This is kind of subjective, but what does everyone think of a feat that can only be taken once but allows the use of a chosen class feature that was replaced by an archetype?
Overpowered? It all depends? Workable with additional restrictions?
Maybe removing the archetype ability that the original class ability replaced from use?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Overpowered. Technically it's "it all depends", but that's irrelevant when the most likely use is going to be the most overpowered ones. Giving up the replacement ability also doesn't help, as we'll soon see.
Archetypes are designed as package deals. "The archetype" is supposed to be pretty close in power to the original class. Any individual tradeoff however could be much stronger or weaker than what it replaces. Some examples:
A Empyreal Knight Paladin trades +Cha to all saves for the ability to speak Celestial. A Sword of Valor Paladin trades +Cha to all saves for +Cha to initiative and the ability to spend a smite or LoH to act in a surprise round. Not remotely balanced. The second one might have a place for certain builds but the first one is literally a single rank in Linguistics.
A Skirmisher Ranger literally has one replacement, learn tricks instead of spells. If they don't have to give up what they traded out when they take the feat, they're basically a gestalt normal/Skirmisher Ranger. Ditto Trapper Ranger, who only actually gives up spells and gains four different things. Even if they have to give up what they get from the tradeoff, they'd still get three abilities for free (as only one is "traded" for something).
Pick any Fighter archetype that trades out all Weapon Training/Armor Training. Especially if it trades it out piecemeal (as in, "this replaces Weapon Training 2"). Replace that to give yourself access to AAT or AWT (since now an archetype that would normally never have Weapon Training/Armor Training does).
I honestly cannot think of a way to make a feat like that without an entirely separate "modular archetype" system (which would defeat the point of the feat). Archetype ability trades are not zero-sum. An archetype trade is supposed to be zero-sum, but the individual abilities are most definitely not. And unless you could ensure they were (or at least weren't so hilariously unbalanced) the feat would be overpowered.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Overpowered. Only the archetypes that remove a class feature that are really good would bother taking it, and there are plenty of archetypes that do it. Also, many archetypes are based around the total package being re-balanced, not a 1:1 replacement recipe.
Simply put, this is in no way tenable.
it depends are they getting the class feature in addition do the ability they traded it out for or would the feat simply revert the changes to that spesific class feature if it reverted the change it could be more balenced (like this archetype is good for what im going for but this trade here that takes away x and give y is terible lets take this feat and keep x but not gain y)
Overpowered as proposed for the reasons stated above
A system similar to Variant MultiClassing that would eat several feats to give you back all the replaced class features might work better
doing a vmc to get back all traded away abilities would be pointless
Lady-J wrote: doing a vmc to get back all traded away abilities would be pointless Sorry, I was not clear in my wording
I meant a VMC to get the replaced class features in addition to the ones replacing them, not in place of them :-)
As if you were VMCing with the original class in a way
Or more accurately as if you were VMCing with the archetype to get all its alternate class features
still pointless as most of the better archetypes trade out stuff you dont want any ways spening just one feat to keep the one good thing the archetype takes away would be better
Should not be a feat. You as a dm working with a player to modify an archetype is a much better system and has the exact same effect. Besides in many cases the class abilities that are equivalent to a feat are indeed feats you can already get
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lady-J wrote: it depends are they getting the class feature in addition do the ability they traded it out for or would the feat simply revert the changes to that spesific class feature if it reverted the change it could be more balenced (like this archetype is good for what im going for but this trade here that takes away x and give y is terible lets take this feat and keep x but not gain y) Lady-J wrote: still pointless as most of the better archetypes trade out stuff you dont want any ways spening just one feat to keep the one good thing the archetype takes away would be better This is exactly why I said it's overpowered. If one of the tradeoffs is super unequal (Empyreal Knight) or the archetype only makes one important tradeoff (Trapper), the feat is brokenly overpowered. And as you so succinctly demonstrated, exactly what the feat would be used for.
to be fair both of those archetypes are garbage simply because they make a terible trade of class abilities that make the archetype not worth it
Okay, so pick a "good" archetype. What about Lore Warden? That's popular. Replace Know Thy Enemy and you get back Armor Training 2 (which becomes Armor Training 1) and you can take all the AAT stuff. All instead of +2 att/dam that only functions after a successful knowledge check.
For every ability that alters a normal class feature (Lion Shaman Druid) to make you pick a specific option (lion animal companion) the feat would also be a free powerup (removing the restrictions the archetype has).
A Vivisectionist Alchemist who swaps what it gives up will give up literally nothing compared to the base Alchemist (it only gives up bombs) to gain a bunch of free spells and the ability to replace Heal with Knowledge (Nature). Beastmorph Alchemist could give up the level 14 ability (which is powerful, but they already got pounce at 10) to extend their mutagens from 10 mins/level to hours/level, a power that was clearly and deliberately taken away from them.
for the fighter hands down i would allow them to take back one form of weapon or armor training lion shaman not much of a problem either lion is one of the best animal companions to have. only one from what you mentioned that may cause problems is the beast morph archetype so if he wants to make the feat he should be allowed to and then just take the requests to use it on a case by case basis but a majority of archetype abilities could be traded out with out it causing to much of an issue perhaps even make it a feat chain 1 feat to replace the archetype ability with the old one and a 2nd to allow you to use both
Lady-J wrote: it depends are they getting the class feature in addition do the ability they traded it out for or would the feat simply revert the changes to that spesific class feature if it reverted the change it could be more balenced (like this archetype is good for what im going for but this trade here that takes away x and give y is terible lets take this feat and keep x but not gain y) I was thinking along the lines of reverting a single class ability back to the core class that the archetype replaced.
It does have the side effect of impacting any higher level abilities that could potentially be based on the abilities given back.
Bob Bob Bob wrote: Okay, so pick a "good" archetype. What about Lore Warden? That's popular. Replace Know Thy Enemy and you get back Armor Training 2 (which becomes Armor Training 1) and you can take all the AAT stuff. All instead of +2 att/dam that only functions after a successful knowledge check.
Ok, for this hypothetical feat, the Lore Warden would give up +2 competence bonus on attacks and damage against a single creature (with a successful knowledge check) for a reduction of 1 more on armor check penalties, and an additional +1 max dex bonus on AC, while being allowed to move at normal speed in heavy armor.
I do not believe that the fighter would qualify for Advanced Armor Training, as due to AAT replacing what would otherwise be Armor Training 2's modifiers -- which are never gained by the Lore Warden.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
For every ability that alters a normal class feature (Lion Shaman Druid) to make you pick a specific option (lion animal companion) the feat would also be a free powerup (removing the restrictions the archetype has).
Granted, some restrictions would be removed, but those are hardly game breaking -- our Lion shaman would no longer be required to have a lion animal companion, and would revert back to the normal druid domains if those are chosen.
Quote:
A Vivisectionist Alchemist who swaps what it gives up will give up literally nothing compared to the base Alchemist (it only gives up bombs) to gain a bunch of free spells and the ability to replace Heal with Knowledge (Nature). Beastmorph Alchemist could give up the level 14 ability (which is powerful, but they already got pounce at 10) to extend their mutagens from 10 mins/level to hours/level, a power that was clearly and deliberately taken away from them.
Good point here. I would say that in order to use the feat, the archtype ability "returned for the original class ability" would have to actually have replaced an ability when the archetype was taken.
Quintain wrote:
Ok, for this hypothetical feat, the Lore Warden would give up +2 competence bonus on attacks and damage against a single creature (with a successful knowledge check) for a reduction of 1 more on armor check penalties, and an additional +1 max dex bonus on AC, while being allowed to move at normal speed in heavy armor.
I do not believe that the fighter would qualify for Advanced Armor Training, as due to AAT replacing what would otherwise be Armor Training 2's modifiers -- which are never gained by the Lore Warden.
fighter with armor training can take a feat that gets them a AAT ability (i think they can take it multiple times to get a deferent one each time)so if they got back armor training they could take it but it still wouldnt break anything
If an archetype replaces the base ability (like Armor Training 1) but doesn't replace further abilities (like Armor Training 2) then when you would get the higher level version you get the lower level version instead. And then once you have Armor Training, you can take this feat (with your bonus feats even) to get any AAT abilities.
Lion Shaman isn't particularly punishing, but it's one of many abilities that are "work like the base ability, but you must pick <specific option>". "Getting the original class ability back" would give them the exact same feature, just without the restrictions. Or nerfs, in the case of Clone Master Alchemist (who replaces bombs with lower damage bombs). I couldn't tell you if that's unbalancing but it's definitely a pure powerup. Quite possibly more than what a feat should give.
Bob,
I'm not 100% on what the Armor Master's Handbook opened up for fighters. However, besides the armor training I's bonuses (which aren't that significant, the feat would simply open up AAT (to be paid for feats), by adding a single feat tax to the tree.
It might be for a fighter, but that seems to be right in line with the power of a feat. A lot like Dodge opening up mobility/spring attack.
I understand the Lion Shaman and Clone Master alchemist, but since those abilities don't actually replace an ability (just a modify an ability -- essentially placing a nerf/restriction on top of an already existing ability, it wouldn't qualify for the feat.
Quintain wrote: Bob,
I'm not 100% on what the Armor Master's Handbook opened up for fighters. However, besides the armor training I's bonuses (which aren't that significant, the feat would simply open up AAT (to be paid for feats), by adding a single feat tax to the tree.
It might be for a fighter, but that seems to be right in line with the power of a feat. A lot like Dodge opening up mobility/spring attack.
I understand the Lion Shaman and Clone Master alchemist, but since those abilities don't actually replace an ability (just a modify an ability -- essentially placing a nerf/restriction on top of an already existing ability, it wouldn't qualify for the feat.
AAT and AWT only really made fighters less terible but they are still pretty terible
It's not equivalent to feat chains. It's more like a feat which gives you access to something like rage powers or rogue talents. You still need to take Extra <whatever> to get them, but without the feat you wouldn't be able to at all. And the power level is entirely based on what you're getting access to. Fighter is just convenient because pretty much every archetype gives up either Weapon Training or Armor Training and they recently added some much more powerful than what Fighters had before options that require that you have WT or AT. AAT is the weaker of the two, AWT is stronger. I'm just not going to hunt through every archetype to find one that gives up Weapon Training piecemeal, trades something weak for WT, and won't be disparaged as "garbage".
So the feat wouldn't work on things that say alter, just replace? Master Summoner's nerfed eidolon says "This ability replaces the summoner’s normal eidolon ability." Unarmed Fighter's limited version of Weapon Training says "This ability replaces weapon training 1, 2, 3, and 4.". Heck, Clone Master says "This otherwise functions as and replaces the standard alchemist bomb class feature." The only way I could see you preventing this is requiring GM intervention before allowing them to take the feat, but then we're past "overpowered" into "broken". Any feat that requires permission to take it depending on how you use it is bad.
I still stick by what I said before, technically it's "depends on how it's used" but practically that means "overpowered". And there's definitely some broken combos (Master Summoner with full power eidolon).
Quote:
So the feat wouldn't work on things that say alter, just replace? Master Summoner's nerfed eidolon says "This ability replaces the summoner’s normal eidolon ability."
I think you are focusing more on the text than the intent. There is no real exchange any of those abilities, but instead applies a restriction . Paizo put the word "replaces" in there to apply the archetype stacking rules.
This feat would take the ability of an archtype that was exchanged for a base class ability, remove the archetype ability and return the root class ability.
Each of the examples you are giving doesn't really replace the original ability with a new ability, but instead applies a restriction to the ability.
Quintain wrote: Quote:
So the feat wouldn't work on things that say alter, just replace? Master Summoner's nerfed eidolon says "This ability replaces the summoner’s normal eidolon ability."
I think you are focusing more on the text than the intent. There is no real exchange any of those abilities, but instead applies a restriction . Paizo put the word "replaces" in there to apply the archetype stacking rules.
This feat would take the ability of an archtype that was exchanged for a base class ability, remove the archetype ability and return the root class ability.
Each of the examples you are giving doesn't really replace the original ability with a new ability, but instead applies a restriction to the ability.
Intent? You expect your feat to function based on intent? I think there's at least a dozen petty slap-fights going on in the rules forum right now on what "intent" is, what would make your feat immune to everyone having their own interpretation? If you say the GM decides then we're right back to "the feat requires you to ask permission from the GM before you use it depending on how you use it". That's not a feat, that's a gentleman's agreement between the GM and player.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Like many have said before me, I think its overpowered. You could simply create feats that grant or emulate (single) specific class features, perhaps even scaling, because you can then take the individual class feature's power into account when deciding on the prerequisites (besides taking up a feat or maybe more). Familiar Bond and Eldritch Heritage are good examples of this method.
IMHO, a blanket general rule cannot be made and keep a good grip on play balance.
So if I was going to try and do something like this as an option I would have to look at each option traded in or out and see if a special feat for that class arch-type would be appropriate.
MDC
Bob Bob Bob wrote: Intent? You expect your feat to function based on intent? I think there's at least a dozen petty slap-fights going on in the rules forum right now on what "intent" is, what would make your feat immune to everyone having their own interpretation? If you say the GM decides then we're right back to "the feat requires you to ask permission from the GM before you use it depending on how you use it". That's not a feat, that's a gentleman's agreement between the GM and player. Considering that this feat doesn't actually exist, and we are discussing what-ifs, I think a more productive conversation would be to discuss the intent versus abusive interpretation of text.
Arcane Addict wrote: Like many have said before me, I think its overpowered. You could simply create feats that grant or emulate (single) specific class features, perhaps even scaling, because you can then take the individual class feature's power into account when deciding on the prerequisites (besides taking up a feat or maybe more). Familiar Bond and Eldritch Heritage are good examples of this method. Interesting. So you'd say that a restriction of only being able to impact class abilities of up to x level could be a potential limitation?
Quintain wrote: This is kind of subjective, but what does everyone think of a feat that can only be taken once but allows the use of a chosen class feature that was replaced by an archetype?
Overpowered? It all depends? Workable with additional restrictions?
Maybe removing the archetype ability that the original class ability replaced from use?
Subversive at the least. A major class decision should not be taken back at the mere price of a feat. A lot of what balances an archetype is what you give up for it.
If we can't discuss the specifics of the feat then there's really no point. I already said that the power of the feat depends on how it's used. It's a perfectly reasonable feat (power-wise) if the trade is not particularly strong. That's literally worthless as a criteria. Level limits won't work (Empyreal Knight is level 2). Language restrictions won't work (I already pointed out some of those). Archetype restrictions (as in, only certain archetypes could take it) would require way too much work (and at that point, why not do it for every replacement as well?). So what language you use to restrict the feat matters.
Right now you're basically saying "I have a great idea for a law. Let's not let bad people buy guns". I'm asking "How do you define bad people". Your response is "Don't worry about how we define it, just tell me if it's good". I can't answer that unless I know how it's actually worded.
If you're asking about the intent of the feat itself, it's a bad idea. People paid to do class design for a living have decided that that class needs to trade that class feature for that archetype. It was probably run past another designer and an editor as well. Whether it could be undone is something the designers might know (and we can guess at) but it's definitely not as simple as "yes, you can totally undo all archetype swaps with no problems". I would have expected something in Unchained if Paizo had found a way to do it.
Quintain wrote: Arcane Addict wrote: Like many have said before me, I think its overpowered. You could simply create feats that grant or emulate (single) specific class features, perhaps even scaling, because you can then take the individual class feature's power into account when deciding on the prerequisites (besides taking up a feat or maybe more). Familiar Bond and Eldritch Heritage are good examples of this method. Interesting. So you'd say that a restriction of only being able to impact class abilities of up to x level could be a potential limitation? Well, actually, no, I wasn't saying that. Classfeatures aren't created equally either. Bravery and Spellstrike are both normally gained at second level, for example. Bravery isn't really worth a featinvestment, if you ask me. Spellstrike definitely is worth it, but its also too good to give away for just that cost. Its these very disparate powerlevels which make a single general feat for regaining lost classfeatures such a difficult proposition.
That said, if you're deadset on creating such a feat you are getting a little closer to something that might work by keeping level in mind. It just isn't enough yet.
|
