I've heard many, MANY times lately to remove the feat tax. Which feats should be removed outright and which should simply no longer require some prereq feat?
My first thoughts:
- Point Blank Shot: +1 when within 30 ft, forgotten more often than remembered
- Precise Shot: eliminates -4 penalty when shooting in melee, instead just eliminate the penalty and the feat is not needed
- Combat Expertise: Nothing but a feat tax. I’ve never used it, but I have had to take it many times.
Your thoughts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combat Expertise is one of the most obvious.
For one, Fighting Defensively is already a thing.
Secondly, they require it for the most unrelated stuff imaginable... you have to fight defensively/extra smart/whatever in order to take Improved Trip? Improved Dirty Trick? Why?
Improved Unarmed Strike is another one.
Everyone should be able to make unarmed strikes without a feat just fine. It's something you can do naked. It's something children can do.
In fact, all of the Improved/Greater feats should be combined into one feat that unlocks the next feat's benefits at the proper BAB/level/skill rank/whatever. It's completely asinine for that to not just be the standard.
Dodge/Mobility...
For Whirlwind? Lol. Standing in one place swinging your weapon in a circle doesn't require you to dodge anything, or be mobile. What a joke.
Skill Focus and Signature Skill should be combined into one feat.
The Eldritch Heritage feats should scale/unlock from a single feat.
Agile Maneuvers/Weapon Finesse/Anything Grace... use your Dex if you want to.
Have it be like 5e where only weapons with Finesse could be used with Dex. Just have Effortless Lace add the Finesse property to whatever it is attached to, instead of what it does now.
Maybe people would take more than combat feats if they didn't have to waste half their resources on complete garbage prerequisites just so they can shoot a crossbow, or whatever.
Spellcasters can take one feat that will double the whatever of any of their spells, or reduce the time of any of their spells... it's three feats for a martial to reduce the time of one of their maneuvers. Just saying...
Yep. My group typically bundles Point Blank and Precise Shot together, but eliminating them both altogether isn't a bad idea either.
Power Attack, Piranha Strike and Deadly Aim are all baseline combat options and should be removed from the game. Same with Combat Expertise.
Combat Maneuver feats scale into their Greater versions.
Two Weapon Fighting, including double slice, is a scaling feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen combat expertise used by a player who was maxing AC but just the once. It is almost always a feat tax.
The Elephant in the Room feat tax removal covers the main combat feat taxes.
I've heard many, MANY times lately to remove the feat tax. Which feats should be removed outright and which should simply no longer require some prereq feat?
My first thoughts:
[list]Point Blank Shot: +1 when within 30 ft, forgotten more often than remembered
If you cannot keep track of your bonuses, you have much larger problems than PBS.
We've included Power Attack (and all it's variations), Combat Expertise*, and Heighten Spell as free feats for everyone who qualifies.
*Made that one better and reduced the prerequisites.
Improved and Greater versions of feats are unlocked as you qualify for them (Two Weapon Fighting, Cleave, etc)
Combined a few, like Dodge/Mobility and Silent/Still Spell.
Just gave a bunch of feats a general boost (Spring Attack and Vital Strike work on a charge, Skill Focus gives bigger bonus and/or bonuses to more skills).
Feats are weird. There's basically an infinite number of them; you could come up with new ones all day. So there's going to be some bad ones and some stupidly good ones. I think the biggest issue is recognizing when a feat outlines something that everyone should just...be able to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weirdly, I'm okay with martial feats because they help separate out martials from casters.
The problem is that martials end up being so dependent on feats that they can't afford to spare any on anything but their build without seriously compromising their effectiveness...
I like the feat tax concept, it's a good way to make better feats more expensive than worse feats. Unfortunately, feat prerequisites are based on theme rather than power, so the opportunity is missed. The style feats are a much better take on the concept.
I'd fix redundant and weak feats before figuring out what to do with feat taxes.
Ok, lets see.
Combat expertise
I would outright change this to work with fighting defensibly. Fighting defensively typically give you a +2 to AC in exchange for a -4 to hit. With this feat you now get a +4 to AC in exchange for a -2 to hit. No int 13 prerequisite. Done.
Improved disarm
No combat expertise prerequisite, change bonus to +4.
Improve feint
No combat expertise prerequisite.
Improved Trip
No combat expertise prerequisite, change bonus to +4.
Whirlwind attack
No prerequisites feats keep dex 13 and bab +4.
Stand still
No combat reflexes prerequisite.
Two weapon fighting
Drop the prerequisite to dex 13. I'm tired of seeing nothing but dex base build.
Improved two-weapon fighting
prerequisite of two weapon fighting and +3 bab.
Guess could keep going but I'll stop for now, most people can see where I'm going with this anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the biggest issue is recognizing when a feat outlines something that everyone should just...be able to do.
This is how I feel about the feat strike back.
More than once I've had players ask me if they can do what this feat lets them do and I think my answer was always "ok, no problem", because it seemed like a reasonable thing for the character to be able to do (when the monster in question is using natural attacks). The first time I saw this feat my immediate response was "WTF? that's stupid! It shouldn't cost you a feat to do that." and then I saw it's pre-reqs... "WTF!!!? that's REALLY stupid"
I don't have a problem with one feat being required to unlock another feat. But they should synergize. If I want to be able to do the thing that Feat C lets me do then Feats B and A (Feat C's pre-reqs) should reasonably also be things that I want to do. Combat Expertise is fine as it is, the problem is that it is required to do umptine million other things that are completely un-related to raising your AC.
I presently have a character who uses combat expertise all the time, but only because I ran across this trait that makes its use at low levels completely free.
Two-Weapon Fighting should be a single feat that scales in power as you level up. You would simply gain an additional attack if your Base attack bonus would reach +11 and +16.
For example, people say IUS is a feat tax. Have you ever tried something like giving a friend a foam stick to defend themselves and then trying to get a touch on them without them getting an opening to swing at you? You know now why IUS is considered a feat...
This is the dumbest reason possible to make a design decision in a game where you can suplex dragons. Also gauntlets let you throw "punches" with no issues.
A penalty for shooting into melee still makes sense. You're not taking possible shots, because you don't want to hit an ally on accident.
Maybe just reduce the penalty. -2 or even -1 should be fine. Then you can keep Precise Shot as reducing that penalty. If the penalty is small, then taking Precise Shot isn't such a no-brainer and frees you to take other options.
Also gauntlets let you throw "punches" with no issues.
That's more of a problem with gauntlets. They should just be crummy weapons. Completely divorce them from unarmed strikes.
Precise Shot is a feat tax because the entire concept is false in the way this game has chosen to execute it. Shooting into melee should have a penalty assuming that you care not to hit your allies. But shooting into melee doesn't make you a worse shot...
The penalty for shooting into melee should be TIME. You can only fire one arrow/bolt/ray per round due to the extra careful aiming required to not hit your allies. It would be well worth a feat to be able to full attack into melee rather than take single, albeit well aimed, shots.
But there actually is no penalty for shooting into melee. If you miss the AC of your enemy target, you just miss. Whether you have Precise Shot or not, you never hit your allies on a miss... so the whole concept is wasted in its entirety.
They created a penalty only to have a reason to create the feat to get rid of it, and only that just to prolong your access to more meaningful feats... the very definition of a feat tax.
Also gauntlets let you throw "punches" with no issues.That's more of a problem with gauntlets. They should just be crummy weapons. Completely divorce them from unarmed strikes.
They ARE crummy weapons. 1d3 damage. They however don't provoke unarmed strikes like Brass Knuckles, Cestus and then where do you draw the line with other short weapons? Realistically, someone with a dagger has a very poor shot at getting close enough without getting murdered by someone with a longsword. That's why that train of thought is kinda dumb.
A penalty for shooting into melee still makes sense. You're not taking possible shots, because you don't want to hit an ally on accident.
Maybe just reduce the penalty. -2 or even -1 should be fine. Then you can keep Precise Shot as reducing that penalty. If the penalty is small, then taking Precise Shot isn't such a no-brainer and frees you to take other options.
I've always felt that Precise Shot kind of double dips the cover rules. If you are shooting through an ally's square the enemy gets a +2 cover bonus but if they are also adjacent to the enemy then suddenly they get another -4 whether the distance is 100 feet or 10 feet. And the -4 still applies even if your ally is on the opposite side and you are essentially shooting your target in the back.
And even if the penalty was -100, and you rolled a natural 1... it's still impossible to accidentally shoot your teammate. So why even have a penalty at all? There is no risk associated with failure. If you miss, you miss, exactly as if you had missed a target not actively involved in melee.
The idea is that you're not even trying a shot where hitting your ally is a possibility. I agree that it'd be better represented by taking more time, but the game isn't well suited to a mechanic like that.
It would be similar to increasing the casting time of a spell for a spontaneous caster using metamagic. Or, if the penalty for shooting into melee cannot be worked out using time, then make it so you hit your ally closest to your intended target if you miss... maybe make it miss by 5 or more like a lot of other things.
Now that -4 penalty turns a miss by one, into a miss by 5, and you end up hitting your ally. Suddenly you have your party pressuring you to take Precise Shot.
Improved Unarmed Strike is another one.Everyone should be able to make unarmed strikes without a feat just fine. It's something you can do naked. It's something children can do.
Not sure I agree on this one. Anyone already can make unarmed strikes without the feat. They just do nonlethal damage and provoke attacks of opportunity.
What the feat does is allow you to make unarmed attacks against armed opponents without leaving yourself open to getting stabbed and have those attacks do deadly damage.
That is definitely not something that children can do. Fighting unarmed against an armed enemy is difficult for even highly-skilled real world martial artists.
There shouldn't be any tax. It's stupid.
Any caster gets access to what? 50 spells per level?
And the fighter gets +1 to attack? WOW, that must be broken!
I'd favor anything that is melee range.
Ranged combat would get some penalty because it already excels at doing damage without any danger.
I think the penalty for shooting into melee should be a miss chance with a possibility of hitting your ally, but that would get old fast.
Improved unarmed strike could maybe also up the damage to 1d6, but otherwise, I think it’s fine the way it is.
Improved Unarmed Strike should require Weapon Focus Unarmed Strikes, and a BAB of +2... just like Whip Mastery, since they do the exact same thing.
Oh wait, no it shouldn't, because feat taxes are stupid.
Why is no longer provoking attacks of opportunity and dealing lethal damage just one feat with no prerequisites, and simultaneously is two feats with a BAB +2 prerequisite?
Why don't unarmed strikes follow the same principle of not dealing damage to armored enemies as whips? Why did they make the whip, which is an actual weapon, less lethal than an unarmed strike in relation to armor? What can an unarmed strike possibly damage that a whip cannot on someone wearing full plate armor? That's what I thought.
Improved unarmed strike could maybe also up the damage to 1d6, but otherwise, I think it’s fine the way it is.What's the advantage of taking it vs taking another feat and getting a light mace instead?
They can't take your unarmed strike away. And your light mace can't deal non-lethal damage without penalty. And the unarmed strike can be used when your hands are otherwise full.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, Improved Unarmed Strike sure does a lot for having no prerequisites... it's almost like everything is arbitrary and there is no method to the madness, huh?
One feat, with no prerequisites, gives you:
1. A weapon that cannot be disarmed, sundered, stolen, or lost (even when Stunned).
2. A slotless weapon that occupies no hands, yet still allows you to make every attack possible from your BAB and abilities even with your hands full or bound.
3. The ability to make your choice of lethal and nonlethal damage, requiring no action to activate or switch, and at no penalty.
Yet you have to take EWP Whip, Weapon Focus Whip, and have a BAB of +2 in order to be able to take yet another feat that will allow you to literally swing a whip without getting hit for trying. Another feat at BAB +5, just to make AoO/actually threaten with it. BAB +5 is, what, level 7 on a 3/4 BAB class? Just to threaten with the weapon you are supposedly focused on (had to take Weapon Focus, after all)?
It's as if people don't know what proficiency actually means. It is a HIGH DEGREE of competency or skill. So being proficient with a weapon should unlock that weapon's full potential to you, or at least a HIGH DEGREE of it.
If you burn a feat on EWP whip, you should exhibit a high degree of competency... such as swinging it without opening yourself up to provoke attacks of opportunity, being able to damage your target, being able to accomplish the maneuvers associated with the weapon without penalty, use dex for attack and damage with it if you so desire... one feat, because it makes you PROFICIENT with the weapon and all that comes with it. The only difference that EWP whip makes is you don't take a -4 to attack, but actually being proficient with it doesn't unlock any new potential to you versus some clown just picking it up for the first time and not proficient with it.
They even use the word, repeatedly throughout their published content, and never bothered to look up what it means...
I'd say not taking a -4 to attacks is a high degree of proficiency.
Then the base should be 0, not -4.
Wizards don't get proficiency in Rays, how come they can shoot them without -4?They also don't get IUS, but they can attack with Touch Spells? Are you telling me that suddenly having magic in your hands makes you more capable of hitting people in melee?
ah. strange. concept.
I'd say not taking a -4 to attacks is a high degree of proficiency.
But they still require Weapon Focus to do anything a commoner can't do? You have to be PLUS FIVE points of arbitrary accuracy metric ahead of the guy who isn't proficient with a whip in order to be able to take the feat that allows you to swing without provoking and to do lethal damage?
That's a lot compared to the guy with "martial arts training" at BAB +0, who took IUS and can deal lethal damage to an enemy in full plate... if they want to, they have the choice of nonlethal damage at no cost.
Level 1 Commoner with IUS who is not proficient in the whip:
Attacks at a STR -4 with whip, provokes AoO, cannot damage armored enemies.
Can make attacks and AoO with hands full/bound at STR +0, deal choice of lethal or nonlethal damage on a whim, is always considered armed.
Level 1 Fighter with EWP Whip and Weapon Focus Whip:
Attacks at a STR +2 with whip, provokes AoO, cannot damage armored enemies.
It's all so irresponsibly inconsistent. Whip Mastery and Improved Unarmed Strike should be equal given that they do the exact same thing for their respective weapons. That means they should have the same number/level of prerequisites, right? But no, feats clearly aren't weighed against each other. You would probably like to imagine that is what you pay editors for. Lol.
You get A LOT more from IUS, alone, than all of EWP whip-Weapon Focus whip-Whip Mastery-Improved Whip Mastery, combined.
Rays aren't weapons and touch attacks are not unarmed strikes
How is touching someone not an unarmed strike? The action is the same.
You strike someone.
It's not inconsinstent, whips are not murdering weapons.
In the hands of someone proficient, a whip will keep a lion away. Try that with unarmed strikes. Lol.
But the whip is just an example of something that has stupid feat taxes. I actually don't respect the whip or anyone who uses one.
It's not inconsinstent, whips are not murdering weapons.In the hands of someone proficient, a whip will keep a lion away. Try that with unarmed strikes. Lol.
But the whip is just an example of something that has stupid feat taxes. I actually don't respect the whip or anyone who uses one.
Nethys says it [evil], confused face.
Well I can forgo Color Spray. I'm looking for level 1 spells that I can use no matter the level.
Bless for example or Touch of The Sea.The idea is to be able to pull anything from any spell lists, that's why I'm looking for buffs.
Burning Hands does sound decent for those tricky situations where you have to deal with swarms, would've never thought about it.
Is this a glitch in the matrix?
|
It's not inconsinstent, whips are not murdering weapons.In the hands of someone proficient, a whip will keep a lion away. Try that with unarmed strikes. Lol.
But the whip is just an example of something that has stupid feat taxes. I actually don't respect the whip or anyone who uses one.
A whip will maybe scare the lion, it won’t do anything if the lion isn’t scared.
Meh. Unarmed strikes don't even scare the lion. I would wager that the highest level martial artist on the planet doesn't manage to scare, much less damage, a lion, either. But here we are talking about martial stuff in a PF1 forum. Lol. We all know that PF1 was written for spellcasters and everyone else can politely suck it.
Meh. Unarmed strikes don't even scare the lion. I would wager that the highest level martial artist on the planet doesn't manage to scare, much less damage, a lion, either. But here we are talking about martial stuff in a PF1 forum. Lol. We all know that PF1 was written for spellcasters and everyone else can politely suck it.
I'm still surprised at anyone playing a martial.
What do you do Fighty McFight: full attackWhat do you do Fighty McFight: full attack
What do you do Fighty McFight: full attack
What do you do Fighty McFight: full attack
What do you do Fighty McFight: I trip the enemy.
DM: I'm sorry, do you have the 10 feat chain? Otherwise that's a roll with -40.
Wizard: I use magic missile with toppling.