PDA

View Full Version : [Pathfinder] What...What The Hell...



Fax Celestis
2009-03-22, 12:25 AM
This, here, is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've seen out of Pathfinder to date.

Achievement Feats
Inspired by a variety of video games and board games that utilize similar conventions, achievement feats require the cooperation of the player and the GM to make the transition into the world of pen-and-paper RPGs. Players who seek to qualify for an achievement feat should tell their GM early so he can begin noting the PC’s progress toward the feat’s requirement, or be aware that the player is tracking his character’s accomplishments with this goal in mind. Although they require more bookkeeping to attain than typical feats, these feats are custom-designed to reward players of Legacy of Fire and should help PCs feel like they’ve accomplished something pertinent to the campaign’s goals. GMs who don’t think achievement feats are for their game can ignore this section with no detriment to their campaign, but for those who do test them out, we’d love to hear your stories and playtest experiences on our messageboards at pazio.com/traits.

All Gnolls Must Die [Achievement]
Your name is whispered by black lips throughout the Uwaga Highlands as a bringer of death and pain—few are the gnolls who don’t quake when they hear stories of your deeds.
Requirement: Deliver the killing blow to 20 gnolls,
hyenas, dire hyenas, werehyenas, jackalweres, or minions of Lamashtu.
Benefit: As long as you carry some sort of trophy harvested from a gnoll (a necklace of ears, a set of teeth, a magic weapon taken from a chieftain, etc.), you gain a +2 morale bonus on all Will saves. You also gain a +2 competence bonus on attack rolls and weapon damage rolls against gnolls, hyenas, dire hyenas, werehyenas, jackalweres, and minions of Lamashtu.

Flame-Tested Survivor [Achievement]
You have burned in the hottest flames, and your flesh bears the proof—fire holds little fear for you anymore.
Requirement: Knocked unconscious or killed by fire damage at least 10 times.
Benefit: Your history with fire has attracted the attention of a powerful but mysterious guardian spirit from the Elemental Plane of Water. This spirit grants you fire resistance 5, and you gain a +2 bonus on all saving throws made to resist fire effects.

Gifted Mesmerist [Achievement]
Your magic knows the pathways of the mind, and you have become so skilled at casting a certain mind-affecting spell that you can cast it as a spell-like ability.
Requirement: Successfully affect 25 different targets with charm or compulsion spells.
Benefit: Choose any one charm or compulsion spell you can cast. You can use this spell once per day as a spell-like ability. Your caster level and DC for this spell-like ability is the same as if you were casting the spell. Each time you gain a level in a spellcasting class, you may replace your current charm or compulsion spell-like ability with a new one.

Graverisen [Achievement]
Death is no stranger to you, for you have risen from the grave to continue your quest many times.
Requirement: Die and be brought back at least twice.
Benefit: You gain a single-use supernatural ability to save yourself from death. The next time you would be killed, you may use this ability, leaving you alive and otherwise unaffected by the attack that would have killed you, even against effects with no saving throw. This does not require an action, and works even if you are helpless or unconscious. If you die and are brought back to life, you gain another single use of this ability. You can only have one use of this ability unspent at any time; any others you might accrue beyond the first are lost.

Healer’s Touch [Achievement]
The magic of life flows through your body like a river.
Requirement: Cure a cumulative total of 1,000 points of damage for other creatures using healing spells. Dealing damage slows progress toward this goal achievement; for every 1 point of damage you deal to another creature, reduce your cumulative healing total by 2.
Benefit: When you cast a healing spell to heal a target other than yourself, the spell is maximized as though using the Maximize Spell effect. This does not increase your casting time for the spell. When you cast a healing spell to damage a target, the spell is not maximized but its saving throw DC increases by +4.
Note: There may be an opposite version of this feat allowing casters using negative energy to heal undead.

History of Scars [Achievement]
Your scars bear witness to countless battles.
Requirement: Take a cumulative total of 1,000 points of damage. Magical healing offsets this running total; for every 5 points of magical healing you receive, reduce your cumulative damage total by 1.
Benefit: Your thick scars impart a –2 penalty on all Charisma-based skill checks, but increase your natural armor bonus by +2.

Relentless Butcher [Achievement]
You revel in the glory of dismemberment and maiming.
Requirement: Confirm at least 50 critical hits.
Benefit: When you confirm a critical hit, that opponent must make a Fortitude save (DC = 10 + your Strength or Dexterity modifier) or be stunned for 1 round.
All OGL, don't worry.

I have no problems with achievement-based feats, believe you me--it's something I've been contemplating myself. But this is the wrong way to do it. You know all those people who're crying "ZOMG D&D R BEKUM VIDJA GAME"? Well, this proves them exactly right.

Achievement-based feats should be based on player achievements, but not on measuring stuff like 50 confirmed criticals or 20 gnolls killed. It should be measured as "killed a creature with CR at least two higher than your ECL when at or below 1/4 HP."

So I suppose that's it: achievements are not measured; they're accomplished. The character does something epic, so they then qualify for a certain set of feats. Feats like these merely require you to grind out numbers for a while before you qualify, and frankly I'd rather keep my grinding in my coffee maker.

Arbitrarity
2009-03-22, 12:31 AM
Even individual achievements are video game similar (take some TF2 achievements like Fall Classic [kill an enemy pushing them into an environmental hazard]).

But really, farmable achievements? What. Yes, let's base the feat off of doing something mundane over, and over, and over again. Yes, that's how we should make characters interesting. Not with Crowning Moments of Awesome, but with grind.

Cainen
2009-03-22, 12:39 AM
I'm pretty sure that the the absolute worst part of this is that the designers assume that you'll be repeating the same actions over and over and over. Against the same enemies, too.

TempusCCK
2009-03-22, 12:41 AM
I don't think that this necessarily contributes to grind, it seems to me that if used properly these feats could help reflect the character more openly with the world.

It's up to the GM to say "Alright, now you're just seeking out Gnolls to get the feat, and you have no in character reason to do this, I'm disallowing the feat."

For for a pacifist healer who spends most of his combat time casting healing spells, that Achievement feat is an awesome bonus that really helps to reflect his characters traits. Someone so dedicated to healing WOULD be really good at it.

I think it's all a matter of how you use it, this could lead to grind, but the GM needs to put a stop to that. It's certainly not fair to put a blanket assumption on the idea, and it is an optional rule.

Cainen
2009-03-22, 12:43 AM
I don't think that this necessarily contributes to grind, it seems to me that if used properly these feats could help reflect the character more openly with the world.

How on Earth do you plan on giving 20 gnoll kills to the one person in the party that might be able to -use- the feat?

Zeful
2009-03-22, 12:47 AM
What's really sad is most of those achievement feats are really easy to get. "Play the game once" easy. Stuff like this is what disappoints me with achievements in general: You haven't Achieved anything. This things should be hard, and freaking custom made (you know like prestige classes were supposed to be).

I can kind of agree with the concept, because of Important thing X you get Y. But easy ones like the Gnoll one should be a +2 to Intimidate checks to Gnolls as long as you have the trophy. And really things like this were covered under Good DMing (The players have killed 3 tribes of Gnolls, all those tribes Allies are afraid of the PCs and the next couple of generations will get a -2 to sense motive vs. and intimidate to anyone who resembles the party.) not solid game mechanics (All Gnolls fear me because I have X feat.)

Overall if it's something that should be permanent and unilaterally applied, I have no problems awarding a Blessing (I'm not calling it an Achievement feat, the name is just stupid) to the player. But if it's territorial, then no, it's a circumstance mod I apply as plot dictates.

Alleine
2009-03-22, 12:48 AM
Wow... I... I'm not sure what to say. On the one hand it looks kinda cool, but on the other hand I can imagine getting the sound clip from the xbox for unlocking achievements and a cardboard cut-out with "Achievement Unlocked!" on it and using those every time.

I think the implementation could definitely have been better.

sonofzeal
2009-03-22, 12:56 AM
Fred punches Sam in the arm, and Binder Bob (Bob's bound Buer) heals Sam. Repeat ad nauseum. Now Sam has +2 NA, Fred's probably got Relentless Butcher, and all Bob's healing is maximized for free. Fun times.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-03-22, 12:58 AM
This is some seriously... just dumb stuff.

I think that the achievements could be worked quite differently into a nice manner, but its the fact that the player chooses an achievement to work at which irks me. Or that they are given concrete rules, for that matter.

In my opinion, if you want to give players these achievement bonuses, do so subtly. Maybe one player has been kicking some serious ass against gnolls in the latest adventure, by the luck of the dice or what have you. Good for him, go ahead and give him that feat for will saves and damage, it will give his character some natural flavor. He will be able to look back at his character and say "Yeah that guy really knew how to kick gnoll ass"

But in my opinion, as soon as the player starts grinding those gnolls purposefully for the bonus, it becomes less about character flavor and past history than just getting minor bonuses.

revolver kobold
2009-03-22, 01:04 AM
I think this is an idea that has merit, but has just been implemented in a very bad way.

I like the idea behind some of the feats, Graverisen and Flametested Survivor especially. But I really think they should be for the GM to give out when he sees fit, rather than the player going "Ok, I've been hit by 10 fireballs now. Give me my fire resistance".

Zeful
2009-03-22, 01:29 AM
This is some seriously... just dumb stuff.

I think that the achievements could be worked quite differently into a nice manner, but its the fact that the player chooses an achievement to work at which irks me. Or that they are given concrete rules, for that matter. Having concreate rules for some benefit like this wouldn't be bad, especially for things that are so left field from what you expect that some benefit is needed so the guy looks at his character sheet and remembers that awesome moment.


In my opinion, if you want to give players these achievement bonuses, do so subtly. Maybe one player has been kicking some serious ass against gnolls in the latest adventure, by the luck of the dice or what have you. Good for him, go ahead and give him that feat for will saves and damage, it will give his character some natural flavor. He will be able to look back at his character and say "Yeah that guy really knew how to kick gnoll ass"

But in my opinion, as soon as the player starts grinding those gnolls purposefully for the bonus, it becomes less about character flavor and past history than just getting minor bonuses.
A system like this can really make a party more real. Jon's character walked through lava and then killed a dragon, yeah he's called the "Master of Fire" now. It's a way to give meaning to a title certain players might otherwise ignore. It also sounds like a good way to get a Roll-player to think a smidge more toward Role-playing.

All in all, good idea. Really, really stupid implementation.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-22, 01:38 AM
Jeez, and people gave 4E guff for being like a videogame :smalltongue:

The basic flaw with this idea is about what Achievements mean. In a video game, the game world is barely mutable; it has a definite structure and can only change so much. Game designers started adding in Achievements to mark the "cool things" people have always tried to do to games. In a pen-and-paper game, the world is endlessly mutable - if the player does something cool, the DM can alter the world to reflect it.

Did you single-handedly slay the demon-empowered Gnoll Champion? Perhaps after the party Bard spreads that around, people will start whispering about "Arthex the Gnoll Slayer" and, who knows, maybe other gnolls start spreading tales of horror about you. Bam! You achieved something, and it shows!

Dienekes
2009-03-22, 01:46 AM
Actually, I don't see much of a problem with them as long as the GM isn't an idiot.

If you allow your players to stand back allowing someone to go gnoll killing simply for the feat you're an idiot. You shouldn't be GMing.

However the problem is of course keeping track and bean counting every time you crit, and every time you are killed by fire or whatever.

Actually, I have to hand it to Pathfinder for doing something like this. I'm assuming it's in some kind of splatbook or another, it's completely optional and allows people to test out an idea many say they have been thinking of before.

Now, the only one I'm really confused about (and I'm assuming there's more than just these 7) is Gnoll Killer. Are gnolls really that popular? Or maybe it should have been ____ Killer. Where you just are proficient at killing any sort of creature.

Crow
2009-03-22, 02:16 AM
Now, the only one I'm really confused about (and I'm assuming there's more than just these 7) is Gnoll Killer. Are gnolls really that popular? Or maybe it should have been ____ Killer. Where you just are proficient at killing any sort of creature.

Favored Enemy:___________

FatR
2009-03-22, 02:55 AM
And Pathfinder crew demonstrates once again how much they suck at writing game mechanics.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-22, 02:56 AM
I agree about this being a really stupid idea due to how abusable it is. (I know I'm heavily bias against the All Gnolls Must Die one due to liking Gnolls a lot anyway, but the fact that these feats require you to do the same things over and over would really bore me).

doliest
2009-03-22, 02:56 AM
You know this is just what I needed, now when people ask me why I'm not shelling out the money for 4th edition books I can point at this and say that I preferred it on WoW.

Nightson
2009-03-22, 02:58 AM
You know this is just what I needed, now when people ask me why I'm not shelling out the money for 4th edition books I can point at this and say that I preferred it on WoW.

And when they point out that this has nothing to do with 4th edition?

doliest
2009-03-22, 03:00 AM
And when they point out that this has nothing to do with 4th edition?

Then I'll say, "FOOLED JU!":smallamused:

BobVosh
2009-03-22, 03:15 AM
What's really sad is most of those achievement feats are really easy to get. "Play the game once" easy. Stuff like this is what disappoints me with achievements in general: You haven't Achieved anything. This things should be hard, and freaking custom made (you know like prestige classes were supposed to be).

I can kind of agree with the concept, because of Important thing X you get Y. But easy ones like the Gnoll one should be a +2 to Intimidate checks to Gnolls as long as you have the trophy. And really things like this were covered under Good DMing (The players have killed 3 tribes of Gnolls, all those tribes Allies are afraid of the PCs and the next couple of generations will get a -2 to sense motive vs. and intimidate to anyone who resembles the party.) not solid game mechanics (All Gnolls fear me because I have X feat.)

Overall if it's something that should be permanent and unilaterally applied, I have no problems awarding a Blessing (I'm not calling it an Achievement feat, the name is just stupid) to the player. But if it's territorial, then no, it's a circumstance mod I apply as plot dictates.

QFT

I like pathfinder, definitly like what they did to skills, but some of thier implementation leaves something to be desired. Their modules rock also.

As most people say, give a bonus with out a feat. I personally liked the reputation that is in wheel of time, and various other games.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-22, 04:13 AM
Oh noes! They're turning D&D into a video game!

Oh wait, we've already done that. Seriously though, I find this rule extremely stupid. It's fun if a DM creates a character-tailored benefit after (say) being hit by fire a lot; but it's very wrong if a character starts seeking out fire to be hit by, because he knows that the rulebook has a standard feat that can help if he does. It takes all the specialness out.

Tempest Fennac
2009-03-22, 05:07 AM
I've been in a couple of games where I've been given a bonus feat or an extra ability of the DM's choice because it fitted with the plot, but these were always surprises, so it was more interresting.

Stephen_E
2009-03-22, 05:56 AM
Hmmm, I'm assuming you still have to have a feat slot.

Otherwise I quite like them.

I have a Orc Barb/Fighter/Tribal Protector from a old campaign who played as a NG Paladin who hated followers of Grumash, he was a follower of Corellion himself.

I can really see him going for a Grumash variant of Gnoll-Killer.

As for "grinding", to be honest I know people who track their kills for the fun of it. I do think some like the Gnoll-killer need a "killed "x" gnolls and a Gnoll Hero/Leader" and obviously a reasonable amount of RP is expected. The PC should be playing the rage, hatred or whatever they have for type "y".

Stephen E

Dragonmuncher
2009-03-22, 06:35 AM
I don't think that this necessarily contributes to grind, it seems to me that if used properly these feats could help reflect the character more openly with the world.

It's up to the GM to say "Alright, now you're just seeking out Gnolls to get the feat, and you have no in character reason to do this, I'm disallowing the feat."


I agree with this, but I'd add that its this idea that makes the whole "Achievement Feat" concept unnecessary.

There are ALREADY feats like this! Some are more obvious about it than others, but there are definitely feats and abilities that imply you've been doing some action in the world, as a sort of meta-prereq. Hmm... spelltouched feats, certainly. One could argue that a heritage feat should be roleplayed beforehand, instead of just randomly going "Oh by the way, my grandma boinked a fairy" at level-up time. Heck, even something like multiclassing to a wizard could fall under this.


I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you want to have feats have some sort of gameplay prerequisite, it's better to have it be an RP one. Saying "Prerequisite: Has killed 50 gnolls" is not nearly as cool as "You have spent much time and effort in fighting the legions of gnolls that infest your world. Through many battles, you have come to understand their tactics, their weaknesses, and their psychology."

Both are (almost) the same thing, but the second one is (IMO) much better.

Abstruse
2009-03-22, 06:56 AM
I don't think that this necessarily contributes to grind, it seems to me that if used properly these feats could help reflect the character more openly with the world.

It's up to the GM to say "Alright, now you're just seeking out Gnolls to get the feat, and you have no in character reason to do this, I'm disallowing the feat.

So just don't tell the PCs the feats are in play until, by you-as-DM-estimation, one of them has crossed a goal line of it. Then it makes it less grinding out a required number (since they have no idea there IS a number) and more a roleplaying thing. I'm not all that familiar with the Pathfinder rules as yet, but isn't this the kind of thing a ranger might take relating to their favored enemy, at least going through 3.5?

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-22, 08:50 AM
Excellent concept, poor execution. That's Pathfinder all over, I guess?

Myrmex
2009-03-22, 09:05 AM
How on Earth do you plan on giving 20 gnoll kills to the one person in the party that might be able to -use- the feat?


Not just gnolls:


Requirement: Deliver the killing blow to 20 gnolls,
hyenas, dire hyenas, werehyenas, jackalweres, or minions of Lamashtu.

Morty
2009-03-22, 10:00 AM
This is dumbtarded. But it's also an amazing coincidence, as lately I've been thinking about what I dislike in video games nowadays and that achievements are one of those things.
Anyway, some of those feats are too easy to get while others are too hard. History of Scars is weak considering what you have to do in order to get it, while Gifted Mesmerizer might not be too strong, but using a charm or compulsion on 25 different targets comes by itself for any enchantment-focused spellcaster.

Crow
2009-03-22, 11:32 AM
After thinking about this for a while, I have decided that this would be a good idea as part of a campaign arc. Anything like this would be better though if the players didn't really know about them until they reached the achievment.

As a general game mechanic though, the idea is not so good. However, with a good DM, I can see this being a flavorful addition to the game. Besides, you can't really blame the game mechanics if the players decide to turn the game into an endless grind because they want a specific achievement. Maybe the problem is less about the mechanics, and more about certain types of players.

Of course I would hate to deal with the book-keeping related to some of these feats.

LoopyZebra
2009-03-22, 11:40 AM
It's actually a pretty good idea to give players a mechanical bonus to reflect what they have done, but I agree that the implementation of these is wrong. The first problem is that they'd be a pain to track - the DM would have to take notes steadily for all of these. This is especially true if you take out the part about players telling the DM that they are working towards these, meaning the DM would have to track all of them at all times. It seems like the idea might be better if the DM handed out these at the end of a series of adventures to reflect what the players have been doing. For example, had they fought gnolls for a few sessions, give them the gnoll-killer achievement/bonus.

Olo Demonsbane
2009-03-22, 01:02 PM
The best way to handle this is if the players do not know that the Achievement feats exist, or at least don't know the specifics. That way, a DM can just hand them out when they're deserved, and the players wouldn't be going OOC to try to get the feats.

Lappy9000
2009-03-22, 01:48 PM
Is anyone else reminded by Blessed of Tem-Et-Nu from Sandstorm?

Defeat a Hippo in single combat, and you receive the ability to turn and rebuke hippos.

I....disagree with this decision. I have a player who wanted to make a name for himself. Sneaking out in the dead of night in a dwarven town, he began scalping the beards of unsuspecting dwarves, leaving one of the 8 victims alive to tell the tale. Moving to gnomish and human lands, he quickly made a name for himself as "Patchy the Beard Scalper," the deranged serial killer with an obsession with facial hair. Naturally, the rumors quickly got out of hand and Patchy the soulstitched (living flesh golem), turned into a nightmarish creature, "As tall as an ogre, formed o' tha stitched oop pieces o' iron, clay, stone, an' flesh golems. Tha' say that he wears tha' beards o' dwarven women an' children across his neck as a wretched symbol o' his power...."

....Is a feat really necessary for that? This sort of thing should just be implemented by DM. Plot-based feats tend to not turn out well (at least in my experience).

Nahal
2009-03-22, 02:55 PM
I like the idea of using stuff like this as a sort of quest reward for exceptional player conduct (in the vein of RP XP, but only given out when something Truly Epic has been performed (I like Fax's suggestion of slaying a creature 2+ levels higher when at 1/4 HP). It'd be crucial to make sure that the bonus reflects the nature of the exploit; there's no sense in giving someone a bonus to attacks for pwning a skill challenge.

A couple options (in rough form):

Succeed on a plot-critical skill challenge without gaining any failures: Once a day, can reroll a failed check for the relevant skill.

Survive a combat with EL equal or greater to the party level with no healing surges remaining: Increase your healing surge value by 1. If you began the combat with no healing surges remaining, gain 1 additional surge per day.

Score a critical hit on an enemy during the surprise round: Gain +1 to attack rolls during the surprise round.

During the course of a single combat, sustain damage of a single type equal or greater to your maximum hit point value (after applying resistances): Gain resist 5 versus that damage type. You must still survive the combat for this blessing to be granted.

Thoughts?

Illiterate Scribe
2009-03-22, 03:07 PM
Defeat a Hippo in single combat, and you receive the ability to turn and rebuke hippos.

Yeah, but that's a freakin' awesome feat.

Anyway, anyone else on edge for the 'Meet the Fighter' video coming out on Wednesday? I'm stoked, and hope the bard gets some good unlockables - their role as the hard counter to monsters has been nerf to hell and back by the advent of all those 'immune to mental effects' creatures.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-03-22, 03:13 PM
Wasn't Pathfinder created by and for people who were up in arms about WotC turning D&D into World of Warcraft in the first place? This seems a little...counter to that philosophy.

Gnorman
2009-03-22, 03:29 PM
I mean... come on.

You can be up in arms all about this, but hey. You don't... have to use them.

What's wrong with providing more options? Perhaps there are some DMs and players out there who like the concept. I knew a guy once who wouldn't join a D&D game that happened literally one floor below him, with two of his roommates, simply because he preferred to play WoW. I'm not saying that these achievements would have changed his mind, but they might have provided him with a better foundation by which to understand the game. The more we can do to wean people off of WoW into a more sociable, nerdy experience like tabletop gaming, the better.

Shisumo
2009-03-22, 03:59 PM
1) These feats have nothing to do with the Pathfinder RPG. They are for 3.5.

2) They are released in a Player's Guide for an Adventure Path, and not necessarily intended for random introduction. In particular, All Gnolls Must Die is relevant because the primary foes in this particular Adventure Path are gnolls. No grinding required.

3) They are explicitly optional. The intro section talks specifically about how they will prove annoying to some GMs, and that they will require bookkeping, and as such should not be implemented unless everyone, including the GM, wants to use them.

I get where people might not like them. Honestly, I'm not much of a fan myself, though my wife, whose character already meets the prereqs for Graverisen, wants to take that one. But going all ballistic over optional rules presented as such is a little over the top, and using them as a platform for attacking the PF RPG is just flat wrong.

Shisumo
2009-03-22, 04:01 PM
You automatically get this feat when you accomplish said action, right?

No. You automatically qualify for the feat. You still have to take it with one of your feat slots.

Bayar
2009-03-22, 04:18 PM
Achievement Feats
Inspired by a variety of video games

Wut. No, really, WUT .

Why would anyone want to implement this thing into pen and paper games ? So someone can have the "Leeroy Jenkins" achievement ? That would end up in a TPK. And it would piss off the DM is you dont tell him you want to take achievement feats until after you are already qualified for said feat.

Shisumo
2009-03-22, 04:29 PM
It would be, if anyone here was, in fact, "going ballistic." The debate has been quite civil so far.

However, the feats are out of Pathfinder, so I think the gripes are legitimate.

Thank you for clearing up my misunderstandings, but please don't make assumptions about my opinions and be careful not to double post :smallsmile:

The double post was deliberate, because the first one was not aimed at you. Had they been a single message, it would have appeared much more specific, and that wasn't my intention.

I don't think that "going ballistic" is an overstatement, however. To be sure, several posts have been perfectly reasonable. At the same time however, several have not - and I include the OP in that statement. Moreover, throughout the thread, several posters have blurred the line, whether accidentally or otherwise, between "stuff released by Paizo under the Pathfinder brand" and the Pathfinder RPG, and the PF RPG gets more than enough disrespect around here for things that could be considered legitimate complaints.

Reinboom
2009-03-22, 04:41 PM
Thank you for clearing that up. I was asking, after all. Cool, then that makes it mostly an opinion thing. And I still don't like them :smalltongue:

It would be, if anyone here was, in fact, "going ballistic." The debate has been quite civil so far.

However, the feats are out of Pathfinder, so I think the gripes are legitimate.

Thank you for clearing up my misunderstandings, but please don't make assumptions about my opinions and be careful not to double post :smallsmile:

I would also like to emphasize, as Shisumo stated, that these come out of the Legacy of Fire Player's Guide, and intended as such to be specific to those adventure paths only.
Further, like most Paizo ideas, it is presented as a "please test this for us, and tell us what you think", it is not set for the RPG. And is very much emphasized optional based on the DM's choice entirely.

Next, declaring inspiration sources and stating emulation goals is far different.
Or in a different statement like sense of it... "Video Games can have good ideas too." vs "We are trying to be this video game."

Wut. No, really, WUT .

Why would anyone want to implement this thing into pen and paper games ? So someone can have the "Leeroy Jenkins" achievement ? That would end up in a TPK. And it would piss off the DM is you dont tell him you want to take achievement feats until after you are already qualified for said feat.


Players who seek to qualify for an achievement feat should tell their GM early so he can begin noting the PC’s progress toward the feat’s requirement, or be aware that the player is tracking his character’s accomplishments with this goal in mind.

Also, the situation you display here is a qualification for a player who (most likely) would not agree to other ideas/styles of the gaming group anyways, and should be kicked out. With or without these feats.

Lappy9000
2009-03-22, 04:58 PM
The double post was deliberate, because the first one was not aimed at you. Had they been a single message, it would have appeared much more specific, and that wasn't my intention.Well, it didn't work :smalltongue:

I would also like to emphasize, as Shisumo stated, that these come out of the Legacy of Fire Player's Guide, and intended as such to be specific to those adventure paths only.
Further, like most Paizo ideas, it is presented as a "please test this for us, and tell us what you think", it is not set for the RPG. And is very much emphasized optional based on the DM's choice entirely.Ah thank you, I was incorrect. <---First time ever stated on the internet?

Crow
2009-03-22, 05:03 PM
Fax also made the comment about grinding. With some clever DMing, these could be incorporated in fine, but otherwise, I imagine that "grinding for a session of two" may become a very real possibility. This, for me, ruins a lot of the fun.

...and it would be entirely the fault of the players and DM. Seriously folks. D&D already uses XP. So if there was ever a reason to grind in order to get more powerful, it's already built into the game, and has been for decades.

Lappy9000
2009-03-22, 05:14 PM
...and it would be entirely the fault of the players and DM. Seriously folks. D&D already uses XP. So if there was ever a reason to grind in order to get more powerful, it's already built into the game, and has been for decades.Ah, yes. Thank you for digging back up an opinion that I already noted was incorrect :smallannoyed:

Crow
2009-03-22, 05:14 PM
Ah, yes. Thank you for digging back up an opinion that I already noted was incorrect :smallannoyed:

Haha! Whoops!

Lappy9000
2009-03-22, 05:15 PM
Haha! Whoops!It's cool :smallbiggrin:

Colmarr
2009-03-22, 05:27 PM
Meh, for what it's worth, I like these achievement feats. I like achievements on the Xbox360, and I don't see why they can't have a place in D&D.

(Some) video games are becoming more like movies. (Some) newspapers are becoming more like magazines. (Some) books are becoming more like news articles. Media changes.

holywhippet
2009-03-22, 06:25 PM
Wasn't Pathfinder created by and for people who were up in arms about WotC turning D&D into World of Warcraft in the first place? This seems a little...counter to that philosophy.

I'm not 100% sure, but my impression was the Paizo created Pathfinder using D&D 3rd edition rules since that system was popular. However, even then it was shoehorning what they wanted into that system. It wasn't a perfect match but it was good enough.

Then 4th editon reared it's head. Pathfinder was already shoehorned a bit to fit into 3rd edition, but it was completely incompatible with 4th edition which has so many changes to the way the game is played. So they decided to strike out on their own, so to speak, using a further modified version of 3rd edition.

Some of these feats seem a bit too overpowered or subject to abuse. eg. the BBEG causes a volcano to explode killing everyone within 10 miles. But one PC has taken the "get out of death free" feat and has at least one avoid being killed credit available. So they survive despite being at ground zero.

Fax Celestis
2009-03-23, 09:43 AM
Meh, for what it's worth, I like these achievement feats. I like achievements on the Xbox360, and I don't see why they can't have a place in D&D.

(Some) video games are becoming more like movies. (Some) newspapers are becoming more like magazines. (Some) books are becoming more like news articles. Media changes.

I think you misunderstand. I don't have a problem with achievement-based feats; I have a problem with achievements that are measured in quantity rather than quality.

Colmarr
2009-03-23, 06:15 PM
I think you misunderstand. I don't have a problem with achievement-based feats; I have a problem with achievements that are measured in quantity rather than quality.

Fair enough. I don't.

In fact, the gnoll killing one makes perfect sense to me. You kill enough gnolls, and they will fear you. Word gets around.

But to each their own.

MammonAzrael
2009-03-23, 06:38 PM
Fair enough. I don't.

In fact, the gnoll killing one makes perfect sense to me. You kill enough gnolls, and they will fear you. Word gets around.

But to each their own.

Personally, if you kill enough gnolls, word shouldn't get around. Anyone that would carry said word should already be dead. :smallbiggrin:

I'm inclined to agree with Fax that quality should be measured over quantity (unless the quantity is the quality), but I don't have too much of a problem with these feats because you still have to spend a feat slot on them. They feel a bit odd, and I don't think I'd ever use them, but they don't bother me.

I think it would be more interesting if instead of feats, "achievements" were more like traits, and by hitting the prereqs (which would be tough, so it wouldn't unbalance the game), players could earn small, static bonuses related to whatever they had achieved.

Curmudgeon
2009-03-23, 07:08 PM
These are still feats, right? Which means you still have to spend a feat slot to get them. If they're bonus feats (i.e., requiring no feat slots) then they're a wrench in the works and will encourage players to grind through lots of no-XP encounters instead of going up against standard challenges.

Mechanically, I really hate these things from a DM's perspective. It's just way too much bookkeeping.

Devils_Advocate
2009-03-23, 08:18 PM
Warning: The following post may contain some sarcasm.

A deliberate import of an idea from various video games? Gaspity gasp! Don't they know that having originated in the medium of electronic games automatically renders a game mechanic completely unsuitable for pen and paper gameplay?!

(Seriously, though: How is "It borrows stuff from video games" an indictment of a tabletop RPG? The origin of the idea for a rule doesn't change how it impacts the game. Do people keep making reference to some well-established, surprisingly specific consensus on Ways That Video Games Tend To Be Worse Than Tabletop Games that I'm horribly ignorant of? Maybe that's it.)

So... You keep track of how much of something you've done, and that allows you to mechanically improve your character. Like leveling. Except that all achievements aren't just lumped together into a single category of Accomplishing Things and they don't just lead to a non-specific Increase In Competence that can take almost any form. Um, oh noes?

Does everyone bitching about this think that you should only get XP for completing quests, too? It's not like you can't theoretically abuse that system by organizing fights. And of course there are plenty of other obvious potential exploits of otherwise harmless rules.

Player: OK, so I do that infinite loop until I have as much as I want of what it gives me.
DM: Hey, what do you know, Pun-pun erases the plan to do that from your mind before you even start. Now shut up.

Ah, but IT COULD HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED BETTER! Well, I guess that there's no defense against that. Clearly, if there's room for improvement, that must mean that something is amazingly stupid. Obviously, that makes a suggested optional rule far worse than nothing at all. Plainly I was a fool to think that it might be otherwise.

averagejoe
2009-03-23, 08:44 PM
Ah, but IT COULD HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED BETTER! Well, I guess that there's no defense against that. Clearly, if there's room for improvement, that must mean that something is amazingly stupid. Obviously, that makes a suggested optional rule far worse than nothing at all. Plainly I was a fool to think that it might be otherwise.

Well, it's pretty bad design even considering that it's optional. I think Fax's idea of making it based off of one big achievement rather than accumulated little ones is a good one, but more from the point of view of making it a good mechanic. The main advantage it has is cutting down on the bookkeeping, and also avoids those how-many-gnolls-did-I-kill-last-time-I-think-it-was-five type arguments that tend to crop up with these things. That isn't the only thing wrong with it, but it's a good step; without some tinkering it's a pretty clunky mechanic.

Colmarr
2009-03-23, 09:53 PM
Unfortunately, quality-based feats pose their own design problems.

Such as the fact that they're something that the PCs will almost certainly qualify for. After all, you wouldn't design a feat for killing X if the PCs were never going to meet X in the campaign.

Secondly, if you go the quality-based path, you then need to either (1) make the feat so general that it's useful to every class (an exceedingly difficult design task) or (2) design a number of feats (one for each character archetype eg. a healer feat, a caster feat, a martial feat, a skill feat). And you'd need to do that for each significant moment in the campaign.

Taking a quantity-based approach lessens the design work immensely.

Sebastian
2009-03-24, 03:15 AM
I don't see the problem, it is just a different set of requirements for feats, you were burned by fire so much that you acquire a certain resistance to it, you scored so much criticals that you get better with them, you killed so many gnolls that they and those related to them become your Favorite Enemy, etc, etc.
The wording of some of them is a little weird, i don't like the water spirit part of Flame tested survivor, for example, but that can be easily worked around. It is not weirder that some of the skill/feats requirements for some prestige class.

I believe that if they didn't call it achievement feat people would have barely noticed.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-24, 03:31 AM
I don't see the problem, it is just a different set of requirements for feats, you were burned by fire so much that you acquire a certain resistance to it, you scored so much criticals that you get better with them, you killed so many gnolls that they and those related to them become your Favorite Enemy, etc, etc.
The wording of some of them is a little weird, i don't like the water spirit part of Flame tested survivor, for example, but that can be easily worked around. It is not weirder that some of the skill/feats requirements for some prestige class.

I believe that if they didn't call it achievement feat people would have barely noticed.

Well... no, I think I'd still complain; the feats are just plain silly.

For example, the "kill gnolls" feat grants a +2 to Will as long as you have a "trophy" from the killing. If this Feat were common knowledge, folks would be out killing hyenas all the time - it'd be part of the local militia's training regime! Hell, as a player my first order of business would be to locate the nearest pack of hyenas to give myself a free bonus. I suppose there would have to be a market in Gnoll parts too, but it can't be that hard to kill a single gnoll, chop off its head and make a jaunty hat out of it.

The fire one is even worse! Day 1 of adventuring each party member is lit on fire until they pass out, healed to 1 by the cleric, burned again, healed again... rinse and repeat until everyone is qualified. Next level everyone takes it because a +2 untyped bonus on saves and Fire Resistance 5 at Level 2 is pretty sweet.

By codifying these sorts of rewards, Pathfinder is encouraging metagaming to the extreme. I mean, you need to Rule 0 them to make them reasonable!

Now, if after a vicious campaign against the gnolls the PCs capture the horde's battle standard and turn it into a war trophy, I'd certainly give them some bonus versus gnolls who know of the tale surrounding the banner; that's good storytelling. Or maybe the PCs hear about a Temple of the Fire Spirit where an ancient creature known as the Guardian of the Flame will grant a boon to those it finds worthy - that's a great way to earn the bonuses the Fire Achievement would just hand out.

Tie the reward to the story, not to some random game mechanic.

Sebastian
2009-03-24, 03:42 AM
Hmmm, I'm assuming you still have to have a feat slot.

Otherwise I quite like them.

I have a Orc Barb/Fighter/Tribal Protector from a old campaign who played as a NG Paladin who hated followers of Grumash, he was a follower of Corellion himself.

I can really see him going for a Grumash variant of Gnoll-Killer.

As for "grinding", to be honest I know people who track their kills for the fun of it. I do think some like the Gnoll-killer need a "killed "x" gnolls and a Gnoll Hero/Leader" and obviously a reasonable amount of RP is expected. The PC should be playing the rage, hatred or whatever they have for type "y".

Stephen E

Yeah, maybe they should work on the prereq, rather than killing blow to 25 gnoll could be "kill X gnolls of your level or more in single combat". They should also specify that only melee count, A wizard could reach that prereq with a single fireball. :)

Crow
2009-03-24, 03:48 AM
Well... no, I think I'd still complain; the feats are just plain silly.

For example, the "kill gnolls" feat grants a +2 to Will as long as you have a "trophy" from the killing. If this Feat were common knowledge, folks would be out killing hyenas all the time - it'd be part of the local militia's training regime! Hell, as a player my first order of business would be to locate the nearest pack of hyenas to give myself a free bonus. I suppose there would have to be a market in Gnoll parts too, but it can't be that hard to kill a single gnoll, chop off its head and make a jaunty hat out of it.

The fire one is even worse! Day 1 of adventuring each party member is lit on fire until they pass out, healed to 1 by the cleric, burned again, healed again... rinse and repeat until everyone is qualified. Next level everyone takes it because a +2 untyped bonus on saves and Fire Resistance 5 at Level 2 is pretty sweet.

By codifying these sorts of rewards, Pathfinder is encouraging metagaming to the extreme. I mean, you need to Rule 0 them to make them reasonable!



Once again, complaints that don't result from the system, but the players and the DM. Seriously. Sometimes I wonder what everyone's reaction would be if these were released in a 4e splatbook.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-24, 04:03 AM
Once again, complaints that don't result from the system, but the players and the DM. Seriously. Sometimes I wonder what everyone's reaction would be if these were released in a 4e splatbook.

Have you looked at the Feats?


Your name is whispered by black lips throughout the Uwaga Highlands as a bringer of death and pain—few are the gnolls who don’t quake when they hear stories of your deeds.
Requirement: Deliver the killing blow to 20 gnolls,
hyenas, dire hyenas, werehyenas, jackalweres, or minions of Lamashtu.
Benefit: As long as you carry some sort of trophy harvested from a gnoll (a necklace of ears, a set of teeth, a magic weapon taken from a chieftain, etc.), you gain a +2 morale bonus on all Will saves. You also gain a +2 competence bonus on attack rolls and weapon damage rolls against gnolls, hyenas, dire hyenas, werehyenas, jackalweres, and minions of Lamashtu.


You have burned in the hottest flames, and your flesh bears the proof—fire holds little fear for you anymore.
Requirement: Knocked unconscious or killed by fire damage at least 10 times.
Benefit: Your history with fire has attracted the attention of a powerful but mysterious guardian spirit from the Elemental Plane of Water. This spirit grants you fire resistance 5, and you gain a +2 bonus on all saving throws made to resist fire effects.

The system is "do x and you qualify for y" period. My complaint is that such a system can do nothing but inspire stupid metagaming that needs to be solved by Rule 0. A good system does not require Rule 0 to work.

These sort of "story rewards" work great in video games because there is no real other way to show your accomplishment to others. Sometimes it is a badge, sometimes it is a badge with a power attached to it - the whole point is to give you something to show off to others. In a Pen-and-Paper RPG, the other folks are at the table with you; they experience the same stories you do, and actually play a part in it. Most of the satisfaction you get from finishing quests comes from the story itself; a satisfaction that you're hard pressed to find in an MMO where anyone can just follow a walk-through or try, try again until they win.

So no, this isn't just a "Mages are OP because of Tippyverse" argument; the way the very feats are written encourages metagaming behavior which is just as sensible in-game as picking up 8 ranks of Use Rope to qualify for a PrC... but is incredibly dumb in execution.

Sebastian
2009-03-24, 04:14 AM
Well... no, I think I'd still complain; the feats are just plain silly.

For example, the "kill gnolls" feat grants a +2 to Will as long as you have a "trophy" from the killing. If this Feat were common knowledge, folks would be out killing hyenas all the time - it'd be part of the local militia's training regime! Hell, as a player my first order of business would be to locate the nearest pack of hyenas to give myself a free bonus. I suppose there would have to be a market in Gnoll parts too, but it can't be that hard to kill a single gnoll, chop off its head and make a jaunty hat out of it.


Yes, yes, OR they could take iron will, who do the same without the risk.
Beside did you read the feat? it say "killing blow to 25 etc, etc" so a patrol of 20 men should kill 25 x 20=500 hyenas before to qualify. Good luck finding so many of them (or should I say "bad luck"?:smalltongue: ) And even if they do they will have all the druids of the place against for the exitinction of the poor hyenas.



The fire one is even worse! Day 1 of adventuring each party member is lit on fire until they pass out, healed to 1 by the cleric, burned again, healed again... rinse and repeat until everyone is qualified. Next level everyone takes it because a +2 untyped bonus on saves and Fire Resistance 5 at Level 2 is pretty sweet.

the only problem I see with that feat is the "friendly fire". I would just say that burning in a "controlled enviroment" don't count, it don't give the right kind of reaction, yes ,it hurt, but deep down you know you are not in real danger, so you don't build up the immunity.
Or some crap like that, essentialy, no dice, buddy, you want the feat you get fireballed to the face until you go down at least 10 times, in the middle of combat.


By codifying these sorts of rewards, Pathfinder is encouraging metagaming to the extreme. I mean, you need to Rule 0 them to make them reasonable!

Just a little


Now, if after a vicious campaign against the gnolls the PCs capture the horde's battle standard and turn it into a war trophy, I'd certainly give them some bonus versus gnolls who know of the tale surrounding the banner; that's good storytelling. Or maybe the PCs hear about a Temple of the Fire Spirit where an ancient creature known as the Guardian of the Flame will grant a boon to those it finds worthy - that's a great way to earn the bonuses the Fire Achievement would just hand out.

Tie the reward to the story, not to some random game mechanic.

Hey, just don't use them. But some people like this kind of codification of bonus and it is always nice to have more options to choose from.
Beside what you are doing is giving bonus feats when succeding into a quest.
It is not so different. it is just that you changed the requirementes and don't make the PC use a slot. :smallwink:

bosssmiley
2009-03-24, 05:50 AM
Excellent concept, poor execution. That's Pathfinder all over, I guess?

QFT.

Which hack was responsible for squatting and squeezing out these "ACHEEFMUN FEETS"? Why, it must have taken him all of half-an-hour out of his XboX session to think them up, and I bet the design notes took up almost a whole page. :smallamused:

These are probably the single stupidest, laziest idea to come out the Daftfinder thunk tank since 'half feats'...or the reheated sorcerer bloodlines...or the idea of rage/ki pools, or... [fades out]. Not that the braytest echo chamber will do anything other than lap up this ill-considered drivel.

Oh "Pathfinder", I mourn for what you could have been...

Negativity aside, I wholly agree with the idea that achievement rewards should stem from notable achievements (you know, the kind of stuff the bards sing songs about); rather than from grinding mobs.

edit: tone moderated, constructive suggestion added

RebelRogue
2009-03-24, 05:50 AM
Orcale_Hunter: Remember you still have to use a Feat slot to get those benefits! It's not as free as it seems.

Still, I think the way it's implemented is pretty horrible: all that bookkeeping will get tedious real fast! With a more handwavy prereq (i.e. the DM decides), I think it might just work, especially if your players are into this sort of thing.

Mando Knight
2009-03-24, 10:21 AM
Negativity aside, I wholly agree with the idea that achievement rewards should stem from notable achievements (you know, the kind of stuff the bards sing songs about); rather than from grinding mobs.

Agreed. Achievement feats shouldn't be "You completed level 1 on Easy! You unlocked an Achievement!" but rather "You tricked one of the Archdukes of the Nine Hells into giving you something for nothing, and got away with it, too. Bards sing of your cleverness the world over!"

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-24, 02:10 PM
Hey, just don't use them. But some people like this kind of codification of bonus and it is always nice to have more options to choose from. Beside what you are doing is giving bonus feats when succeding into a quest. It is not so different. it is just that you changed the requirementes and don't make the PC use a slot. :smallwink:

No, there is a deeper issue here.

Including a Feat in the Feat Table means that anyone could take it, if they meet the requirements. Even assuming you made the requirements stricter, you instantly trigger the same metagame problems already existing with PrC requirements - the players are going to start modeling their characters in anticipation of the feats/PrC they will pick up later.

For PrCs, this usually isn't so bad; the requirements are baseline skills necessary to undergo the appropriate training or associated events (ex: friendly contact with an evil outsider) that directly lead to the investment in power. At worst the player chooses certain levels of skills just to meet these requirements, and maybe pokes around for a sidequest - most of the metagame is kept out of the narrative.

But these feats require heavy intrusion of metagame into the narrative. Kill 25 from a list of monsters, fall unconscious from fire 10 times, successfully charm 25 people - these are all purely narrative events that would only be pursued for metagame reasons. Now, instead of fiddling around with skill points while leveling up, you're going to seek out hyenas to kill, or lots of fire creatures, or just spamming charms when you have nothing better to do. The more often the DM says "oh, that doesn't count" the more the players will pursue quests for metagame reasons until the DM caves - or until the players give up qualifying for the feats altogether. There is just no good way to implement an Achievements Feats system.

Now, my examples avoid much of the metagaming - here, the metagame aspect is secondary to the plot. The PCs are already killing gnolls to protect a defenseless village and they decide to challenge the Chieftain in single combat to force the horde to retreat. If they win, the tales of the mighty warrior who slew the mightiest gnoll warrior in single-combat will spread about, raising the reputation of the PCs among peasants and making them a source of fear and hatred for other gnoll tribes. If I decide to model that with a +2 social circumstance bonus when appropriate, and a +1 morale bonus to-hit gnolls who recognize the Gnoll Slayer, then so be it. The PCs did not engage on the quest for those bonuses - they did it to save the villagers.

Now, IMHO giving permanent mechanical bonuses because of in-game deeds is always silly. If the PCs make a mark on the campaign world, reflect it by changing the narrative - peasants in Rorihm are friendlier to the Saviors of Rorihm, fire elementals refuse to attack someone blessed with the Mark of the Sacred Flame, demons fear the man who slew their Exarch in single combat. You can model this with mechanical bonuses, but that just strikes me as more cumbersome than taking it into account when RPing encounters.

But that aside, the Achievement Feat system is a particularly bad example of such a mechanic. The requirements are poorly worded and the effects of the feat are arbitrarily assigned. Why in the world would keeping a Gnoll Hat give you +2 Will but a Goblin Hat would not? I suppose you could fix it by tying the feats explicitly into your game's narrative ("OK, if you slay the Gnoll Champion you are eligible for the Gnollslayer Feat") but that just cannot be done with generic feat lists.

Oslecamo
2009-03-24, 03:40 PM
Wow, and I that had some hope for pathfinder...

What's next? You gotta craft 20 level 1 swords before being able to craft a level 2 sword?

Another_Poet
2009-03-24, 04:07 PM
On the one hand I agree with you, Fax. Putting Fable 2 or the like on my tabletop is not my idea of a good time.

On the other hand I think this clause saves it:

GMs who don’t think achievement feats are for their game can ignore this section with no detriment to their campaign...

Problem solved. Game on.

Kyeudo
2009-03-24, 04:28 PM
That doesn't change that they are poorly implemented and barely thought out. We want usable options, not garbage.

Another_Poet
2009-03-24, 04:30 PM
What's next? You have the option of crafting 20 level 1 swords before being able to craft a level 2 sword?

Fixed it for ya.

My hope in Pathfinder remains. It keeps my favourite rolplaying system, or a close semblance thereof, marketed and on store shelves. It's more than any previous edition's diehards ever got. It makes me happy.

ap

Oslecamo
2009-03-24, 04:35 PM
Lulz oberoni fallacy it for ya.


Now it's actually fixed.

Just because I can house rule it zero to hell doesn't make it any less dumber.

Colmarr
2009-03-24, 08:59 PM
edit: tone moderated

I'm scared to think what the unmoderated tone was like! :smallbiggrin:

Another_Poet
2009-03-25, 12:41 PM
Now it's actually fixed.

Just because I can house rule it zero to hell doesn't make it any less dumber.

When the RAW themselves say "this is optional"* then leaving it out is not a houserule, nor an example of rule 0.

Sorry dude. Your application of the fallacy is misguided.

*the quote again, from the Pathfinder rules quoted in Fax's original post, in case you missed it:
"GMs who don’t think achievement feats are for their game can ignore this section with no detriment to their campaign..."

chiasaur11
2009-03-25, 12:58 PM
I'm scared to think what the unmoderated tone was like! :smallbiggrin:

Let's just put it this way.

I didn't even know you could do half the things he mentioned even if the hippopotamus volunteered.

On the other hand, the bit about the LHC seemed reasonably feasible.

Fax Celestis
2009-03-25, 01:24 PM
When the RAW themselves say "this is optional"* then leaving it out is not a houserule, nor an example of rule 0.

Sorry dude. Your application of the fallacy is misguided.

*the quote again, from the Pathfinder rules quoted in Fax's original post, in case you missed it:
"GMs who don’t think achievement feats are for their game can ignore this section with no detriment to their campaign..."

So is yours. The idea of having "certain material only be applicable with DM approval" is a moot point: all material falls into that category, as laid out in both the DMG and in the Pathfinder's "Running a Game" chapter. This is not an application of Rule Zero.

Again, I don't have a problem with the feats themselves, or even with their means of access (that of achievement); I have issue with the way these feats measure achievement.

Another_Poet
2009-03-25, 01:59 PM
This is not an application of Rule Zero.

So... we're in total agreement? This is what I was saying.


Again, I don't have a problem with the feats themselves, or even with their means of access (that of achievement); I have issue with the way these feats measure achievement.

And I say, to each their own. If Pathfinder wants to offer product support to both those who simulate video games and those of us who are more traditional gamers, I say let 'em. It doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the other chapters at all. Besides, they're still planning things out and deciding. I hope that you voiced your opinion on their playtest boards as well as here.

ap

Fax Celestis
2009-03-25, 02:06 PM
I hope that you voiced your opinion on their playtest boards as well as here.

I did not, but I may yet.

valadil
2009-03-25, 02:57 PM
... and in one fell swoop my interest in Pathfinder has been reduced to zero.

Congrats OP, you have unlocked the Pathblocker achievement!

Oslecamo
2009-03-26, 07:06 AM
When the RAW themselves say "this is optional"* then leaving it out is not a houserule, nor an example of rule 0.

Sorry dude. Your application of the fallacy is misguided.


ALL material is optional. It says right there in the DMG that the books are only guidelines to help the gaming group and the DM is completely free to add or remove stuff as he sees fit for the campaign.

Sorry dude. Your application of the RAW is misguided.

KIDS
2009-03-26, 07:18 AM
IMO, a very good idea. I think that this is the ideal case of what the proponents of "in-game training" describe, getting better at an activity after practicing it a lot during your adventures. Sadly, it also suffers from the ideal case of feat balance failure, where the benefit is too small to warrant wasting a feat even if you are a character who is interested in that direction. +2 dmg vs. gnolls/hyenas/etc.? Oh come on!!!

Unless Paizo adds a feat every level, no one is ever going to take these things because they're not relevant enough. However, I wish there were more of feats like this (rebalanced a bit) in all systems. They have potential for some really fun abilities that the characters are invested in through gameplay.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-03-26, 07:33 AM
... and in one fell swoop my interest in Pathfinder has been reduced to zero.

Congrats OP, you have unlocked the Pathblocker achievement! I'm amazed that it took you this long to get to that point :smallamused:

Jastermereel
2009-03-29, 08:25 PM
Doesn't anyone have anything better to complain about? Are things really this slow that people need to get this rilled up over a third party optional rule?

Besides, a similar, though not identical concept was thrown around back in Dragon Magazine 332 with their experienced based substitutions for the Rogue special abilities. For example, only a rogue who had succeeded on their Fort save against a Phantasmal Killer would be eligible to take "Fear Mirror" which allows them to force the source of a fear effect to make a save against it as well. This doesn't mean that rogues would be running about begging to be struck by a Phantasmal Killer, just that they would have extra options down the road if they faced one.

I think everyone can agree that the execution of the achievement based "feats" is a little poorly done (for a range of values of "a little"), but that it might be an interesting idea for a DM to incorporate bonuses along the course of the game.

Those complaining that players will go out and hunt for gnolls to "grind" are either being unrealistic or are playing with the wrong people. Yes, sure, there are going to be munchkin players who would do that, but any group who would spend their time just hunting and killing gnolls at the expense of the story for a tiny mechanical bonus.........strike that, any DM who would just sit by while players sidetracked it for this purpose who didn't just drop rocks on said players is doing it wrong.

On the other hand, a group that, in the course of our multi-year campaign, has made particularly short work out of the region's gnoll population as part of the story, might be rightly gifted with a bonus. Various prestige classes incorporate a reputation based bonus, why not generalize it and gift your players with it if they've earned it in character?

No one is forcing this rule on you. Instead of getting to irrational fanboi (redundancy noted) levels of anger over someone's idea, why not see if there's anything you can do with it?