| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always hated feats that stifle creativity and make a wall between something someone should be able to just do.
Three examples so far:
Barricade: You stack objects and create cover for one round. Requires 1 rank in engineering.
Diversion: You draw attention to yourself so your allies can be stealthy.
Fast Talk: You talk to someone prior to combat and make them have the "unaware" condition when combat starts. Requires 5 ranks in Bluff.
Why are these feats?!? This should be something anyone can do with an appropriate check and skill.
What other feats have you found that shouldn't be feats?
As for me, once I have a good look at all the feats, I'll be eliminating some, combining some, and adjusting some, depending on how good or bad they are.
I've always hated feats that stifle creativity and make a wall between something someone should be able to just do.
Three examples so far:
Barricade: You stack objects and create cover for one round. Requires 1 rank in engineering.
Diversion: You draw attention to yourself so your allies can be stealthy.
Fast Talk: You talk to someone prior to combat and make them have the "unaware" condition when combat starts. Requires 5 ranks in Bluff.Why are these feats?!? This should be something anyone can do with an appropriate check and skill.
What other feats have you found that shouldn't be feats?
As for me, once I have a good look at all the feats, I'll be eliminating some, combining some, and adjusting some, depending on how good or bad they are.
Been an issue I have had since 3.5. Feats are a fairly limited resource and you keep making more and more to start with. But then you invalidate normal options when you make new feats like those above.
Been an issue I have had since 3.5. Feats are a fairly limited resource and you keep making more and more to start with. But then you invalidate normal options when you make new feats like those above.
Yeah, it's an odd design area where putting out some feats actually reduces options for characters rather than adding. As having a feat that says 'You can do this' thus implies 'You could not do it before'.
I have always thought there was room for something like Alternity's skill tricks in 3.x/PF. In that system, once you reached a certain level of skill, you learned some special uses of the skill analogous to feats. Stuff like Diversion is perfect for that.
I'm guessing that you haven't had a chance to look at Pathfinder Unchained since the Skill Unlocks option is pretty much exactly this.
I have always thought there was room for something like Alternity's skill tricks in 3.x/PF. In that system, once you reached a certain level of skill, you learned some special uses of the skill analogous to feats. Stuff like Diversion is perfect for that.I'm guessing that you haven't had a chance to look at Pathfinder Unchained since the Skill Unlocks option is pretty much exactly this.
The difference is that in Alternity, it's automatic instead of having to spend a limited resource on it.
For feats that have only a skill prerequisite, I'll be making them a part of the skill. As soon as you have that many ranks in the skill, you get the feat automatically.
I still have to go through all the feats to ensure it'll work out ok, but that's the plan.
The feat is to put up a barricade in a single round, and have it hold up for a few rounds after an attack. That just means that it should probably take more than one round to make a barricade normally... which sounds about right.
The other two I'm more in agreement on.
You would think from design standpoint, there is much more control making extra skill abilities into feats rather than just adding more paragraphs to the skill rules. Piling more rules to skills makes it all cumulative. Sure, it is easy to add those feats to the skills since this is just the first book. But if you make that your set precedent, it is going to be a mess in the future.
I understand why they do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree with you on diversion and fast talk, Barricade is actually a pretty sweet feat. While the base idea is not something anyone should need a feat for (creating a barricade), this does two additional things for you:
- It lets you make a barricade granting partial cover (or upgrading partial cover to cover) as a move action, which is honestly blindingly fast. In Pathfinder, I would never allow people to create a barricade for themselves in such a short time, despite allowing many other kinds of 'player ingenuity' type actions. You can build this thing in the same round you attack.
- It lets you make a barricade in all environments that aren't 'specifically defined as barren', giving you traction with DMs that would otherwise consider the specific details of the environment when allowing you to use this ability or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You would think from design standpoint, there is much more control making extra skill abilities into feats rather than just adding more paragraphs to the skill rules. Piling more rules to skills makes it all cumulative. Sure, it is easy to add those feats to the skills since this is just the first book. But if you make that your set precedent, it is going to be a mess in the future.
I understand why they do it.
It would be even easier to simply not make feats that removes options by merely existing as a feat.
Design feats that add to the game and add options, rather than ones that take something someone should be able to just do and hide it behind a feat wall.
5e managed to do it quite well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be even easier to simply not make feats that removes options by merely existing as a feat.Design feats that add to the game and add options, rather than ones that take something someone should be able to just do and hide it behind a feat wall.
5e managed to do it quite well.
If these feats did not exist, and they were not incorporated into the skill rules, these options would not exists either.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If these feats did not exist, and they were not incorporated into the skill rules, these options would not exists either.
It would be even easier to simply not make feats that removes options by merely existing as a feat.Design feats that add to the game and add options, rather than ones that take something someone should be able to just do and hide it behind a feat wall.
5e managed to do it quite well.
Players would be able to make them up, which is what happens all the time when the rules don't prevent you from doing something anyone should be able to do.
But now, no one can try and create a diversion - something my players used to try and do all the time in various games. But it's a feat now, so if my players want to do it, they have to buy a feat with a limited resource.
The same thing happened in PF all the time, like when they made a feat that said, "You can break and object to gain a bonus on intimidation." I've seen players use that tactic all the time over the years, but as soon as they made a feat for it, it no longer became an option anyone could do. You now need a feat to do it.
Rules aren't generally permissive. You don't need a rule for every little thing to be able to do something. And players are generally creative and find ways to do things. But as soon as you make a rule that says, "you must expend this limited resource to do X," no one can do X without expending that resource. It stifles player creativity.
Players would be able to make them up, which is what happens all the time when the rules don't prevent you from doing something anyone should be able to do.But now, no one can try and create a diversion - something my players used to try and do all the time in various games. But it's a feat now, so if my players want to do it, they have to buy a feat with a limited resource.
The same thing happened in PF all the time, like when they made a feat that said, "You can break and object to gain a bonus on intimidation." I've seen players use that tactic all the time over the years, but as soon as they made a feat for it, it no longer became an option anyone could do. You now need a feat to do it.
Rules aren't generally permissive. You don't need a rule for every little thing to be able to do something. And players are generally creative and find ways to do things. But as soon as you make a rule that says, "you must expend this limited resource to do X," no one can do X without expending that resource. It stifles player creativity.
You can look at roleplaying from two mutually exclusive point of views. One embraces that our imagination is limitless, thus rules can only restrict options. The other way to see is that rules make imagination real and shared between all, increasing options everyone can have.
In the same vein, you suggested to make "feats that add options instead of removing them". To me, this is possible only if it is a case that nobody can imagine without help. And really, that is a foxhole if anything. I am myself not really big on improvisation as rule rather than exception, because it just makes things more wild west where you are on the mercy of that GM and his calls for your roleplaying rather than all playing by the same rules.
Well you could try to make a new system. Where each new ability is open for all characters, but you are very bad at it unless you hit a certain skill threshold. But that kind of system is lot harder to manage for everyone but the player. It can become a real mess easily, because those rules can pile up until nobody wants to run by the book.
Feats is somewhat of an compromise. They are easy to make, characters cannot get them retrospectively, everyone gets them and surprise, they make up lot of pages in lot of splatbooks as a result. They just work.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
snipping for brevity
Most feats do work. Most feats add options.
Some feats restrict options. Diversion is a feat which restricts options. PCs should be able to perform a diversion to help an ally without needing a feat for it. It should be something you can just do.
*All* 5e feats add options without restricting nor stifling creativity (some 5e UA playtest feats restricted options, and universally got poor reviews). So it's clearly possible for a game to have feats without stifling creativity.
Examples of SF feats which add options are: Iron Will, Armor Proficiency, Jet Dash, In Harms Way, Psychic Power, Toughness, Versatile Focus, etc...
Clearly, Paizo is also capable of making feats which add options rather than limit options.
Another example of a bad feat: Suppressive Fire. Something that I was able to do when I was in the army with a simple squad automatic weapon now requires a feat. No PC can lay down suppressive fire on an enemy without a feat. That's something anyone with a machine gun should be allowed to attempt - but nope! Need a feat!
Another example of a bad feat: Suppressive Fire. Something that I was able to do when I was in the army with a simple squad automatic weapon now requires a feat. No PC can lay down suppressive fire on an enemy without a feat. That's something anyone with a machine gun should be allowed to attempt - but nope! Need a feat!
Everyone can use the Covering Fire/Harrying Fire combat options without investment. The Suppresive Fire Feat lets you do it better (bonus to attack) and as an area effect.
Rules for Covering/Harrying are pages 246 and 247.
Do the feats require a skill check? If not I'd allow a check to use the ability without the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do the feats require a skill check? If not I'd allow a check to use the ability without the feat.
The ability of Fast Talk to give an enemy the Surprised condition does not require a check, but to give the Unaware condition it does.
That's actually really not bad for a Feat, since by giving them Unaware you give your whole group a Surprise Round, meaning that poor m#$*+%+##$$@ is likely toast.
Most feats do work. Most feats add options.Some feats restrict options. Diversion is a feat which restricts options. PCs should be able to perform a diversion to help an ally without needing a feat for it. It should be something you can just do.
*All* 5e feats add options without restricting nor stifling creativity (some 5e UA playtest feats restricted options, and universally got poor reviews). So it's clearly possible for a game to have feats without stifling creativity.
Examples of SF feats which add options are: Iron Will, Armor Proficiency, Jet Dash, In Harms Way, Psychic Power, Toughness, Versatile Focus, etc...
Clearly, Paizo is also capable of making feats which add options rather than limit options.
Another example of a bad feat: Suppressive Fire. Something that I was able to do when I was in the army with a simple squad automatic weapon now requires a feat. No PC can lay down suppressive fire on an enemy without a feat. That's something anyone with a machine gun should be allowed to attempt - but nope! Need a feat!
I do not personally see "just get more powerful" feats like iron will or toughness as meaningful options in a way. They do not evolve your character in some direction, they just make sure he does not die. In the same vein, I am not that impressed by 5th ed feats. They just make you more powerful.
But I digress a bit. I get it. I have been there, told my DM "I wanna chokehold this guy", find out it is a feat and can't do it. It is frustrating. But I do not see an alternative that does not turn into a mess. Imagine taking all grapple related feats and putting them into the grapple rules. Nobody wants 4 pages of grapple rules.
Not to mention if all the monk feats became part of the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another example of a bad feat: Suppressive Fire. Something that I was able to do when I was in the army with a simple squad automatic weapon now requires a feat. No PC can lay down suppressive fire on an enemy without a feat. That's something anyone with a machine gun should be allowed to attempt - but nope! Need a feat!Everyone can use the Covering Fire/Harrying Fire combat options without investment. The Suppresive Fire Feat lets you do it better (bonus to attack) and as an area effect.
Rules for Covering/Harrying are pages 246 and 247.
Well, that's good. I'm happy to be wrong about that. One down!
Do the feats require a skill check? If not I'd allow a check to use the ability without the feat.The ability of Fast Talk to give an enemy the Surprised condition does not require a check, but to give the Unaware condition it does.
That's actually really not bad for a Feat, since by giving them Unaware you give your whole group a Surprise Round, meaning that poor m$#~!+*%~+~# is likely toast.
Also reading over the First ability more the fact that you can start pretty much every* fight with an opponent Surprised to you with no check required is pretty strong.
*as long as they understand you and don't catch you by surprise.
Building a waist high barricade in 2 seconds out of beer cans and paper clips takes a feat..."Why are you carrying a trashbag full of beer cans?"
"You'll see..."
"It is because they aren't Ysoki. We carry that sort of stuff in our cheek pouches!"
Spits out some self-opening beer cans, then casts Handy Junkbot on them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uj0m?Some-issues-with-Starfinder#18 I linked my opinion on a bunch of feats here, since I did not know this discussion was already happening. So many feats should really just be skill options and combat options.
Big thing being Barricade and how it essentially says I need a feat to flip over a table.
You do not need a Feat to flip over a table. You need the Feat to make out a table out of scraps as a move action.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny thing is - even as I made a thread to b@%+$ about Barricade, one of my players saw that feat and thought it was the most awesome feat in the book.
Goes to show how different we all are. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uj0m?Some-issues-with-Starfinder#18 I linked my opinion on a bunch of feats here, since I did not know this discussion was already happening. So many feats should really just be skill options and combat options.
Big thing being Barricade and how it essentially says I need a feat to flip over a table.
No... It says you need Baricade to build a table out of scraps if there is no table to turn over.
Benefit: As a move action, you can stack and reinforce objects that are
too small or too fragile to provide cover into a single square of adjacent cover.Additionally, once it or a creature adjacent to it is hit by an attack, the barricade collapses at the beginning of your turn in 1d4 rounds
Tables don't collapse if the person they are providing cover to is shot.
A low obstacle (i.e., a wall half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (six squares). The attacker ignores the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target is.
A flipped over table meets the definition of a low obstacle.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do not need a Feat to flip over a table. You need the Feat to make out a table out of scraps as a move action.http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uj0m?Some-issues-with-Starfinder#18 I linked my opinion on a bunch of feats here, since I did not know this discussion was already happening. So many feats should really just be skill options and combat options.
Big thing being Barricade and how it essentially says I need a feat to flip over a table.
Apparently Dark Solarians are the new ninjas.
:3
|
Funny thing is - even as I made a thread to b&%@# about Barricade, one of my players saw that feat and thought it was the most awesome feat in the book.
Goes to show how different we all are. :)
This.
For me, it is pretty clear not all players are as creative with what they can do in PF and SF. For some players, what their sheets tell them they can do helps inspire their actions in a game. Just as much as I have players who prefer using their creative thinking over searching feats or features to do it for them.
Diversion is a perfect example of this. I know I would have some players who just ask me if they can distract some guards by roleplaying something out. Just as much as I know that I have players who rather have a concrete mechanical rules that permits them to do this which this feat provides.
I permit both and everyone is happy at my table.
The Barricade feat actually leaves a lot of GM leeway.
What objects are 'too small or too fragile to provide cover'? There's no rules for that so it's up to GM fiat in both directions.
If tables in a dive bar are not to small or too fragile to provide cover then you don't need the Barricade feat to turn them into cover.
On the other hand if the players are floating in the middle of an Ender's game type battle arena then the GM can rule that there are no objects to small or too fragile to turn them into cover.
Situations somewhere in the middle are what the Barricade feat are for.
I think this was covered in another thread - but the reason some of these might be feats is to make it feel like an unique choice rather than something anyone could do. I doubt many Soldiers are going to drop ranks in bluff to pick up either Diversion or Fast Talk - these are tools or a face character to contribute in combat (especially with Fast Talk) rather than something a Bruiser who dropped 1 point in Bluff then rolled a nat 20 on a check could manage to do.
I'm looking at diversion and the way I see it, it allows you a bit more than just "talking to the guy so the others can slip past". It allows you to distract the guy so others can disappear, even while they were previously being observed. I'd say that is feat worthy, and doesn't deny any basic uses of distracting people and what not.
I'll agree, Pathfinder had some bogus feats here and there, but all of these seem to be on the level as I see them.
Edit: To add to diversion, it reads more like a magician making his assistant disappear than anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic Blindfight shouldn't be a Feat either, but something you can attempt or get at a certain number of Perception ranks. And the problem with that logic is instead of having something be a Feat that anyone can really take you've now locked it behind a DC or certain number of ranks that some people can't achieve.
Diversion is an awesome ability that lets your allies use stealth checks when they normally wouldn't be able to. That goes beyond a skill check even though it, like a lot of feats, are tied to a Skill.
Blindflight currently has no prerequisites.
Diversion currently has no prerequisites.
Barricade has the requirement of 1 Rank in Engineering but requires no roll to activate.
Those are all feats you can take, and everybody has Feats.
"No, blindfight gets to be a feat cause it gives you a unique thing like being able to reroll when you miss due to being unable to see"
And how come you can't achieve this with a Perception roll or enough Ranks in Perception like you were suggesting for the other feats? There's nothing supernatural about the ability, it's completely mundane.
Why can't Psychic Power be something you achieve with a Mysticism roll or having enough ranks in Mysticism?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If these feats did not exist, and they were not incorporated into the skill rules, these options would not exists either.
It would be even easier to simply not make feats that removes options by merely existing as a feat.Design feats that add to the game and add options, rather than ones that take something someone should be able to just do and hide it behind a feat wall.
5e managed to do it quite well.
This is simply not true. I've had players constructing barricades long before dnd 3.0 came and brought feats into existence, let alone Starfinder was born and tgat soecific feat was designed.
What Bookrat is suggesting is that making «trip» a feat is bad, while «improved trip» allowing a AOO when enemy's fall is good. That way you don't put a feat wall standing in front of something peopke should be able to try
@Jacinto
... what?
Diversion is getting their attention so your allies can make stealth checks against them when normally they can't. That's why it's a Feat.
It has absolutely nothing to do with making them all attack you.
What Diversion does: As a Move Action you can use a Bluff check to allow your allies to roll Stealth Checks without any cover at all at any time, even mid-combat. In a game that abstracts line of sight to where you're looking in every direction at every moment, it now makes it so all enemies (or at least any that don't beat your Bluff check) are now looking directly at you, compared to the default version that instead is the opposite (you use that same bluff check to make those self-same creatures just not see your area.) Frankly I think being able to allow allies to literally be able to disappear from someone they were just actively shooting a moment ago is pretty well worth a feat, and arguably if it was a skill thing the DC would be much worse (considering you are potentially getting people to stop focusing on the Vesk with a plasma doshko right next to him to instead focus on the funny guy who just started shouting "Look at me!" across the room).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Diversion does: As a Move Action you can use a Bluff check to allow your allies to roll Stealth Checks without any cover at all at any time, even mid-combat. In a game that abstracts line of sight to where you're looking in every direction at every moment, it now makes it so all enemies (or at least any that don't beat your Bluff check) are now looking directly at you, compared to the default version that instead is the opposite (you use that same bluff check to make those self-same creatures just not see your area.) Frankly I think being able to allow allies to literally be able to disappear from someone they were just actively shooting a moment ago is pretty well worth a feat, and arguably if it was a skill thing the DC would be much worse (considering you are potentially getting people to stop focusing on the Vesk with a plasma doshko right next to him to instead focus on the funny guy who just started shouting "Look at me!" across the room).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't believe Starlord spent a feat on that and then only used it once in both movies.
I don't know how you are not seeing this. Feats are things that grant real special abilities.
Like Improved Unarmed Strike? Doesn't sound that special to me.
They had a design principle that feats were things that any class could learn, while class features required that you take that particular class. We will see how well they hold to that design, but that was the starting point.