me: should power attack, combat expertise & friends exist? Is there a time that a character with power attack will reasonably choose to not use it? When? How often does that happen?
Also, while I agree things like dodge, weapon focus, etc are boring feats (as Cyrad said in his blog post), I think they still have merit. It's a way for a character to further their abilities in a given field beyond what the base allows. For example a master who fights with nothing but longswords & has done so for years, one would expect to have some kind of bonus when using his signature weapon. Although....perhaps not....such a niche character idea, does it need to be supported?
according to PA mathmatics it's only really worse to do it if you're already going to miss.
just used my little graphing tool, it seems best case scenario you get a better DPR by about 1 damage when you need to roll above a 14
At higher BAB where power attack is better, this only happens at like 18 needed to-hit...
Feats would be better served by actually being FEATS.That's actually the worst thing to do with feats. That kind of thinking is how being able to ready an attack to hit the head of the dragon with more reach than you became locked behind a feat.
Unless a technique is truly esoteric and impossible to even attempt without specialized training (eg. stunning fist) it should probably not be a feat. There might be a feat that improves it or removes penalties like the current combat maneuver feats, but feats should with rare exceptions not be actions.
Executing that line of thinking incredibly poorly is what led to the current state of the game.
+1 to X, -1 to Y is boring. And handled by items, class features, and spells already. You don't need a side mechanic that introduces new ways to add that. Likewise, things like Strike Back and Unseat are TERRIBLE because they're the opposite of what I'm talking about. They take away options that should be readily available to anyone with a working set of limbs.
Which leaves, as you put it, techniques that are "truly esoteric and impossible to even attempt without specialized training".
I.e. interesting Feats. Exactly what I said they should be like.
New techniques, unique uses for certain class abilities (Die For Your Master is a cool example), and things that expand your repertoire beyond what you'd expect the average hero with PC stats could achieve (which, in a perfect system, would already include common sense options like Power Attack and Strike Back as just system options. Again, like I said in the post you only quoted part of.).
Yes, this significantly trims down the number of Feats in the game. This is a good thing, since you now have a smaller pool of options, but each is significant and unique. It makes the game simpler in a good way because it eliminates many trap options.
The downside to this is the developer can't pad out new releases with trash options that take away things people thought they could do or add circumstantial bonuses that only apply once every second blue moon.
Sad for them, maybe, but good for the player base and quality of the game as a whole.
I wasn't trolling with my last post, but I do find it amusing that it seemed to provoke a reaction. Is that trollish of me? :)
Someone (Vidmaster7, maybe?) asked what my definition of a trap feat is, and how that differs from situational/suboptimal feats. The answer is a question: will I be able to use this feat multiple times over the course of an average campaign without the GM going out of her way to create opportunities for me to use it? If so, it's not a valueless feat. If not, it is a trap option and might as well not exist - or shouldn't be officially supported, at any rate.
If I'm playing in the one campaign in all the world where being a skilled erotic baker matters, the GM can write some feats to boost my Profession (erotic baker) and Craft (fondant) skill checks. Writing feats is only slightly more difficult than writing custom moves for Dungeon World, and only because the mechanical bonus is separate from the fiction. If my GM is really serious about running The Great Erotic Bakery Caper in Pathfinder (which would be a colossally terrible idea since Pathfinder's not built for it, but that's a separate issue), she'll put in the work to customize the game to suit that premise.
Ranishe asked if "gimme" feats like Power Attack shouldn't just be folded into the natural course of character progression. I agree with that idea, actually. Gimme feats are the flip side of trap feats, and in their own way just as bad. I should have mentioned them in my first post.
I wasn't trolling with my last post, but I do find it amusing that it seemed to provoke a reaction. Is that trollish of me? :)
Someone (Vidmaster7, maybe?) asked what my definition of a trap feat is, and how that differs from situational/suboptimal feats. The answer is a question: will I be able to use this feat multiple times over the course of an average campaign without the GM going out of her way to create opportunities for me to use it? If so, it's not a valueless feat. If not, it is a trap option and might as well not exist - or shouldn't be officially supported, at any rate.
If I'm playing in the one campaign in all the world where being a skilled erotic baker matters, the GM can write some feats to boost my Profession (erotic baker) and Craft (fondant) skill checks. Writing feats is only slightly more difficult than writing custom moves for Dungeon World, and only because the mechanical bonus is separate from the fiction. If my GM is really serious about running The Great Erotic Bakery Caper in Pathfinder (which would be a colossally terrible idea since Pathfinder's not built for it, but that's a separate issue), she'll put in the work to customize the game to suit that premise.
Ranishe asked if "gimme" feats like Power Attack shouldn't just be folded into the natural course of character progression. I agree with that idea, actually. Gimme feats are the flip side of trap feats, and in their own way just as bad. I should have mentioned them in my first post.
soo I think the solution for your way would be to cut roughly the bottom and top 25% of feats (rated from best to worst) and use the 50% left in the middle.
I would just as soon drops the feats and forgo the options altogether for power attack, combat expertise etc rather then have them be automatic combat options. It gives more rules to keep track of and doesn't add much to the theme or rp elements of the game its purely mechanical. If the damage is to low after its removal just add some other bonus to the class elsewhere. you can already fight defensively and If your using your str to hit and damage then you pretty well already are "power attacking" by the theme of the feat.
@Ffordesoon To be clear I wasn't asking for power attack and friends to be rolled into natural progrrssing. I was asking for the options to be removed entirely (as Vidmaster7 said). Same for fighting defensively actually (and make total defense a standard action). There are too many numbers on this slider making for a lot of complexity for very little depth.
This has been brought up a few times: numerical feats (weapon focus, alertness, etc). Should such feats exist? They're boring, but they allow a player to spend a character building resource to further advance in a chosen field (fighting, skill use, saves, etc). Should players be given that option? One cannot spend skill points to improve bab at the moment for example.
I always thought the way that d20 Everquest handled feats was pretty cool, though I don't really remember the specifics... Heavily martial classes like Fighters still received bonus feats at regular intervals, as well as Wizards receiving metamagic feats every 5 levels. Besides these bonus feats, though, each character received a certain amount of Training Points each time they leveled. These Training Points could be saved up or used immediately in any amount. With them, you could buy feats, ability score increases, energy resistances, and probably a couple other things. Each thing had a different Training Point value, so you'd have to save up for a couple levels if you wanted a feat, or several levels if you wanted an ability score increase. If you wanted to go feat-crazy, though, you would average out to about 3 feats every 5 levels, which was an edge martials could get over casters that they can't get in Pathfinder.
Interesting there might be some balance issues in there (i mean i think a wizard would just put every point he had into INT. I would rather have a higher int as a wizard then literally anything else. although maybe if the cost to increase the same thing went up every time so first time cost 2 second time cost 4 etc. Then I could see it. Also feat would have to be about as good as an ability increase to make them worth which isn't bad you could argue power attack is worth about as much as 1 attribute point if not more. Other feats would have to be built to keep up with that and of course keep bonus feats for classes as well. basically you would replace everything on that one chart (you know the one with attribute increases and bonus feats at every other level) with points.
It does add a slight more amount of perplexity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually really like this whirlwind and cleave being combat maneuvers that the class gets at level X.
The Mutants & Mastermind 2E Mastermind's Manual introduced the notion of 'skill challenges,' which were basically stunts that were hard to pull off (+5 to the DC, on average), but you could buy a feat that removed that penalty, representing the character having actually trained at that 'stunt' like fast stealth or feinting multiple targets or whatever. I like that idea, sort of playing with the theory that every feat removes an option from the game (by making it explicit that you can't do X any more without the feat), by making at least some feats into options that anyone can do, but someone with the feat can do better/easier/faster.
The other notion I have on feats pertains to Fighters in particular. A part of me wants them to be able to wake up and say, 'ooh, today we are fighting driders, being a trip-focused fighter isn't going to work' and swap out his Fighter bonus feats, the same way that the Wizard can choose to prepare different spells when he's facing charm-resistant or fire-immune beasties. Ooh, we found a new +X glaive-guisarme that is very sexy and bane vs. what we are fighting in this adventure! Too bad I'm specialized and focused in the elven curve blade. Bam, one morning of practice with the new glaive-guisarme, and those feats are reassigned to the glaive-guisarme. It's a Vancian fighter. No need to wait until level X to swap a feat over, or use the (optional) retraining rules, it would be baked right into the class. Bonus feats pretty much are the 'class power' of a Fighter, and they should be, IMO, as good at swapping between them as a Wizard is swapping between spells, so that when a new book with combat feats comes out, just as new cleric spells represents new options available to pre-existimng clerics, the new combat feats represent options that a pre-existing Fighter could use, without 'changing his build' or starting a new character.
It just losses realism for me that way. Its nnot how i've ever read a warrior in fantasy as done it. Additionally as someone with fenceing training its not really how its done in real life. you train with the same weapon or form or whatever over and over and over till you turn it into a reflex. Not something you do every day to quickly pick and up learn how to fight a completely different way.
If you like that however I think there is an archetype that lets them get the brawler feat swap thing.
Who cares about what real life is like in a fantasy setting?
A lot of people actually its been said one of the differences between pathfinder and other fantasy RPG is pathfinder's mechanics feel like more linked with what might actually be happening in the story of the game.
Additionally Its not uncommon in at least the games I've played to occasionally draw from ones own personal experiences or knowledge to fix a problem in game. It gives you a point of reference as opposed to a complete divorce of logic in the game room. basically its easier to relate to if their is some realism involved.
As opposed to I swing my fish shooting out a line of faerie dust cutting the 200 headed griffin into a million gold coins!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a big gulf of middle ground between "complete divorce of logic"/"magical tea party" and "absolute realism".
The latter, stemming from statements like "Well, I can't do it in real life, so these fantasy characters with superhuman abilities can't do it" is of as much detriment to the game as your silly fairy dust strawman. That's what leads to things like weapon cords being nerfed because Jason Buhlman can't swing his computer mouse.
The Fighter being able to flexibly change up his fighting style on a day by day basis is not equivalent to "magical tea party rules" just because it's something you can't do. You can't survive a fall from orbit or climb a mountain one-handed in a thunderstorm, but a character in the game could do both of these.
Internal consistency is the only thing that matters, not how much the game adheres to real life. If the game is consistently realistic, then yes it should cleave close to RL physics. If not, as is clearly the case in this game, how things work IRL is basically irrelevant except as a reference point for how far beyond that the characters in this game can go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no fantasy literature im aware of Where a character on a day to day basis changes his entire fighting style.
but to go back to your question I care.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then I shall argue against the system (daily feat swapping) from a design standpoint. It adds a lot to the complexity of a class, because most efficient use of it revolves around swapping one set of features for another set of features all in the correct combinations. Add obscure feat chains with large prerequisite lists and a list literally of a thousand plus feats to choose from (even if you cut it down to the...800some combat feats?) and it would be a massive pain to manage correctly. And what does it grant? Flexibility (sort of) for the fighter?
Better to make options in general more accessible, and more generally useful. You want to make a trip focused character? 3-5 feats total (for all the obscure uses of trip if you really want extra things, but I struggle to think of any offhand), and allow it to be used against flying opponents, and lower the penalty against multi-limbed foes. Also make it work against those without legs (use it as a catch all "off balance" condition). Do that for all maneuvers. Cleave scales naturally, same with two weapon fighting and vital strike. New behavior for things like double slice and spring attack, etc etc. Make feats more generally useful (but still differing in power depending on situation) and you remove the situations where your trip focused fighter is against a flying (immune) foe and has no benefit from all his features. And hell, add martial flexibility as a feat (something like it exists already I believe) and now you can make use of such a feature if you like.
I dislike retraining when used commonly. In my mind, retraining rules must exist (one cannot expect a player to be locked in a character they don't enjoy playing because of a mechanical choice they made. They'll leave, or suicide the character, or find some other way around). However I would like them to be used as little as possible. But characters should have a character (and a focus) built up over their lifetime. Something that changes its behavior daily has no staying power. It would be akin to a character changing their personality daily. It's also why I like Spheres instead of the existing "you get everything" lists.
There is no fantasy literature im aware of Where a character on a day to day basis changes his entire fighting style.
And yet there are plenty of fantasy and non-fantasy games where that is the case.
Or were you under the impression that Pathfinder was just a book series?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to need examples and im not sure the relevancy of your last question.
still i'm going to go back to what i said you asked "Who cares about what real life is like in a fantasy setting?" I said I do?
I dislike the idea of a vantician feat system. What else do you want? do you want me to point by point describe every flaw and problem I have with it?
I'm going to need examples and im not sure the relevancy of your last question.
still i'm going to go back to what i said you asked "Who cares about what real life is like in a fantasy setting?" I said I do?
I dislike the idea of a vantician feat system. What else do you want? do you want me to point by point describe every flaw and problem I have with it?
Do some research yourself. You already have one example in the original post that mentioned it. You should also probably research what a rhetorical question is.
I never said you had to like it. You gave a reason for why you don't, I disagreed with your reasoning. If you don't want to argue your point, simply stop replying.
Then I shall argue against the system (daily feat swapping) from a design standpoint. It adds a lot to the complexity of a class, because most efficient use of it revolves around swapping one set of features for another set of features all in the correct combinations. Add obscure feat chains with large prerequisite lists and a list literally of a thousand plus feats to choose from (even if you cut it down to the...800some combat feats?) and it would be a massive pain to manage correctly. And what does it grant? Flexibility (sort of) for the fighter?
Better to make options in general more accessible, and more generally useful. You want to make a trip focused character? 3-5 feats total (for all the obscure uses of trip if you really want extra things, but I struggle to think of any offhand), and allow it to be used against flying opponents, and lower the penalty against multi-limbed foes. Also make it work against those without legs (use it as a catch all "off balance" condition). Do that for all maneuvers. Cleave scales naturally, same with two weapon fighting and vital strike. New behavior for things like double slice and spring attack, etc etc. Make feats more generally useful (but still differing in power depending on situation) and you remove the situations where your trip focused fighter is against a flying (immune) foe and has no benefit from all his features. And hell, add martial flexibility as a feat (something like it exists already I believe) and now you can make use of such a feature if you like.
I dislike retraining when used commonly. In my mind, retraining rules must exist (one cannot expect a player to be locked in a character they don't enjoy playing because of a mechanical choice they made. They'll leave, or suicide the character, or find some other way around). However I would like them to be used as little as possible. But characters should have a character (and a focus) built up over their lifetime. Something that changes its behavior daily has no staying power. It would be akin to a...
These are sensible reasons for not liking the mechanic in the game as written, but I think most of them are solved by a combination of the ideas posted beforehand (basically, trimming down the sheer number of Feats in the game to a manageable size without the chains of weird prereqs).
Doesn't fix the flavor issues, but how much character cohesion and being locked into a specific fighting style is important is going to be a matter of preference.
So, uh, you could technichally change your fighting style pretty well, at least if we're talking about the generic "sword" style of western europe.
You would practice for a bit on what you already knew, like how to counter a specific type of sword, etc, and would have changed your style slightly to better fight that sword.
you know, you don't like instantly learn and forget stuff, you just do some exercises to make something a habit and kill your previous habit, so that you can better fight for that day.
like curved swords are primarily slashing weapons with strong sideways, lowers and overhead quick slashes. When fighting them you'll need to keep your guard up and constantly readjust your swords placement to counter possible sword attacks. etc etc etc.
this is real swordplay btw, from European manuscripts.
like, practicing the >murderstroke< because you know you're coming up against people in full plate soon. You probably don't use that style all the time, so learning to quickly adjust to it and what not allows you to do it. in the middle of battle it's bad to do unpracticed moves because you'll be leaving your habit zone and perform worse.
At least band can put in a way that makes sense. Kryt-rider made an example that made sense (and is covered somewhat by the retraining rules) But none of it involved you forgetting everything one day and learning everything else brand new the next day.
You want me to do the research on a point your trying to back up?
You can't even list one example of something in literature where someone forgets everything and then relearns it 10 minutes later and goes on to use it effectively in combat?
The Example he already gave was him explaining What he had in mind. Its not an example of a fantasy book or real life that shows the idea of a vantician feat system is represented somewhere already in fantasy.
You can do suspension of disbelief cause the setting has dragons and magic that is fair its fantasy but the idea that every fighter in a game world has the ability to completely forget his training and relearn a completely different method every day is far to alien for me.
a unique back story for a character class that has a story behind The design might be able to justify it.
Alternatively as band says a week of training and rewireing your forms and methods could work and makes sense (and is covered by retraining rules)
I frankly don't think every character one plays should be a wizard or feel like playing a wizard.
Not all players might like the idea of playing essentially a new character every day.
Its fine as an option and the option is already semi available (the fighter archetype + brawler I mentioned earlier) But I would absolutely hate It being the baseline option for the class.
Your rhetorical question was a way to try to dismiss my argument I treated it as a actual question to show how it in and of itself is not enough. I'n other words the assumption no one cares if fantasy doesn't show qualities of reality statement implied by your question countered by saying no one cares if there is no reality at all in fantasy is as silly as responding to a rhetorical question.
and also for your "you can't survive a fall from orbit or climb a mountain one-handed in a thunderstorm, but a character in the game could do both of these." People have fallen from terminal velocity and lived It has happened however the fact that damage is capped at 20d6 for fall damage is probably inaccurate. It is at least feasible to imagine some one accomplishing those deeds. Still easier then imagine someone who has trained them self to forget their training and relearn a new training without a reference of how to learn it. (literally spontaneously learning new information with no source)
Wizards are at least able to justify it with with the header "magic" and it explains how it works Wizard basically trains their mind to be able to hold spells (which they have to have a source from like a spell book) The nature of magic they use erases the spell from their mind as if their mind was a living scroll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
like, practicing the >murderstroke<
...
Ugh, please tell me that smacking someone with the handle of a sharp stick doesn't require burning a feat slot.
This is the problem with it. The more "heroic feat"ish feats become, the less justified "oh my guy is just practicing some skills for a bit" becomes. Smacking someone in just the right way to turn them to stone is not something that gets learned and forgotten over the course of a day.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, it isn't a terrible idea, but it isn't realistic at all unless feats are a joke. OTOH, dudes with pointy sticks being a match for Beings of Phenomenal Cosmic Power(TM) is a bit of a joke, so YMMV.
At least band can put in a way that makes sense. Kryt-rider made an example that made sense (and is covered somewhat by the retraining rules) But none of it involved you forgetting everything one day and learning everything else brand new the next day.
You want me to do the research on a point your trying to back up?
You can't even list one example of something in literature where someone forgets everything and then relearns it 10 minutes later and goes on to use it effectively in combat?
The Example he already gave was him explaining What he had in mind. Its not an example of a fantasy book or real life that shows the idea of a vantician feat system is represented somewhere already in fantasy.
You can do suspension of disbelief cause the setting has dragons and magic that is fair its fantasy but the idea that every fighter in a game world has the ability to completely forget his training and relearn a completely different method every day is far to alien for me.
a unique back story for a character class that has a story behind The design might be able to justify it.Alternatively as band says a week of training and rewireing your forms and methods could work and makes sense (and is covered by retraining rules)
I frankly don't think every character one plays should be a wizard or feel like playing a wizard.
Not all players might like the idea of playing essentially a new character every day.
Its fine as an option and the option is already semi available (the fighter archetype + brawler I mentioned earlier) But I would absolutely hate It being the baseline option for the class.
Your rhetorical question was a way to try to dismiss my argument I treated it as a actual question to show how it in and of itself is not enough. I'n other words the assumption no one cares if fantasy doesn't show qualities of reality statement implied by your question countered by saying no one cares if there is no reality at all in fantasy is as silly as responding to a rhetorical question.
and also...
I was more thinking of a brawler's martial flexibility, but I forgot it was a move action. DAMN YOU PATH OF WAR! you made me think they swapped out the feats after 10 minutes of training in my noggin.
on Vancian martial "casting" PoW is how it's done. there's spells known classes and prepared casters, both are stuck based on their overall stamina, but prepared get a few more but are less flexible in the moment. you retrain for 10 minutes after combat to get your "spells per day" back.
I want you to look it up because you're the only one who cares. I could dig through the my brain and find examples (from Kingdoms of Amalur's "unweaving fate" to respec skill points, to Twig's Wyvern allowing the main character to rewrite his long term, short term, and muscle memory to fill specific tasks), but there's no point in doing so.
I could not care less about whether it's a common literary trope. This is a game. Vancian magic in the form D&D has it doesn't exist in literature either barring ones explicitly based on the game.
It's an irrelevant point you keep hammering for god knows what reason.
As for whether every player would like it...you can't please everyone. That will be the case no matter what. If you want to argue whether it's a good game mechanic, we can do that. I'm not sold on it myself.
I'm just saying using "but realism" and the even sillier "I can't think of a book it's in, therefore it shouldn't exist" are bad reasons to dismiss something offhand.
I want you to look it up because you're the only one who cares. I could dig through the my brain and find examples (from Kingdoms of Amalur's "unweaving fate" to respec skill points, to Twig's Wyvern allowing the main character to rewrite his long term, short term, and muscle memory to fill specific tasks), but there's no point in doing so.
I could not care less about whether it's a common literary trope. This is a game. Vancian magic in the form D&D has it doesn't exist in literature either barring ones explicitly based on the game.
It's an irrelevant point you keep hammering for god knows what reason.
As for whether every player would like it...you can't please everyone. That will be the case no matter what. If you want to argue whether it's a good game mechanic, we can do that. I'm not sold on it myself.
I'm just saying using "but realism" and the even sillier "I can't think of a book it's in, therefore it shouldn't exist" are bad reasons to dismiss something offhand.
I swear you are really just ignoring half of everything I post aren't you? just paying attention to the parts that continue your argument.
I was giving you the reasons I didn't like it cause I can't speak for anyone else.I'm sorry the reason " it doesn't make sense " isn't good enough for you.
Oh should I use the whole handle then? Bandw2 or a certain other preference (I probably used band cause it didn't make my spellchecker underline it.)
Oh should I use the whole handle then? Bandw2 or a certain other preference (I probably used band cause it didn't make my spellchecker underline it.)
probably, it just makes me pause for a moment and try to figure out if you're referencing me or something else.
|
|
It just losses realism for me that way. Its nnot how i've ever read a warrior in fantasy as done it. Additionally as someone with fenceing training its not really how its done in real life. You train with the same weapon or form or whatever over and over and over till you turn it into a reflex. Not something you do every day to quickly pick and up learn how to fight a completely different way.
I kind of agree, and yet, also, feel the same way about magic. I like non-Vancian systems, like GURPS, where a caster generally has to follow a progression of learning specific types of magic, starting with some wimpy fire spells before throwing the bigger fire spells, etc. Even MMOs like EverQuest have that sort of flavor, with different spells coming in tiers, and there sometimes being a base 'evocation' or 'abjuration' or whatever skill that needs to be progressed to successfully cast the bigger and badder evocation and abjuration spells (so that you'll be much better at it if you've cast a lot of lower-level evocation or abjuration spells on the way up).
In Vancian magic, you can go four levels without casting a single fire spell, getting by on magic missile, color spray, sleep, burning hands, glitterdust, acid arrow, etc. and then, bang, fifth level comes along and you suddenly can cast fireball, with no 'training' in fire magic at all. It's just a spell, alone in the universe, and only loosely to the rest of the magic system.
So I totally see why you'd dislike 'Vancian feats' for Fighters, since I don't really care for Vancian magic for casters. But it is what it is, and it would, IMO, at least help a little bit to balance the class roles if different classes could swap out abilities and be completely different day-to-day like the Cleric or Wizard swaps out spells.
There's no reason to limit that just to feats. Allowing a rogue to swap out a rogue talent or a barbarian to swap out a rage power on a daily basis, in a Vancian manner, might also be an interesting notion, if not germane to a thread about feats.
The 'behind the scenes' flavor would be that all Fighters attend some sort of fighting academy, or undergo some sort of military training, which is already sort of assumed (since every single Fighter is automatically proficient with all martial weapons, and all armor types, even if they are from cultures or time periods vastly far removed from his own). It would just go one step further and assume that every Fighter is at least taught the rudiments of all combat feats during his beginning training, enough that, with some practice on his own, he can 'remember' those techniques (at the cost of 'unlearning' whatever he was doing the day before, as he's in the wrong mental place to use whatever Feats he's chosen to forget).