PDA

View Full Version : combining weak feats



awa
2009-12-11, 10:40 PM
i was considering combining a couple of the weaker feats such as run and endurance and improved unarmed and improved grapple to make them more appealing to characters.
would this make them to good?

Also i was considering doing something about feats like stealth perhaps increasing the bonus to +3.
what do pepole think?

Zincorium
2009-12-11, 10:54 PM
If...

...your players will always take it: too strong, tone down a bit.

...your players will usually take it for a given character: strong feat

...your players might take it after they've taken good options: weak feat

...nobody ever takes it: too weak/circumstancial. Make it stronger or more versatile.


Granted, forums are a good resource for objective comparisons (in which case, I think both of these are good ideas), but running them past your players is the key thing here. Gauge their reactions appropriately, and don't be scared of making strong feats, just ones that are better than any other feat.

taltamir
2009-12-11, 11:07 PM
i was considering combining a couple of the weaker feats such as run and endurance and improved unarmed and improved grapple to make them more appealing to characters.
would this make them to good?

Also i was considering doing something about feats like stealth perhaps increasing the bonus to +3.
what do pepole think?

I don't know why run is considered underpowered...
I have had a character be the ONLY survivor of a TPK thanks to run before...

Glimbur
2009-12-11, 11:09 PM
I don't know why run is considered underpowered...
I have had a character be the ONLY survivor of a TPK thanks to run before...

Choosing feats so that you can survive when Rocks Fall Everyone Dies is not as helpful as choosing feats so that you can prevent Rocks Falling.

RandomLunatic
2009-12-11, 11:10 PM
Choosing feats so that you can survive when Rocks Fall Everyone Dies is not as helpful as choosing feats so that you can prevent Rocks Falling.

Better yet would be picking something that would allow you to prevent those rocks from falling in the first place...

rayne_dragon
2009-12-12, 12:34 AM
Unfortunately, even the best plans sometimes go wrong, so sometimes it's actually better to have a way to get out of rocks falling than of preventing it. Especially if other people in your party enjoy doing stupid things (like taking on a whole army at once).

sofawall
2009-12-12, 12:48 AM
Better yet would be picking something that would allow you to prevent those rocks from falling in the first place...

I think that is exactly what he said.

taltamir
2009-12-12, 12:56 AM
Unfortunately, even the best plans sometimes go wrong, so sometimes it's actually better to have a way to get out of rocks falling than of preventing it. Especially if other people in your party enjoy doing stupid things (like taking on a whole army at once).

aka... sometimes things go south and you just have to leg it :)

also... "I don't have to run faster then the bear, I just have to run faster than you"

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-12, 01:35 AM
aka... sometimes things go south and you just have to leg it :)

also... "I don't have to run faster then the bear, I just have to run faster than you"Wizard:DD/Teleport/Invisibility
Rogue:Hide
Cleric:Meld into stone
Fighter:Heavy armor so he can't move anyways, let alone outpace any of his party.

Tell me, who benefits from that feat?

Radiun
2009-12-12, 01:57 AM
Wizard:DD/Teleport/Invisibility
Rogue:Hide
Cleric:Meld into stone
Fighter:Heavy armor so he can't move anyways, let alone outpace any of his party.

Tell me, who benefits from that feat?

Druids
Wait, I'm pretty sure there's a rule against running while burrowing... still, for flying and swimming.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-12, 02:10 AM
Druids
Wait, I'm pretty sure there's a rule against running while burrowing... still, for flying and swimming.How many enemies can both fly and burrow themselves? Especially since Druids get their own array of Teleportation effects. And summons/ACs willing to go "Thou. Shalt. Not. Pass." for them.

Plus, when was the last time a Druid was overmatched?

Setra
2009-12-12, 02:31 AM
Wizard:DD/Teleport/Invisibility
Rogue:Hide
Cleric:Meld into stone
Fighter:Heavy armor so he can't move anyways, let alone outpace any of his party.

Tell me, who benefits from that feat?
Barbarians?

Rangers?
[/grasp at straws]

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-12-12, 02:33 AM
Barbarians?

Rangers?
[/grasp at straws]The Barbarian can outrun anyone anyways.

The Rangers can die in a fire.

Setra
2009-12-12, 02:35 AM
The Barbarian can outrun anyone anyways.

The Rangers can die in a fire.
Well I was grasping at straws :smalltongue:

And, fair enough =p

UserClone
2009-12-12, 03:14 AM
How many enemies can both fly and burrow themselves? Especially since Druids get their own array of Teleportation effects. And summons/ACs willing to go "Thou. Shalt. Not. Pass." for them.

Plus, when was the last time a Druid was overmatched?


I believe the line you were looking for is "YOU SHALL not pass" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3lemOeuyXM), as opposed to "thou shalt."

Curmudgeon
2009-12-12, 03:39 AM
I believe the line you were looking for is "YOU SHALL not pass" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3lemOeuyXM), as opposed to "thou shalt."
Yeah, since King Arthur & co. had to be speaking really Old (5th Century) English, which is a Germanic language vastly different from the one we're using, it makes no sense to throw in 17th Century English word forms.

Those Monty Python guys were mostly Oxbridge types, and they stayed pretty true to the legends. (Except funnier, of course.)

Prime32
2009-12-12, 06:56 AM
Wizard:DD/Teleport/Invisibility
Rogue:Hide
Cleric:Meld into stone
Fighter:Heavy armor so he can't move anyways, let alone outpace any of his party.

Tell me, who benefits from that feat?
Well, monks do, but if you're playing a monk the TPK is your fault in the first place. :smalltongue:



I believe the line you were looking for is "YOU SHALL not pass" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3lemOeuyXM), as opposed to "thou shalt."Actually, it was "You cannot pass." in the book.
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c178/timjohenez/bear/sign-youcannotpass.jpg

Kurald Galain
2009-12-12, 07:13 AM
Unfortunately, even the best plans sometimes go wrong, so sometimes it's actually better to have a way to get out of rocks falling than of preventing it.

Yes, it's called a Potion of Invisibility.

Considering how many gold pieces the average character gets vs. how many feats he gets, I'd consider that a much better deal.

boomwolf
2009-12-12, 07:31 AM
Don't underestimate weak feats such as run. the extra they give is sometimes jest what you needed.

For example-if you are a light melee swashbuckler style/twin dual, that x5 speed will help you get closer to that archer/wizard/ranged whatever that keep shooting and moving away faster they normal, and that extra round of arrival might be crucial.
Maybe you need to catch somebody that is running away because he holds the only map of a castle you need to invade and had scry protection all around.

Now, I admit these are specific situations, but they DO come up.
And how many useful feats melee dudes get anyway? not much.

These feats need a boost to make worthwhile, but they have their uses.

PhoenixRivers
2009-12-12, 07:38 AM
Now, I admit these are specific situations, but they DO come up.
And how many useful feats melee dudes get anyway? dozens


Fixed that for you.

taltamir
2009-12-12, 08:38 AM
Wizard:DD/Teleport/Invisibility
Rogue:Hide
Cleric:Meld into stone
Fighter:Heavy armor so he can't move anyways, let alone outpace any of his party.

Tell me, who benefits from that feat?

DD requires level 7 wizard, teleport level 9, invisibility requires move silently checks (your wizard will fail those).
EDIT: invis also requires a creature based threat (and not, say, a trap), and it requires that it doesn't have blind sense or scent (tracking dog).

In cases where I found it useful, I was playing a wizard that has not YET learned dimension door.

Project_Mayhem
2009-12-12, 08:43 AM
invisibility requires move silently checks (your wizard will fail those).

Ooh, Ooh, Ghost Sound!

taltamir
2009-12-12, 08:53 AM
Ooh, Ooh, Ghost Sound!

they will hear you casting the ghost sound though.

Project_Mayhem
2009-12-12, 09:11 AM
they will hear you casting the ghost sound though.

Ooh, Ooh, Silenced Ghost Hand!

Edit: Also, Ghost sound has round per level duration, so it can come first. Ideally, we go quickened Ghost hand (echoing running noise), Invisibility, and then very carefully and slowly tiptoe out. Even if they disbelieve the sound, its still obscuring your noise.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-12-12, 09:33 AM
DD requires level 7 wizard, teleport level 9, invisibility requires move silently checks (your wizard will fail those).
EDIT: invis also requires a creature based threat (and not, say, a trap), and it requires that it doesn't have blind sense or scent (tracking dog).

In cases where I found it useful, I was playing a wizard that has not YET learned dimension door.

Wizard uses Rope Trick instead. Ist very nice, yes?

Also, why use Run when Travel Devotion does it better and allows for full attacking?

Mongoose87
2009-12-12, 09:46 AM
Those Monty Python guys were mostly Oxbridge types, and they stayed pretty true to the legends. (Except funnier, of course.)

Cambridge, actually, IIRC.

Oslecamo
2009-12-12, 09:51 AM
Yes, it's called a Potion of Invisibility.

Considering how many gold pieces the average character gets vs. how many feats he gets, I'd consider that a much better deal.

Consdering how much monsters have scent/somethingsight/see invisibility at mid/high levels, potion of invisibility isn't a very reliable escape button when you can afford it.

Zincorium
2009-12-12, 10:26 AM
Consdering how much monsters have scent/somethingsight/see invisibility at mid/high levels, potion of invisibility isn't a very reliable escape button when you can afford it.

We're comparing it to the run feat. Which is only reliable against a slim sampling of the monster catalog.

Invisibility is a good way to prevent being targeted. Yeah, if you're running solo and the monster can detect you, it won't allow you to escape- but it'll still give you a miss chance against most of them while you hoof it. If there's someone else around, then they'll probably get the monster's attention more than you do (again, against most of them).

jiriku
2009-12-12, 10:34 AM
i was considering combining a couple of the weaker feats such as run and endurance and improved unarmed and improved grapple to make them more appealing to characters.
would this make them to good?

Also i was considering doing something about feats like stealth perhaps increasing the bonus to +3.
what do pepole think?

I generally roll any feat that begins with the words 'Improved' or 'Greater' into the base feat, and add a 'special' line to the base feat stating that you only get the increased benefit when you meet all the prerequisites you would have needed for the improved version of the feat. For example:


PRECISE SHOT [Fighter, General]
You are skilled at timing and aiming ranged attacks.
Prerequisite: Point Blank Shot.
Benefit: You can shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee without taking the standard -4 penalty on your attack roll.
Special: If you also have Dex 19 or better and base attack bonus +11 or better, you ignore cover and concealment, and when firing into a grapple you never hit the wrong target. Total cover and total concealment still provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.

This begins to correct a balance problem between casters and non-casters (spells scale in power as you level up, but feats don't), and allows melee types to take advantage of good ideas that were poorly executed in the rules (such as improved two-weapon fighting and greater two-weapon fighting, or bounding assault and rapid blitz). Naturally the monsters get the same benefits too if they take these feats. It works nicely.

Zar Peter
2009-12-12, 10:40 AM
Yeah, since King Arthur & co. had to be speaking really Old (5th Century) English, which is a Germanic language vastly different from the one we're using, it makes no sense to throw in 17th Century English word forms.

Those Monty Python guys were mostly Oxbridge types, and they stayed pretty true to the legends. (Except funnier, of course.)

Actually Arthur spoke Celtic or Latin (because the Romans just left Britain) and he fought the Anglo-Saxons who brought this German elements you're using into your language.

Riffington
2009-12-12, 10:47 AM
Cambridge, actually, IIRC.

Oxbridge = Cambridge/Oxford while claiming they are basically interchangeable.

Also, random idea. For feats like Run that are useful at low levels (the aforementioned wizard running away ahead of the party) but weaksauce at higher levels, give them a number of levels (2 for Run, 3-5 for Skill Focus depending on the skill) after which you keep that feat but also get a new feat for free.
Problems I can see upfront:
*lets you get lots of "high-level" feats as soon as you get to those high levels. I think I'm ok with this, especially since those are often melee ones.
*If your game uses overpowered PrCs but pretends that "feat tax" makes them more balanced. In this case nerf the overpowered PrCs or if you really want to charge a feat tax, charge it explicitly. Or, I suppose, only give the "replacement feats" for levels of base classes.

ericgrau
2009-12-12, 12:04 PM
A useless feat plus another useless feat equals a useless feat. Either ignore these feats if you don't like them or if you want players to use them more then provide the situations where they're actually useful. The DM is to blame for run and endurance in particular.

As for PH feats vs. feats from other books, that's a matter of power creep. Have fun re-balancing the mess.

Sinfire Titan
2009-12-12, 12:07 PM
Unfortunately, even the best plans sometimes go wrong, so sometimes it's actually better to have a way to get out of rocks falling than of preventing it. Especially if other people in your party enjoy doing stupid things (like taking on a whole army at once).


The problem is that Run requires another feat largely regarded as worthless, and the benefits both feats provide can be replaced outright by your WBL (a mount, for example).

Fluffles
2009-12-12, 12:41 PM
Combine Dodge + Mobility + Spring attack into one feat.

Optimystik
2009-12-12, 12:56 PM
The issue I potentially see with combining feats is PrC qualification. So you combine Dodge and Mobility, now I only have to take two feats to qualify for, say, Shadowdancer (instead of 3.) It lowers the main advantage to being human - the bonus feat - and encourages being other races.

Zincorium
2009-12-12, 01:03 PM
@Optimystik-

I would consider both of those to be good things.

tyckspoon
2009-12-12, 01:05 PM
The issue I potentially see with combining feats is PrC qualification. So you combine Dodge and Mobility, now I only have to take two feats to qualify for, say, Shadowdancer (instead of 3.) It lowers the main advantage to being human - the bonus feat - and encourages being other races.

So.. what's the problem? Builds other than human can enjoy classes that previously had prohibitive feat requirements, humans can still take more feats and now get to more freely select interesting/fun/powerful feats outside of PrC requirements. "More feats" is always going to be better than "less feats"; I don't see how reducing the number of really bad feats changes that.

awa
2009-12-12, 01:09 PM
i don't consider spring attack a weak feat, its really nice when combined with hide in plain sight

Krazddndfreek
2009-12-12, 01:12 PM
Spring attack is not a weak feat, it's just often not worth spending two feats on two worthless feats. Mobility is literally useless once you get Spring attack, and the marginal +1 to ac vs one target is not worth a feat IMHO.

Spring Attack, though, is pretty good on its own. Especially the Spring attack tree.

Fhaolan
2009-12-12, 01:40 PM
Actually Arthur spoke Celtic or Latin (because the Romans just left Britain) and he fought the Anglo-Saxons who brought this German elements you're using into your language.

So... "Alli mo basio" or "Vos can non obduco" depending.

(Note: I thought it would be more likely Welsh than Irish or Scots Gaelic, so that's what I used.)

Optimystik
2009-12-12, 01:47 PM
I said it was an issue, not a problem. Meaning, something to think about.

At lower levels, it would lessen the humans' advantage, making the stat bonuses from other races even more relevant.

At higher levels, humans would return to their original place (ahead of the other races).

So it's up to you whether you consider those to be desirable outcomes or not.

harpy
2009-12-12, 03:59 PM
One of the problems with the development of 3rd edition is that it was coming from a design perspective that was heavily influenced by collectible card games. Because of that part of the design goal of 3E was to include "system mastery." This meant that part of the design was the idea that players should gain satisfaction from mastering the system, and so elements of the game were intentionally made sub-optimal so that players could figure out that it was something to avoid if you wanted an optimized character. In essence, the game intentionally had both wheat and chaff, and separating it was part of the play experience.

That's unfortunate because an RPG character is not a CCG deck, and the RPG marketplace isn't the same business model as the CCG marketplace. In the end you get a lot of chaff that just sits around, hardly getting used when instead it could have been designed to help inspire and stimulate the game.

If I could have had a hand in the development of 3E then I'd want to come from a direction closer to Euro boardgames, where each game element was intended to be very provocative and make it a painful decision on what to take. Everything ought to have enough weight and value to it that players feel the tradeoffs they are making in their character selection.

I'm sure there would be problems if you took that design goal to its extreme, but moving from that direction would have offered up a better feat list for the game.

As for Run, it's unfortunately a very highly situational feat. If you are using it all the time, meaning the party is running for their lives, that would be great, although I'm not sure I'd want to play in a campaign where "run or you'll die" is happening all the time.

One of the resources players are using is their time with their character. Ideally you'd be able to pick feats that are applicable often, hopefully at least once per session, but at least on a frequency that feels worthwhile.

So from a design perspective I'd want the Run feat to be something worthwhile quite often. I'd probably fix it by merging it with Pathfinder's "Fleet" feat:


Fleet

You are faster than most.

Benefit: While you are wearing light or no armor, your base speed increases by 5 feet. You lose the benefits of this feat if you carry a medium or heavy load.

Special: You can take this feat multiple times. The effects stack.

I don't think the Fleet feat stacks up as worthy enough as its own feat. It's once again just a bit too much on the side of chaff. But combine it with the Run feat and I think you're getting enough bennies that it's finally worth a general feat slot.