PDA

View Full Version : "Perfect" Feats



Umael
2010-07-01, 11:38 PM
I'm trying to figure out which Feats are "perfect", and by "perfect" I mean "balanced".

For example, "Run" has been considered a horrible Feat since the days of yore when 3.0 first came out. "Power Attack" is one of the best Feats a warrior-type can get. "Leadership" is broken because it can so easily be abused.

(Amazingly enough, I don't think I've run into a discussion about which Feats ARE unbalanced one way or the other...)

Eurus
2010-07-01, 11:42 PM
Well, it obviously depends on where you set the bar. Do you see Power Attack as the pinnacle of balance, or should feats be more in line with Weapon Focus? Or more like Quicken Spell?

Draz74
2010-07-01, 11:49 PM
In Core,

Improved Initiative
Combat Reflexes
Rapid Shot
Empower Spell*
Extend Spell*
Heighten Spell
Maximize Spell*
Quicken Spell*

... strike me as the most-balanced.

With "Honorable Mentions" to Improved Trip, Augment Summoning, Improved Critical, Cleave, and Two-Weapon Fighting. (Improved Trip is mildly too good; the others are mildly underwhelming, though certainly not "bad" on the right builds.)

*Assuming you don't combo them with metamagic reducers.

Umael
2010-07-01, 11:50 PM
Well, it obviously depends on where you set the bar. Do you see Power Attack as the pinnacle of balance, or should feats be more in line with Weapon Focus? Or more like Quicken Spell?

As much as I hate to say it, I'm going for a popular vote on this one. For example, when people talk about the Fighter and various builds, there are particular Feats that show up and others that do not. You talk about Weapon Focus as a Feat that is not related to entrance into a Prestige Class, and you'll get half a dozen optimizers pointing out that it is a really bad Feat.

On the other hand, Leadership is just broken, especially if the DM isn't paying attention and does something stupid, like letting the player design and play the cohort. Suddenly, the PC is running around with four different NPCs, all under his control.

I think Power Attack is well-balanced... but that's only because it is a vital Feat to a great many builds, allowing the warrior-types to do a lot of damage. Of course, the non-warrior types are doing all these other things that a Barbarian doing 1d12 + 357 points of damage really isn't all that impressive anymore.

Umael
2010-07-02, 12:07 AM
In Core,

Improved Initiative

... strike me as the most-balanced.

Maybe I don't get the mechanics of D&D as well as I like, but I don't think that Improved Initiative is that great of a Feat. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

As I see it, most combat begins out of direct melee range. So if you are a front-line type, you have two choices (mostly): close the distance or wait for them to close. If you close the distance, you can't make a full attack, and if you wait for them to close, you can. Starting at 6th-level, waiting for them to get into your space makes a lot of sense because it means they get one attack off on you while you get two. All Improved Initiative does is make it more likely that you'll be the one who has to get up to them first to attack.

Furthermore, all Improved Initiative does is make it more likely to act first... for the first round. Once combat goes into the second round, the ability to shape the battlefield by having the opening gambit diminishes. By round two, that Improved Initiative isn't doing anyone squat.

On the flip side, yes, it does mean that it is more likely for your rogue to act first on the first round of combat and get his Sneak Attack damage, or that your wizard will be able to get off a spell before anyone else. I'll give you points for the rogue, but the wizard getting off a spell early isn't necessarily a good thing, or at least, not as good as might be imagined. Going first and popping off a spell might help a lot, or it might cue every other enemy who has yet to go that there is a wizard who needs to die. Furthermore, Improved Initiative only helps out during combat (and again, only really during the first round). A good metamagic feat can be useful both outside of combat and after the first round of combat.

Mind you, this is also something of a problem with the way D&D combat in general works. In real life, getting the drop on someone is deadly, and the closest thing to that is the rogue's Sneak Attack. If combat was such that a single hit could seriously wound or even kill an opponent, stealth and initiative would be much more important in swaying battles.



*Assuming you don't combo them with metamagic reducers.

Yeah, that... is a problem.

Mando Knight
2010-07-02, 12:11 AM
If you close the distance, you can't make a full attack, and if you wait for them to close, you can.

If they never close, then you're a pincushion. At best. If you win initiative, you can choose to delay until your enemy comes charging at you if you so choose. Lose initiative, and the wizard picks you off with a save-or-die spell.

Is it super-special-awesome? No. But it can help those who need to make sure they can position themselves to victory first.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-02, 12:12 AM
Actually, as-is most Metamagic is too costly. Even Quicken, which is godly because the action economy is the quickest route to power, is very difficult to use with +4 spell levels. Weaker ones - Empower, or worse Maximize, or much worse with Enlarge, just are inefficient. Metamagic reducers very quickly turn this around, and then they become overly powerful, but a lot of Metamagic feats would be better-balanced, I think, if they cost one less than they do.

The +1's are even more problematic. Making them free is probably too much, but there are problems with Still and Silent.

Overall, the Sudden Metamagic feats are probably the best balanced, but they're also a lot less fun.

Anyway, I'm going to toss Bind Vestige, Improved Bind Vestige, and Practiced Binder, Shape Soulmeld and Open _____ Chakra, and Martial Study and Martial Stance as simply excellent feats. They let you get a bit of uniqueness in a build, and each gives about what a feat should, while protecting the uniqueness of the classes that get them. The worst of the lot are probably the Pact Magic ones, since the Improved and Practiced versions ultimately don't get you all that much and three feats is getting very costly, but they're still good enough to list, I think.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-07-02, 12:22 AM
*snip*
Winning initiative has a different value for different characters.

I think it is most valuable for casters since, with a single spell, they can completely change the dynamics of the combat. A single haste spell majorly changes the dynamics by granting allies mobility and by increasing their damage output. Likewise, a single slow spell, if cast before an enemy force charges, can let allies run circles around their foes whilst peppering them with arrows. Battlefield control spells are even more striking in this way. A single solid fog or wall spell completely reshapes the battlefield in your favor. All of these spells benefit from being cast as early as possible since they affect all that is to come afterwards.

For ranged combatants, winning initiative is valuable, but not too necessary. It allows them to get in the first volley before their foes start closing in. Not bad.

Melee combatants can greatly benefit by winning initiative, but these benefits are more situational than those casters reap. In some situations, the terrain is such that he who acts first gains a great advantage over his foes. If, for example, there is a choke point that enemies must move through to reach the party, the first meleer there can secure much protection for his/her allies.

Beorn080
2010-07-02, 12:24 AM
^What Mando said.

Plus, if you lose initiative, and you don't win combat in a round, you have to deal with a second set of attacks. If you win initiative, you have a second round of attacks to disable the opposition before they can attack again.

As a PC, it adds up. If you go through the recommended 4 a day, if you win all four times and clean up in two rounds, you've saved yourself 4 rounds of damage and healing. If you lost those four initiatives, and still won in 2 rounds, you've taken an extra four rounds of attacks. This may mean you blow all your healing for the day, or worse.

Honestly, if your going for balance, I'd almost have to say Weapon Focus. It helps everyone in the same way. WF(Ray) or WF(Greatsword) both improve the ability to hit with them.

mabriss lethe
2010-07-02, 12:27 AM
Improved initiative is a great feat:

-in higher levels of play, he who acts first and acts most often has the greatest advantage. Sure, that wizard popping off a spell first may not be great. But that's only if he doesn't have the right kind of spell handy. If he does, the encounter can be over before it starts. A well placed rogue, if he has initiative could one shot the wizard before he has a chance to chuck the spell. (barring wizard-as-batman defense for every occasion shenanigans) The fronliner who gets initiative could possibly charge the enemy MVP and the archer-type can hold back to attempt to interrupt a caster with a hail of arrows. Improved Initiative helps everyone who will see combat at any point in a game. As the stakes get higher initiative becomes more important because if you don't act before your foe, there's a very good chance that you get shut down.

Sure, it's not going to help you in any other aspect of the game, but neither is power attack, which doesn't benefit every class equally.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-07-02, 12:28 AM
Honestly, if your going for balance, I'd almost have to say Weapon Focus. It helps everyone in the same way. WF(Ray) or WF(Greatsword) both improve the ability to hit with them.

While evenly accessible to all classes, Weapon Focus still, unfortunately, sort of sucks. A +1 to hit is really just not worth a feat. Especially if you are a non-fighter and have only 7 feats pre-epic.

Umael
2010-07-02, 12:35 AM
Well, since I said it was more a popularity vote than anything else, I guess I'll concede about Improved Initiative.


Honestly, if your going for balance, I'd almost have to say Weapon Focus. It helps everyone in the same way. WF(Ray) or WF(Greatsword) both improve the ability to hit with them.

Wrong kind of balance.

Yes, Weapon Focus helps everyone "equally", but given that you have only 7 Feats in 20 levels (ignoring what you get for your class), that +1 to hit doesn't help much at later levels.

I'm not looking for balance as in "helps everyone equally", but balance as in neither "this Feat sucks" (see Run) or "this Feat breaks the game" (see Leadership).

...

Just for the record, is everyone in agreement that Run is probably the worse of the Feats, nigh unto useless, and Leadership is the most potentially game-breaking Feat there is? Is there a Feat that is worse than Run or better than Leadership?

Mushroom Ninja
2010-07-02, 12:44 AM
Is there a Feat that is worse than Run or better than Leadership?

One might argue that toughness is worse than Run.

tyckspoon
2010-07-02, 12:44 AM
Just for the record, is everyone in agreement that Run is probably the worse of the Feats, nigh unto useless, and Leadership is the most potentially game-breaking Feat there is? Is there a Feat that is worse than Run or better than Leadership?

Skill Focus and the +2/+2 skill feats are competitively bad, especially when taken in a weak skill or one that doesn't really need any help to hit its usual DCs (like Self Sufficient for Heal+Survival, or Deceitful for Disguise+Forgery.) Dodge is pretty horrible, largely because of the 'only one target that you have to remember to declare' thing. It'd be just normally bad if it was a flat +1 bonus to your AC. I don't think any of these are still quite as bad as Run, however, since you can at least find a reason to take one of them in the service of optimizing a particular skill check or other number. Run.. just seems pointless.

ryzouken
2010-07-02, 12:46 AM
Skill Focus: Linguistics.

Run is only pointless until you actually use a run action, then you kick yourself for not having it because you lost your dex mod to ac in the hopes of opening up some range.

The Shadowmind
2010-07-02, 12:52 AM
I'm not sure if it is possible to have a feat that is better than leadership, because leadership effectively gives you a number of feats one less than you have, an extra set of actions, and the ability to in two places at once. If a stronger feat exists then you could take leadership to get the feat and more

Umael
2010-07-02, 12:59 AM
One might argue that toughness is worse than Run.

One might.

I think one might lose too.

+3 hit points... versus x5 movement instead of x4 IF you break into a full-run... and if I recall, you can't use Run if you are wearing heavy armor.

I know Toughness isn't that great of a Feat, but it's not that bad. It even is a prerequisite for a few other Feats and some Prestige Classes. I don't recall Run even doing that.

Maeglin_Dubh
2010-07-02, 01:03 AM
I have used Run in the past to play hit and run snipers in Modern games.

In D&D, I'm not so sure of it's usefulness.

Demons_eye
2010-07-02, 01:06 AM
I'm not sure if it is possible to have a feat that is better than leadership, because leadership effectively gives you a number of feats one less than you have, an extra set of actions, and the ability to in two places at once. If a stronger feat exists then you could take leadership to get the feat and more

Inquisitor beacuse it gets you into Thrallherd.

Marriclay
2010-07-02, 01:08 AM
I know Toughness isn't that great of a Feat, but it's not that bad. It even is a prerequisite for a few other Feats and some Prestige Classes. I don't recall Run even doing that.

After all, what would they have used as a prerequisite for Trollblooded if not Toughness?

HunterOfJello
2010-07-02, 01:10 AM
Feats are... complicated. I think I'll write out some examples that I think work well for my idea of what feats be.

Power Attack (great melee attacker feat that scales with Attack increases)
Extra Music (almost a must-have for a low level bard who likes to sing)
Combat Expertise -> Improved Trip (works well for the intelligent fighter role, like a Factotum)
Extend Spell (+1 level, but double duration. I love this metamagic feat, because it's effective and balanced, in my mind)
Two Weapon Fighting (the entire line of feats could use some work, but for a low level rogue, it's perfect)
Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain (Most of the weapons obtainable from this feat are terrible. A bastard sword is a waste of a feat. A fullblade could be excusable if your DM is cool and lets you use it for Intimidate bonuses)
Track (This feat is often ignored, but can lead to all sorts of interesting opportunities. I'm always tempted to take it, then grab the ToB stance that gives Scent.)

[more to come]

awa
2010-07-02, 01:17 AM
Skill focus jump is worse then run because run gives a bigger bonus and the ability to run which might theoretically come up.

Umael
2010-07-02, 01:19 AM
Feats are... complicated. I think I'll write out some examples that I think work well for my idea of what feats be.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain (Most of the weapons obtainable from this feat are terrible. A bastard sword is a waste of a feat. A fullblade could be excusable if your DM is cool and lets you use it for Intimidate bonuses)

Just wanted to comment here - the reason why Exotic Weapon Proficiency is so bad, especially for bastard sword, is that if you don't have the proficiency, you fight two-handed - which is mechanically a better build than going sword & shield.

If the combat mechanics of fighting with a shield were improved so that they were more realistic, then not only would you see more sword and shield fighters, you would see more people with EWP (bastard sword) - just so they could use the bastard sword in one hand while equipped with a shield in the other.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-02, 01:32 AM
On the flip side, yes, it does mean that it is more likely for your rogue to act first on the first round of combat and get his Sneak Attack damage
I play a lot of Rogues, and I never take Improved Initiative.

In the surprise round the critical factor is not being surprised. You achieve that with maxed out Spot and occasionally Listen, plus low-light vision or sufficiently long-range darkvision if it's not daytime. As long as somebody on the enemy side is surprised, they're flat-footed and you can probably sneak attack them with your ranged weapon. So, regardless of your initiative, you just pick a target who hasn't acted and let fly with arrow or bolt from your ready missile weapon.

On the first regular round of combat you do the same thing: pick one or more targets who haven't acted yet and fire off a full missile attack. Your good DEX score is almost always going to give you better initiative than some of the enemy force. Here the important thing is that you stick with your ranged weapon, for two reasons:

Closing for melee in the first full round is about the most tactically stupid mistake possible, because you won't get more guaranteed sneakable targets than at the beginning of combat.
If you had closed for melee in the surprise round you would have only wasted one attack opportunity then ─ but there's no way to know if you would have picked a target with better initiative, or fortification, or some other reason why they're not sneakable. Sticking with the ranged weapon lets you choose among a variety of targets and not be committed to one, possibly bad, choice.
In the second regular round of combat you don't especially need high initiative either. In particular if there's an ally who is going to move into melee combat you'll want to Delay until they do, so you'll be able to get sneak attack from their flanking support.

There are hundreds of feats available, and you've got to do your analysis carefully to pick the best ones. If you want my recommendation for a couple of excellent feats, I nominate

Craven
Savvy Rogue
Both of these feats scale: Craven with character levels, and Savvy Rogue with more Rogue special abilities. This is a characteristic shared with Power Attack, which scales with BAB.

Jallorn
2010-07-02, 01:36 AM
After all, what would they have used as a prerequisite for Trollblooded if not Toughness?

How about Improved Toughness... but it's named Toughness.

Honestly, the only thing I dislike about Improved Toughness is you can only take it once. While yeah, it's not likely that you're going to take it with every feat (unless you're playing a crazy defensive tank, and even then) two or three times over twenty levels would be nice, and not terribly overly powerful.

Runestar
2010-07-02, 01:55 AM
I feel PHB2 set some rather good precedents for melee.

lv8 - melee weapon mastery (possibly replacement for weapon spec tree)
Lv12 - robilar's gambit, armour mastery, bounding assault
Lv18 - weapon supremacy, rapid blitz

Spring attack is not a bad feat, but its requirements could be less steep, IMO.

I am a little divided over feats such as weapon finesse and steadfast determination. They are good, but everyone with a much better dex or con score respectively will surely take them, making them feat sinks. IMO, there shouldn't be a feat which you feel your class absolutely has to take in order to function properly. However, they can help reduce MAD. Or perhaps that should be a feature already inbuilt into the stat system?

Complete warrior's weapon style feats, though the prereqs are quite harsh.

It is interesting to note that if everyone takes improved initiative (including monsters), that is as good as no one taking it at all. Another feat sink?

Optimator
2010-07-02, 02:52 AM
Snap Kick. Dreamtelling. Close-Quarters Combat.

Zovc
2010-07-02, 03:21 AM
+3 hit points... versus x5 movement instead of x4 IF you break into a full-run... and if I recall, you can't use Run if you are wearing heavy armor.

I want you to explain to me how being able to reliably escape from a lot of encounters is worse than three extra hit points.


Skill Focus and the +2/+2 skill feats are competitively bad, especially when taken in a weak skill or one that doesn't really need any help to hit its usual DCs (like Self Sufficient for Heal+Survival, or Deceitful for Disguise+Forgery.)

I think the problem with Skill Focus (and the +2/+2 feats, but I don't really like them) is that skills themselves weren't thought out well enough.

Skill Focus (Jump) gets better when it becomes Skill Focus (Athletics), applying to Climb, Jump, and Swim--they've all become one skill. I understand the desire to split hairs and say, "Well someone might be bad at jumping, but that doesn't stop them from being a good swimmer." I know, but when you're seriously trying to make a character choose between jumping (Jump) and casting spells that let them jump better (Use Magic Device (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/jump.htm))... which one do you think they will pick?

tl;dr, tyckspoon, while Skill Focus (anything) and the +2/+2 skill feats are weak, this is more so a weakness of the skill system rather than the feats themselves being 'poorly designed'.

DonEsteban
2010-07-02, 04:28 AM
Let me throw in this poll (http://dnd.dracones.de/feats/) again, which I posted in the Homebrew forum but didn't get much response, yet.

Corporate M
2010-07-02, 04:42 AM
I can't believe with all the feats there are, that it never occured to wotc to try and develop class based feats to help the lower tiers.

It stands to reason that class based feats make the most since. Casters generally don't need them, and it only enhances their already awesome potential. But rather then create class based feats for lower tier classes that dynamically challenge them against even the toughest caster build. They'd rather just create tree after tree.

I don't think most players bother to discuss feat balance because it doesn't really matter. It won't help the bad classes, and it won't really show any difference in the good.

nedz
2010-07-02, 05:04 AM
Improved Initiative is actually campaignDM dependant.
I played in one game where every encounter was an ambush, even when we saw them coming from like miles away :smallmad: Almost everyone had Improved Initiative. In more imaginative games its less useful.

Why has no one mentioned Shield Proficiency ?
Or Simple Weapon Proficiency ?
Or Martial Weapon Proficiency ?
You normally get these as class features, but you can take them as feats; not that I'm aware of a class which doesn't get, at least, Simple Weapon Proficiency.

Corporate M
2010-07-02, 05:07 AM
not that I'm aware of a class which doesn't get, at least, Simple Weapon Proficiency.
To my knowledge most prestige classes don't startout with weapon proficietcies, and commoner only gets proficientcy with one simple weapon...

Which gives me an idea...

Runestar
2010-07-02, 05:16 AM
To my knowledge most prestige classes don't startout with weapon proficietcies, and commoner only gets proficientcy with one simple weapon...

Which gives me an idea...

Prcs are essentially extensions of your base class. It makes sense that they shouldn't grant weapon/armour proficiencies, as the player is expected to continue with whatever proficiencies he started out with.

Greensleeve
2010-07-02, 05:18 AM
When it comes to great feats, I'm gonna have to say Knowledge Devotion. Scales with your level, grants meaningful (kinda) bonuses, usable by pretty much everyone (with an extra feat and some skill points).

Though I must also agree with DragoonWraith on the Binding, Incarnum and ToB feats. They are very tasty.

--Lime--
2010-07-02, 05:22 AM
not that I'm aware of a class which doesn't get, at least, Simple Weapon Proficiency.

Druid doesn't... but then they just wildshape or cast or summon. Or have their companion do the attacking in melee.

Amphetryon
2010-07-02, 06:13 AM
If I remember correctly, Run is an important feat in several Leap Attack builds.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-02, 06:29 AM
Actually, as-is most Metamagic is too costly. Even Quicken, which is godly because the action economy is the quickest route to power, is very difficult to use with +4 spell levels.

I second this. I find that unless you have a specific combo in mind, or can use metamagic reduction, you're almost always better off finding a higher-level variant to the spell you would be metamagicking.

Also, PHB2 has several immediate spells, which tend to be more practical than Quicken.

Zombimode
2010-07-02, 06:41 AM
If I remember correctly, Run is an important feat in several Leap Attack builds.

Uh.. how? Both Run and Charge are full round actions. At least how I understand the rules they cant be combined.

hamishspence
2010-07-02, 06:46 AM
It grants +4 to all Jump checks that have "a running start"

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#run

A running start does not actually require that you be running- only that you move at least 20 ft in a straight line.

Hence- it's useful.

Amphetryon
2010-07-02, 06:51 AM
Uh.. how? Both Run and Charge are full round actions. At least how I understand the rules they cant be combined.

I'm too lazy to go digging them up, but I recall at least one that combined the ability to use Run with the ToB Maneuver that makes it a Swift action to jump. By increasing running speed, the distance jumped increased, which increased damage.

Charge may also be taken as a Standard Action when limited to a single action in a round. This is quite useful in some cases.

hamishspence
2010-07-02, 06:57 AM
I thought jump checks were always based on your speed?

Hence, while a guy with 40 ft speed and Run, can move as fast as a guy with 50 ft speed and no Run feat, the guy with 50 ft speed gets a big speed bonus to all Jump checks?

Not that it matters much- since the bonus from Run, is equal to the +4 bonus from an extra 10 ft of speed- hence they will be equal.

Amphetryon
2010-07-02, 07:00 AM
I thought jump checks were always based on your speed?

Hence, while a guy with 40 ft speed and Run, can move as fast as a guy with 50 ft speed and no Run feat, the guy with 50 ft speed gets a big speed bonus to all Jump checks?

Not that it matters much- since the bonus from Run, is equal to the +4 bonus from an extra 10 ft of speed- hence they will be equal.
Hence my note about my own laziness. :smallbiggrin:

Thespianus
2010-07-02, 07:31 AM
By increasing running speed, the distance jumped increased, which increased damage.
But Leap Attack doesn't increase the damage depending on how far you jump?

It's a flat "double if you jump 10ft or more", isn't it?

hamishspence
2010-07-02, 07:40 AM
Maybe its combining the Falling damage rules with Leap Attack? Use a Jump check to jump so high, you inflict damage on the target as you come down as if you were a falling object?

Amphetryon
2010-07-02, 07:42 AM
Maybe its combining the Falling damage rules with Leap Attack? Use a Jump check to jump so high, you inflict damage on the target as you come down as if you were a falling object?

Combined with that +4 to Jump checks with a running start for better chances of success, particularly at low levels, that seems likely.

gbprime
2010-07-02, 09:13 AM
The "perfect feat" is one that gives your character a new capability. Merely adding to an existing capability is nice, but tends to be inefficient. +1 to something feats should be taken only as pre-requisites to a PrC or feat that gives you a new ability or lets you own the world. :smallamused:

Examples of what I consider to be "perfect feats"...

Extraordinary Spell Aim
Minor Shapeshift (and select other reserve feats)
Knowledge Devotion (and select other devotion feats)
Robilar's Gambit
Three Mountains
Daring Outlaw (and select other feats that increase the value of multi-classing)
Power Attack
Cleave
Weapon Finesse
Leadership
Whirlwind Attack (were it not for the pre-req chain)

Gnaeus
2010-07-02, 09:22 AM
In most campaigns:

Scribe Scrolls
Craft Wands
Craft Wondrous Items.

Good for combat. Good for utility. The last one especially can be good for party balance if used to craft for weaker builds.

Unless your DM never gives gold or downtime, in which case they are kinda useless for anyone outside Eberron.

gbprime
2010-07-02, 09:44 AM
And don't forget to retrain Craft Wands into Craft Staff when you're higher level. Same price, more utility, get to use your stat mod and caster level.

Person_Man
2010-07-02, 09:52 AM
Here's my generic list of useful feats. (There's not a lot of metamagic on it, because those are obvious choices for full casters, and thus I don't even bother keeping them on my list).
Abominable Form
Acheron Flurry
Ancestral Relic
Animal Devotion
Arcane Schooling
Arcane Strike
Awesome Smite
Battle Blessing
Battle Jump
Bind Vestige
Bloodsoaked Intimidate
Brutal Strike
Celestial Mount
Chosen of Evil
Close Quarters Fighting
Combat Acrobat
Combat Panache
Combat Focus + Combat Vigor + Combat Stability
Confound the Big Folk
Contagious Paralysis
Dark Speech
Dark Whispers
Darkstalker
Deepspawn
Deformity (Obese)
Deformity (Madness)
Dilate Aura
Dire Flail Smash
Dive for Cover
Divine Fortune
Divine Defiance
Divine Might
Divine Shield
Double Hit
Dreadful Wrath
Dragonfire Strike
Dragon Tail
Dragon Trainer
Earth Devotion
Eilservs School
Elusive Target
Extraordinary Concentration
Evasive Reflexes
Evil Blessing
Fearless
Fearless Destiny
Force of Personality
Goad
Heart of Incarnum
Hold the Line
Improved Familiar
Imperious Command
Inhuman Reach
Insane Defiance
Intuitive Attack
Karmic Strike
Knockback
Knowledge Devotion
Leadership
Leap Attack
Lightning Mace
Lunatic Insight
Maiming Strike
Mage Slayer
Magic Device Attunement
Martial Stance
Martial Study
Mercantile Background
Mobile Spellcasting
Midnight Augmentation
Minor Shapeshift
Nymph’s Kiss
Obtain Familiar
Pierce Magical Concealment
Parrying Shield
Persistent Refusal
Pious Defiance
Power Attack
Practiced Manifester
Prehensile Tail
Pushback
Quell the Profane
Rampaging Bull Rush
Resounding Blow
Reaping Talons
Robilar’s Gambit
Saddleback
Sand Dancer
Sand Snare
Scorpion’s Grasp
Shards of Granite
Shield Slam
Shield Ward
Shock Trooper
Slave to Evil
Smiting Power
Smooth Talk
Snowflake Wardance
Song of the White Raven
Sociable Personality
Spirit Sense
Staggering Strike
Star Spawn
Stone Power
Stormguard Warrior
Sword of the Arcane Order
Steadfast Determination
Supernatural Instincts
Tashalatora
Tiger Blooded
Tireless
Three Mountains Style
Tomb Tainted Soul
Touch of Golden Ice
Travel Devotion
Undead Empathy
Vow of Peace
Willing Deformity + Deformity (Tall)
Winged Warrior

Amphetryon
2010-07-02, 09:56 AM
I don't recognize 'Pushback'; source, please?

Person_Man
2010-07-02, 10:14 AM
I don't recognize 'Pushback'; source, please?

Miniatures Handbook pg 27.

The poor man’s Knockback (which requires Powerful Build). Once per round when you hit an adjacent enemy of your size or smaller, you can Bull Rush him 5 feet (strait back or diagonally) and move into his space as a free action. The movement doesn't provoke AoO. I've found that it can be very useful in dungeons or other confined spaces, especially when combined with the Dungeoncrasher alternate class feature (massive bonus damage when you Bull Rush someone into a wall or solid object, from Dungeonscape).

Psyx
2010-07-02, 10:20 AM
"Suddenly, the PC is running around with four different NPCs, all under his control."

What - like 1st ed?


"Just for the record, is everyone in agreement that Run is probably the worse of the Feats, nigh unto useless"

Martial weapon proficiency is pretty dire if you are insane enough to buy it as a feat. You get proficiency with ONE weapon FFS! This has to be the worst feat there is, in my book.


The '+2 to 2 skills' feats are festering toe-cheese. I've never seen anyone take one of these feats, except as a pre-req.
Skill focus at +3 on one skill isn't fantastic either, to say the least.

Expensive metamagics are very costly 'as is', and many aren't worth it unless you have blag that makes them more viable.

Endurance is pretty bad. Allowing you to sleep in armour (an ability replicated by a magic item worth about 1000gp, as I recall) is the best thing about it.

The feats allowing a daily use of a few cantrips are flavourful...but bad.

No mention yet for Mobility. A truly dire feat. Sure... you could waltz though a threatened area at +4AC... or just tumble.


Combat casting is pretty bad as written. Even Skill Focus: Concentration is a better bet.

All of the item creation feats are just a way for you to make everyone else better at the cost of your own XP and time. No thanks.

I kinda view the Knowledge devotion as a bit too good. It eclipses the vast majority of feats published, which is kind of a shame.

Someone already mentioned close quarter combat. A lovely feat that's in no way broken.

Draz74
2010-07-02, 10:43 AM
I still think some metamagic is nicely balanced "out of the box." Quicken ... is often mentioned as an automatic staple feat for Practical Optimization of Casters, even when no metamagic reducers are involved. Extend is terribly useful; the only reason it might not be a worthwhile feat is because of the accessibility of Metamagic Rods. And Empower ... hmm, I guess I'm not 100% positive whether that one is worth it without reducers.


Spring attack is not a bad feat, but its requirements could be less steep, IMO.
True -- it would be a decent (but not great) feat if its prerequisites weren't so lame.


I am a little divided over feats such as weapon finesse and steadfast determination. They are good, but everyone with a much better dex or con score respectively will surely take them, making them feat sinks. IMO, there shouldn't be a feat which you feel your class absolutely has to take in order to function properly. However, they can help reduce MAD. Or perhaps that should be a feature already inbuilt into the stat system?
I've seen a number of builds with much better CON than WIS that still can't manage to fit in two feats for Steadfast Determination. And the ones that do fit it in, I feel, have made an appropriate sacrifice for what they're gaining.

On a more general level, I think MAD should be built into the system (and all classes should be MAD), and that there's nothing wrong with feats that reduce it. I prefer this system over something more like 4e where the stat system comes with a lot of built-in anti-MAD.


It is interesting to note that if everyone takes improved initiative (including monsters), that is as good as no one taking it at all. Another feat sink?

No, because not everyone takes it.


Why has no one mentioned Shield Proficiency ?
Or Simple Weapon Proficiency ?
Or Martial Weapon Proficiency ?
You normally get these as class features, but you can take them as feats; not that I'm aware of a class which doesn't get, at least, Simple Weapon Proficiency.

You're not aware of the Monk or Wizard? :smalltongue:

And they haven't been mentioned because, unless you get them for free as class features, they're terrible feats. And this thread is about "perfect" feats.


Though I must also agree with DragoonWraith on the Binding, Incarnum and ToB feats. They are very tasty.

Binding feats are terrible. :smallyuk: I can't imagine why DragoonWraith was praising them, unless it's only for their fluff value.

Amphetryon
2010-07-02, 10:47 AM
Don't some folks use 2 Binding Feats to get into Anima Mage as a straight Wizard? Seems like that's handy, at least.

Optimystik
2010-07-02, 10:49 AM
Once again, it falls to me to bring Psionics into the discussion. :smalltongue:

The XPH gave us plenty of great feats (including non-psionic ones) that I think could fit the criteria given in the OP.

Part of what makes psionic feats (including metapsionics) more balanced is changing their resource. Instead of beinig powered by uses/day, they are effectively powered by move actions, resulting in a much more tactical at-will system.

So, to expand the list of "balanced feats":

- Metapsionics: far, far better balanced than metamagic. DragoonWraith's assessment of metamagic was absolutely right - As-is, the mechanic is either too expensive to be useful, or too cheap to be balanced; there is very little middle ground. However, I think I can write enough on the subject of why metapsionics are more balanced than metamagic to take up its own thread, so I will leave it at that for now.
- Body Fuel: an excellent example of a balanced feat. Gives a great benefit [PP] in exchange for a cost that actually matters (physical ability scores); then it makes sure that it plugs the loopholes by which cheese may enter. (You must be alive, you cannot prevent or prematurely heal ability burn, and you can't even use it while in someone else's body. Yes, they even thought of that!) Simple, elegant, effective.
- Deadly Precision: Draz has shown me the error of my ways on this one. :smallwink: I probably should have compared it to Craven.
- Expanded Knowledge: At first, this one looks weak. A whole feat for one power? No thanks. Oh, it can grab them off anyone's list? Now we're talking. Why yes, I'll have Astral Construct and a side of Schism, thanks.
- Hidden Talent: as above, you learn a power from anyone's list; except it has to be first level. But the advantages are that it's not subject to the "highest level -1" rule (so you can use this to learn Astral Construct, Synesthete, Compression, Expansion etc. at first level no matter what your class is); you get 2 free PP to manifest the power with, which get added to your pool; and you become psionic if you weren't before. This lets you grab psionic goodies (like feats and certain PrCs) without actually having levels in a psionic class, or being a psionic race. (Note: use this and NOT Wild Talent.)
- Overchannel: Take untyped damage, boost your ML. Versatile, straightforward and again, gets better as you level (more HP).
- Practiced Caster/Manifester: This is well worth a feat, and every caster should have had the choice of a similar ability. (Practiced Invoker, Practiced Initiator, Practiced Meldshaper etc.)
- Psionic Mastery - Take 10 on ML checks. This is solid gold, and well worth spending a feat to get.
- Stand Still: Trade an AoO of damage to keep opponent's still. Again, balanced cost/benefit.

Psionic feats I don't think are balanced: (These are feats that are actually good or have potential, but didn't need to be feats.)
Psionic Meditation - this is a feat tax. There was no reason for becoming focused to be a full-round action by default. Anytime you have a feat that members of a class feel like they have to take, that's an indicator that the feat itself should have been baseline.
Psicrystal Containment - Another feat tax. If you ever get a psicrystal you're getting this, so why not let Psicrystals hold a focus for you as a base ability?
Open Mind - I'd say a feat is worth more than 5 skill points, but that's just me.
Psionic Body - if this works with Metapsionic feats then I'll be a lot more on board. But it doesn't seem to.
Don Mantle/Tap Mantle: They should really have reversed the order of these, or better yet combined them. My Psywar would much rather have the granted ability of most mantles than the powers in them, especially since only Ardents can switch out the powers by RAW.
Ectopic Form: Just, no. A nerf that was not needed.
Mind Cleave: Feat tax for soulknives, as if they needed one. This one gives them back their full-attack.

okpokalypse
2010-07-02, 10:57 AM
Improved Initiative is pretty useless simply because a d20 Initiative roll is far too wide a range. There needs to be way more modifiers on the initiative roll, and realistically, Initiative should be either a smaller range (d10) or a curved range (2d10).

The fact that a 20 Dex Monk w/ Improved Initiative can even lose initiative to a Full-Plate and Tower-Shield wearing Fighter with a 10 Dex and OverSized 1H Weapon makes me sick, let alone the chance being about 1 in 4.

okpokalypse
2010-07-02, 11:09 AM
- Metapsionics: far, far better balanced than metamagic. DragoonWraith's assessment of metamagic was absolutely right - As-is, the mechanic is either too expensive to be useful, or too cheap to be balanced; there is very little middle ground. However, I think I can write enough on the subject of why metapsionics are more balanced than metamagic to take up its own thread, so I will leave it at that for now.

Meta-Psionics aren't great early on. Unless you blow two feats to get a 2nd focus via your psi-crystal, you're limited to one Meta-Psionic use per turn, and even when you've got two (and psychic meditation), you need to blow your swift action on Hustle to get a 2nd Move to get back both Focii. Not good. The inability to stack Focus Expenditure early is brutal.

The Ardent overcomes this with the Dominant Ideal (L10) Option, and then it gets a bit over-powered if manipulated the right way.

The right build, by L18 can have "free" Empower, Sculpt, Knockdown, Para-Elemental and Transdimensional Powers w/ Meta-Power (taken multiple times) as well as a +2 PSP Twinned Power :smallsmile:. So for only +2 PSP and no Psionic Focus Expenditure I'm doing 50% more Damage, Twice Over, and it's Knocking Down and Entangling (if Energy) in a variety of AoE Tpyes - and it affects ethereal and non-corporeal. All for +2 PSP. It's pretty easy to do.

Similarly though, a Conjurer / Master Conjurer can do something quite similar with Melf's Unicorn Arrow. 3/ Day Free Quickened Twinned Empowered Maximized Melf's Unicorn Arrows along with Standard Action ones is just mean. Does 500 HP damage a round without breaking a sweat. No Save, No SR.

What it comes down to is that once you factor in reduction in Meta-Magic and Meta-Psionic costs, the system gets squirrely real fast...

Optimystik
2010-07-02, 11:20 AM
I didn't say Metapsionics were more powerful - I said they were more balanced.

The really good ones are hard to stack due to the focus cost. (Linked Power, Delayed Power, etc.) This keeps them useful without being broken.

Raising your caster level does not raise the cap you can metamagic a spell with, because doing so does not give you any additional slots. However, raising your manifester level does raise the cap you can spend on a power, and therefore makes metapsionics possible. But you always have the tradeoff between applying metapsionics and simply augmenting the power - unless the power cannot be augmented or there is no need to. (Very rare for blasting powers, which are typically the ones you want to meta anyway.)

Because metapsionics and augmentation are pulling from the same resource (PP), and furthermore, metapsionics share a resource with many of your other feats (your focus, or that of your psicrystal), metapsionics are kept in check while remaining useful. Meanwhile, metamagic is either useless or broken, except for very specific ones like Extend Spell.

As for Dominant Ideal, it is indeed very powerful (enough so to raise Ardents to Tier 2); however, it has a heavy opportunity cost in that you need 10 levels of ardent, 5 of which are dead levels.

Draz74
2010-07-02, 11:27 AM
Part of what makes psionic feats (including metapsionics) more balanced is changing their resource. Instead of beinig powered by uses/day
Assuming you were going to finish that sentence with something about psionic focus ... yes, that's probably my favorite part of the psionics system. :smallsmile:


- Body Fuel: an excellent example of a balanced feat. Gives a great benefit [PP] in exchange for a cost that actually matters (physical ability scores); then it makes sure that it plugs the loopholes by which cheese may enter. (You must be alive, you cannot prevent or prematurely heal ability burn, and you can't even use it while in someone else's body. Yes, they even thought of that!) Simple, elegant, effective.
Hmmm. I admit they did a better job than usual of pre-emptive cheese prevention here ... but I still haven't seen anyone ever actually use this feat.


- Deadly Precision: elegant and effective. Reroll all ones when you roll sneak attack damage. Constantly on, and therefore worth a feat slot. And like all good feats, it scales - i.e. this feat gets better as you level, because you'll be rolling more dice.
Uh. Math time. This feat adds 0.41666667 average damage to each sneak attack die. Even for a Level 19 Rogue, that's just adding (let's be generous and round up) 5 damage to each Sneak Attack. By no means is this worth a feat. :smallyuk:

I'm not even sure a feat that just added +1 damage to each Sneak Attack die would be worth it, and that's more than twice as good as Deadly Precision.


- Hidden Talent: as above, you learn a power from anyone's list; except it has to be first level.
Eh, I don't really like this feat, just because it wasn't well integrated with the rest of the rules (being in a Sidebar). It's not in the SRD; I feel a little guilty anytime I take it; and it doesn't explain its rules clearly (like how exactly Charisma relates to the use of the power you gain here, especially if you also have levels in a psionic class).

Conceptually, though, I agree, this feat was a great idea; a predecessor to the excellent "dip-into-new-mechanics" feats in ToB and MoI.


- Practiced Caster/Manifester: This is well worth a feat, and every caster should have had the choice of a similar ability. (Practiced Invoker, Practiced Initiator, Practiced Meldshaper etc.)
Good feat ... but not in the XPH. :smallwink:


- Psionic Mastery - Take 10 on ML checks. This is solid gold, and well worth spending a feat to get.
I don't recognize this one at all. Where is it from?


Psicrystal Containment - Another feat tax. If you ever get a psicrystal you're getting this, so why not let Psicrystals hold a focus for you as a base ability?
Because then the Psicrystal feat would have been way, way too good? Hmm, I don't think we're going to agree about the game design principles of "feat taxes" in general. :smallconfused:


Open Mind - I'd say a feat is worth more than 5 skill points, but that's just me.
No, not just you, we're in total agreement on this.


Psionic Body - if this works with Metapsionic feats then I'll be a lot more on board. But it doesn't seem to.
Math time again. Even if this applied to Metapsionic feats ... it would be worse than Improved Toughness for most characters. With the exception of Psychic Warriors who don't take any Fighter feats. They could possibly get up to about 32 Hit Points (at Level 20) from this feat ... which isn't terrible, but still isn't a great feat.


Don Mantle/Tap Mantle: They should really have reversed the order of these, or better yet combined them. My Psywar would much rather have the granted ability of most mantles than the powers in them, especially since only Ardents can switch out the powers by RAW.
And even for Ardents, you're relying on DM-fiat-reliant web material rather than the original source text. :smalltongue:

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, adding another mantle to a psionic character seems like it should be very powerful, worthy of two feats. On the other hand, feats are useful for so many things, I haven't seen any psionic characters actually manage to squeeze these two feats into their build. So yeah, maybe they're too weak after all.

Person_Man
2010-07-02, 11:37 AM
RE: Improved Initiative

You can gain a bonus to Initiative via a variety of means (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=6000.0). For example, if you enchant your gauntlets or armor spikes with the Warning enhancement, you get +5 to Initiative in exchange for 8,000 gp (the cost of enchanting a non-magical weapon to make it a +1 Warning weapon). Similarly, if I was a full caster I'd have many options for boosting my Initiative with spells (with the easiest being Alter Self). Or I could play a very small race (which tends to have higher Dex).

The point is, Feats are valuable, and I tend not to use them on things I can get other ways.

Optimystik
2010-07-02, 11:42 AM
Assuming you were going to finish that sentence with something about psionic focus ... yes, that's probably my favorite part of the psionics system. :smallsmile:

Oops. Fixed. :smallredface:


Hmmm. I admit they did a better job than usual of pre-emptive cheese prevention here ... but I still haven't seen anyone ever actually use this feat.

With all the ways of lowering PP costs and regaining them, it just hasn't been necessary for most psionics players. Perhaps in a low-item campaign? Could be nice with VoP, especially when torcs etc. are hard to come by.


Uh. Math time. This feat adds 0.41666667 average damage to each sneak attack die. Even for a Level 19 Rogue, that's just adding (let's be generous and round up) 5 damage to each Sneak Attack. By no means is this worth a feat. :smallyuk:

I'm not even sure a feat that just added +1 damage to each Sneak Attack die would be worth it, and that's more than twice as good as Deadly Precision.

I'll be honest, I was thinking of my Spellwarp Sniper build when I put this one in, that gets (CL/3) extra SA dice thanks to Hunter's Eye. The feat does improve as you add dice but I'll agree that it's less useful than I initially thought.


Eh, I don't really like this feat, just because it wasn't well integrated with the rest of the rules (being in a Sidebar). It's not in the SRD; I feel a little guilty anytime I take it; and it doesn't explain its rules clearly (like how exactly Charisma relates to the use of the power you gain here, especially if you also have levels in a psionic class).

Conceptually, though, I agree, this feat was a great idea; a predecessor to the excellent "dip-into-new-mechanics" feats in ToB and MoI.

I love it. The powers I linked above are mainstays for many builds, and being able to grab them at first level is quite a boon.


Good feat ... but not in the XPH. :smallwink:
***
I don't recognize this one at all. Where is it from?


Whoever said I was sticking to the XPH? :smalltongue:

Those are from CPsi.


Because then the Psicrystal feat would have been way, way too good? Hmm, I don't think we're going to agree about the game design principles of "feat taxes" in general. :smallconfused:

Would it? A familiar gets just as good (if not better) with a spell. Never mind that some of them can hold items, and some of them can even speak to voice-command activate them. No, I'd say letting them hold a focus as a base ability is more than fair.


And even for Ardents, you're relying on DM-fiat-reliant web material rather than the original source text. :smalltongue:

It's still RAW. The rules are written by WotC - they just happen to be written elsewhere.


I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, adding another mantle to a psionic character seems like it should be very powerful, worthy of two feats. On the other hand, feats are useful for so many things, I haven't seen any psionic characters actually manage to squeeze these two feats into their build. So yeah, maybe they're too weak after all.

Adding mantles would be much more useful if they let you do the granted ability first, and then spend another to access the powers if you really wanted. Remember that you still have to spend your powers known to learn them (similar to adding a domain to a sorcerer) so just Tapping the mantle is pretty pointless for most builds.

Gnaeus
2010-07-02, 11:55 AM
The fact that a 20 Dex Monk w/ Improved Initiative can even lose initiative to a Full-Plate and Tower-Shield wearing Fighter with a 10 Dex and OverSized 1H Weapon makes me sick, let alone the chance being about 1 in 4.

It is actually much less than that. A +9 v. a + 0 initiative bonus, winning on ties, will win initiative more than 85% of the time.


RE: Improved Initiative

You can gain a bonus to Initiative via a variety of means (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=6000.0). For example, if you enchant your gauntlets or armor spikes with the Warning enhancement, you get +5 to Initiative in exchange for 8,000 gp (the cost of enchanting a non-magical weapon to make it a +1 Warning weapon). Similarly, if I was a full caster I'd have many options for boosting my Initiative with spells (with the easiest being Alter Self). Or I could play a very small race (which tends to have higher Dex).

The point is, Feats are valuable, and I tend not to use them on things I can get other ways.

That is valid. But assuming that you are a caster v. equivalent caster, you have both cast your initiative + spells, the guy with Imp Init still has an advantage in going first. If Warning is the most cost efficient way to have a good initiative, won't most intelligent enemies be using Warning weapons as well, thus negating your advantage?

Draz74
2010-07-02, 11:56 AM
I love it. The powers I linked above are mainstays for many builds, and being able to grab them at first level is quite a boon.
Yeah, it's awesome as long as you and your DM can agree on the details.


Whoever said I was sticking to the XPH? :smalltongue:

Those are from CPsi.
Might have been implied by:

The XPH gave us plenty of great feats (including non-psionic ones) that I think could fit the criteria given in the OP.
:smalltongue:

And I recognized Practiced Manifester, just not the other.


Would it? A familiar gets just as good (if not better) with a spell. Never mind that some of them can hold items, and some of them can even speak to voice-command activate them. No, I'd say letting them hold a focus as a base ability is more than fair.
Spellcasters are a poor standard against which to judge balance.


It's still RAW. The rules are written by WotC - they just happen to be written elsewhere.
Did I say otherwise?


Adding mantles would be much more useful if they let you do the granted ability first, and then spend another to access the powers if you really wanted. Remember that you still have to spend your powers known to learn them (similar to adding a domain to a sorcerer) so just Tapping the mantle is pretty pointless for most builds.

Thing is, some Mantles have good powers but crappy Granted Mantle Abilities. Taking those via two feats -- first, one to access the terrible Granted Ability, then one to access the powers -- would be doubly painful. I can see the desire for Ardents to stick with good Granted Abilities for their class-based Mantles, then cherry-pick the powers of a decent mantle via a Tap Mantle feat. But that requires not reversing the order of these two feats.

You may, however, be able to convince me that the two feats should really just be combined into one. Hmmm, especially if a tougher prerequisite was involved.

Hey -- what about a prerequisite of "Expanded Knowledge (one of the powers in this mantle)"? So you'd still have to spend two feats to get access to both the mantle's powers and its Granted Ability, but you'd get a "free" Known Power in the package.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-02, 11:59 AM
Having both feats but just ditching any prerequisite for the other would seem to make the most sense. Take one or both as you like.

Draz74
2010-07-02, 12:02 PM
Having both feats but just ditching any prerequisite for the other would seem to make the most sense. Take one or both as you like.

That would actually be fine ... but I still like the version I came up with better.

Optimystik
2010-07-02, 12:08 PM
Might have been implied by:

:smalltongue:

I didn't imply, you inferred. :smallwink:


Spellcasters are a poor standard against which to judge balance.

...Unless you're a manifester, in which case they're the only standard against which to judge balance.

You have to compare a psicrystal's benefits to those of a familiar/animal companion. What else are you going to compare it to?


Thing is, some Mantles have good powers but crappy Granted Mantle Abilities. Taking those via two feats -- first, one to access the terrible Granted Ability, then one to access the powers -- would be doubly painful. I can see the desire for Ardents to stick with good Granted Abilities for their class-based Mantles, then cherry-pick the powers of a decent mantle via a Tap Mantle feat. But that requires not reversing the order of these two feats.

But the thing is, you can get the good powers via Expanded Knowledge already - and without using your powers known to do so. So you have your route to useful powers if you need it.

Consider a Mantled Psywar - He will probably want the granted abilities of Time, Freedom, Guardian, Justice, Deception, and/or Destruction. What are the powers under those mantles? They are almost universally either pointless for him... or they're already on his list!


You may, however, be able to convince me that the two feats should really just be combined into one. Hmmm, especially if a tougher prerequisite was involved.

Hey -- what about a prerequisite of "Expanded Knowledge (one of the powers in this mantle)"? So you'd still have to spend two feats to get access to both the mantle's powers and its Granted Ability, but you'd get a "free" Known Power in the package.

Again, this shafts psywars, because the mantles they want typically already consist of powers on their list (so no reason to EK any of them), the powers they don't have are out of reach (6th level or higher), or in the rare case of it not being a power on their list, isn't useful to them. As for Ardents, they basically have every power on their list (thanks to substitution), and so have no need to EK any of them; they can gain mantles naturally anyway and so don't need the Mantle feats.

It would be decent for mantled Wilders and Erudites... but the former typically doesn't have the feats to spare.

I like DW's fix.

Umael
2010-07-02, 12:20 PM
I want you to explain to me how being able to reliably escape from a lot of encounters is worse than three extra hit points.

Sure. You want to qualify "reliably escape" for me?

Look at the numbers.

A) Halfling in plate armor, goes 15', x3 without Run, x4 with it. 45'/60'
B) Human in plate armor, goes 20', x3 without Run, x4 with it. 60'/80'
C) Dwarf, in or out of plate armor, goes 20', x4 without Run, x5 with it. 80'/100'
D) Human wearing chainmail, goes 30', x4 without Run, x 5 with it. 120'/150'
E) Human barbarian, goes 40', x4 without Run, x5 with it. 160'/200'

i) "Super-slow" monster, goes 10', runs for 40'.
ii) "Slow" monster, goes 20', runs for 80'
iii) "Normal" monster, goes 30', runs for 120'
iv) "Fast" monster, goes 40', runs for 160'
v) "Super-fast" monster, goes 50', runs for 200'

A either doesn't need Run or Run will not help.
B outruns (i) without it and only breaks even on (ii) with it.
C outruns (i), breaks even on (ii) without it, and can't escape (iii) with it. The only time it is useful escaping from "slow" monsters.
D outruns (ii) without it and is caught by (iv) with it. The only time it is useful is escaping from "normal" monsters.
E outruns (iii) without it and breaks even with (v) with it. The only time it is useful is escaping from "fast" monsters.

So... if you have heavy armor and you want to "reliably escape" - Run is worthless. And if you DO want to reliably escape and you don't have heavy armor, the only monsters from whom you CAN escape are those who have the same movement value as you.

Can a PC go faster than 40'? Yes, but I only considered monsters who went up to 50'. A wyrmling dragon, CR 2, flies at 100'. Horses (with riders) can go 60'. Run is only useful for catching up or escaping from someone who has the same base movement rate as you. Otherwise, Toughness is a better Feat to have (and that's without considering that you need Toughness to get into certain Prestige Classes or get other, better, Feats).


But there are a lot of PCs who are human or elf that encounter a lot of monsters with 30'. Better yet, most guards are human, with their 30'. So there are lots of places where you DO have the same movement rate.

Fair enough. Let's look at 4 scenarios.

Individual, escaping - Run is a good idea. Just you, getting away.
Group, escaping - Um... thanks? You get away. The rest of your group - doesn't. Furthermore, if you are well away by the time the rest of the group has to stop and fight, you might not even see that they could have used your help, let alone get back in time to help them. In short, you might abandon them.
Individual, catching up - You can catch one person. One. If two thieves are trying to get away, and you don't know which one got your coin pouch, you'll have to guess. Well, at least if it gets down to a fight, you know you can always run away.
Group, catching up - Great, you caught up. Your group is still behind. Let's hope you can handle this person on your own until the group catches up.

Now I know there are other possibilities. You need to run to get to the lever in time, or get through the portculis before it closes.

But just as we are looking at the particular case where you are dealing with NPCs and monsters who have the same movement rate as you do, so are we dealing with the most commonly held scenario - you are with a group of fellow adventurers in a dungeon. If you want to "reliably escape", then you going to be "reliably" leaving the group behind.


Of course, that is if you can.

Traps, terrain, and ranged attacks might make it impossible to get away, even with Run. It is not hard to envision a few scenarios where your character is stopped by running into the hidden pit. You get a bonus to Jump? Great! The door's locked. The goblin archers pick you as their next target.

If you want to build your character concept as a pickpocket who can run away from the local town guard, then yes, Run is a good Feat to take. Of course, so is Skill Focus (Sleight of Hand) so you don't have to Run in the first place.


Now, let's take another look at Toughness.

Just like Run, I believe the discussion should be concerned with low-levels. Why run when you can teleport or fly? Or better yet, at higher levels, you either are still fighting or you are dead - because you aren't going to be outrunning that dragon, and if you do outrun it, you failed. The only thing between that dragon or that BBEG and the safety of the village, kingdom, world, was you, the PC.

To be fair, of course, Toughness is also just as useless at higher levels. +3 hit points aren't going to cut it when you are dealing with a dragon whose breath weapon does 6d8 points of damage.

Well, a wizard can take fly at level 5, moving at 60', so Run is pretty much worthless by then (since if the wizard can have it, the major NPCs and various monsters are probably going to be likewise able to have it or something similar to make Run null and void.

So how does Toughness do up to level 4 then?

The trouble is, the numbers are harder to crunch. You can always get things like ring of flying or boots of speed, but your movement rate is fairly fixed, with most people going around at 30' (while the monsters vary a little more). Meanwhile, you have your damage ranging from 1d3 (Mephit claw attack) to 1d8+2/1d6+1/1d6+1/1d4+1/1d4+1 for a young white dragon full attack (probably more, optimizers in the playground, yes, I know). Let's be kind and say that a Strength 15 4th-level Rogue with a short sword is attacking, 3d6+2 total, or about 13.5 damage.

At first level, our Rogue does only 1d6+1d6 Sneak Attack, or about 7 points damage. Our, say, 1st-level fighter with 14 Constitution and Toughness has 15 hit points. The Rogue gets two attacks off, leaving our fighter with 1 hit point before retailating with Strength 16, two-handed greatsword, or 2d6 + 4 points of damage, 11 points, our Rogue has, say, Constitution 14, so 8 hit points.

Rogue is down, the Fighter barely standing, thanks to Toughness. Plausible. Not saying that is how it will happen, but plausible.

At second level, the Rogue has 5 more hit points (13), the Fighter has 7 more hit points (22). Two Sneak Attacks later, the Fighter is down 14, now at 8. Fighter attacks, 11 more points of damage, Rogue is down to 2. One more attack, no Sneak Attack, 5 more points down, Fighter has 3 left. Fighter takes down the Rogue, and is left standing with 3 hit points - against, thanks to Toughness.

Again, plausible, although now we are getting into the point where magic items are starting to tip the balance.

3rd level, Rogue now has 2d6 Sneak Attack, as well as another 6 hit points (19 total), Fighter has another 8 (30 total). 3d6 + 2 damage is about 13.5, so 27 points of damage. Fighter does 11 to Rogue, Rogue has 8 left. Rogue attacks for 5, Fighter is down. Toughness did not help the Fighter this time.

(Again, plausible, not certain.)

4th level, Rogue has 24 hit points, Fighter has 37. 27 points of Sneak Attack, Fighter down to 10, Fighter does 11 back, Rogue has 13. 5 more to Fighter, down to 5, Fighter gives 11 more, Rogue to 2, 5 more to Fighter and the Fighter drops. Once more, Toughness did not help.

(Plausible. Not certain.)

So by 3rd level, Toughness is probably going to be worthless insofaras combat goes, at least if the Fighter is going 1-on-1 with an enemy of equal CR.

Of course, that might not be the case if the combat is multiple people (like a band of adventuring PCs) against a single monster or a group of weaker monsters. A level 4 fighter might get jumped by several goblins using short swords. There is also damage from traps or from falling.

My contention is that Toughness probably is worthless by level 3, while Run certainly is worthless by level 5, and as I see it, probably a lot sooner.


Unless, of course, I mistook what you meant by "reliably escaping"...

Draz74
2010-07-02, 12:24 PM
...Unless you're a manifester, in which case they're the only standard against which to judge balance.
That's like saying there would be no way to judge spellcasters' power and balance if you couldn't compare them to psionics. :smallconfused:

How about comparing them to ... I dunno ... level-appropriate encounters?


You have to compare a psicrystal's benefits to those of a familiar/animal companion. What else are you going to compare it to?
A psionicist who takes other good feats instead of the Psicrystal feats, for example.


But the thing is, you can get the good powers via Expanded Knowledge already - and without using your powers known to do so. So you have your route to useful powers if you need it.

Consider a Mantled Psywar - He will probably want the granted abilities of Time, Freedom, Guardian, Justice, Deception, and/or Destruction. What are the powers under those mantles? They are almost universally either pointless for him... or they're already on his list!

Again, this shafts psywars, because the mantles they want typically already consist of powers on their list (so no reason to EK any of them), the powers they don't have are out of reach (6th level or higher), or in the rare case of it not being a power on their list, isn't useful to them.

It would be decent for mantled Wilders and Erudites... but the former typically doesn't have the feats to spare.

I like DW's fix.

I admit, I haven't really played around with Mantled Wilders or PsyWarriors. My ideas were coming entirely from the perspective of Ardents, and also from games in which this:


As for Ardents, they basically have every power on their list (thanks to substitution),

was patently not the way the rules were being interpreted. (The thing about DM-fiat-heavy rules like power substitution is ... some reasonable DMs actually still leave some restrictions intact.)

Anyway, I can definitely imagine Ardents wanting more Mantles, regardless.

But I'll trust you as far as Wilders and PsyWars are concerned.

Optimystik
2010-07-02, 12:52 PM
That's like saying there would be no way to judge spellcasters' power and balance if you couldn't compare them to psionics. :smallconfused:

How about comparing them to ... I dunno ... level-appropriate encounters?

How do you propose comparing "the ability for your pet rock to hold your focus for you" to an encounter?

It seems like apples and volkswagens to me.


A psionicist who takes other good feats instead of the Psicrystal feats, for example.

My proposed change would simply remove one feat tax (Psicrystal Containment.) I don't think that would have a massive impact on the game by any means.


I admit, I haven't really played around with Mantled Wilders or PsyWarriors. My ideas were coming entirely from the perspective of Ardents, and also from games in which this:

was patently not the way the rules were being interpreted. (The thing about DM-fiat-heavy rules like power substitution is ... some reasonable DMs actually still leave some restrictions intact.)

There are restrictions intact - three of them, in fact. The powers you substitute have to match the mantle's theme (the mantles themselves remain fixed), and you can have a maximum of 10 per mantle. For example, If I pick Time, I can make a case for picking up a lot of the action-manipulation powers, but I'll be totally unable to blast without Energy or Elements, won't have luck summoning anything without Creation, and I'll also lack a lot of the combat powers without Guardian or Conflict.

Some are of course broader (for example, Destruction could encompass both blasting, and some melee powers), but it's not as though the DM has to scrutinize all of them.

Furthermore, the third and biggest restriction - the rule about 50% of your powers needing to come from your primary mantles - is still in force, unchanged. No matter how much substitution I do in my secondary mantles, my Ardent will still be rather narrow, because 11 of my 21 powers known have to come from one of two specific themes.


Anyway, I can definitely imagine Ardents wanting more Mantles, regardless.

With only 21 powers known, they can fill their entire repertoire with just 3 mantles. They get very little benefit from having more, so spending 2 feats per mantle is unnecessary for them; doubly so in fact, since they can get more mantles if they really want them naturally, without spending valuable feats.

Umael
2010-07-02, 01:01 PM
"Suddenly, the PC is running around with four different NPCs, all under his control."

What - like 1st ed?

I'm 9th level. I take Leadership. After calculating, I have an 8th level cohort. That cohort also has Leadership, giving her a 7th level cohort, who ALSO has Leadership. The cohort's cohort takes Leadership, giving HIM a 6th level cohort - who can also take Leadership, so we have a 5th level NPC who is the cohort to the cohort to the cohort to cohort to my PC.

Furthermore, when I go up a level, my cohort train can go up a level, meaning that the 5th level guy just because 6th level and can pick up Leadership.

Insult to injury, if the DM is also allowing me to control my cohort as well as my PC, then it stands to reason that I would get to control my cohort's cohort, and so logically, down the line, I control all of the cohort train.

And because these are all NPCs with adventurer levels, I can have a wizard, a cleric, a psion, a druid, etc. My PC might be a Tier 6 Monk, but because of Leadership, I can break the game because *I* might be just a pathetic 20th level Monk, but my 19th level Wizard, 18th level Cleric, 17th level Druid, etc. are all under my control.

I don't recall how 1st edition did it, but I hope they didn't make that much of a mistake.



"Just for the record, is everyone in agreement that Run is probably the worse of the Feats, nigh unto useless"

Martial weapon proficiency is pretty dire if you are insane enough to buy it as a feat. You get proficiency with ONE weapon FFS! This has to be the worst feat there is, in my book.

Well, no. Simple Weapon Proficiency would be worse, since druids, wizards, and monks are not automatically proficiency in all simple weapons. Even if you get to know how all simple weapons work, I think knowing how a good marital weapon works far outstrips that, if that was even necessary. I suppose you could argue that having knowledge of both melee and ranged simple weapons makes it superior to knowing one marital weapon, but I think I would prefer being skilled with the longbow over knowing both mace and crossbow.



Expensive metamagics are very costly 'as is', and many aren't worth it unless you have blag that makes them more viable.

But if you have the "blag", then they become very worthwhile. And given how powerful magic and metamagic can be...

(Also, don't forget epic levels give 10th level spell slots, but you still only have up to 9th level spells.)



*list of bad Feats

*nod*

Yep.

Run might still be the worst, but those come pretty close.



All of the item creation feats are just a way for you to make everyone else better at the cost of your own XP and time. No thanks.

...

No.

I've seen the sick builds you can do with item creation feats. Give a wizard time, and his "I only can prepare half-a-dozen spells of this level per day" doesn't matter since he has the other spells on backup as scrolls.

It's not "make everyone else better", it's make YOU better.

Superglucose
2010-07-02, 01:07 PM
Spellcasters are a poor standard against which to judge balance.
Are they? Let's look at their tiers:

Druid, tier 1
Cleric, tier 1
Wizard, tier 1
Sorcerer, tier 2

Now let's look at the non/partial casters:

Barbarian, tier 4
Rogue, tier 4
Fighter, tier 5
Monk, tier 5 (bottom)
Paladin, tier 5 (top)
Ranger, tier 4

Interestingly, the casters appear more balanced amongst themselves than the non-casters. I think a party of Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer is more balanced within the party than, say, Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger/Rogue. At least in the former, everyone will have something to contribute in pretty much every situation, even if it's just the Cleric casting "guidance" or the Sorcerer having a sky-high charisma.

Optimystik
2010-07-02, 01:10 PM
There's also the fact that only casters get familiars, so I have to compare the psionic analogue (psicrystals) to that.

In addition, a single spell is a much cheaper investment than an entire feat.

deuxhero
2010-07-02, 01:27 PM
I'm not sure if it is possible to have a feat that is better than leadership, because leadership effectively gives you a number of feats one less than you have, an extra set of actions, and the ability to in two places at once. If a stronger feat exists then you could take leadership to get the feat and more

Undead Leadership (as per leadership, only with undead) may beat it in some cases, as can Dragon Companion (per leadership, but no followers, but your cohort takes less LA).

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-02, 02:06 PM
I think knowing how a good marital weapon works far outstrips that, if that was even necessary.

So, these marital weapons... are they like contraceptives or BDSM devices or what?

Either way, I approve that knowledge of their use is a very important one. :smalltongue:

Coidzor
2010-07-02, 02:20 PM
Yeah, actually, why is it that they seemed to make it so that the feat that did something similar didn't compare favorably or even come close to comparing with the spell? They ever actually answer that one when they got called out on that or do they just bury their heads in the sand when people get ahold of them?

Umael
2010-07-02, 02:43 PM
So, these marital weapons... are they like contraceptives or BDSM devices or what?

Either way, I approve that knowledge of their use is a very important one. :smalltongue:

...well, I saw that "Spiked Chain" was an Exotic Weapon, so I just worked backwards and...

Draz74
2010-07-02, 02:54 PM
How do you propose comparing "the ability for your pet rock to hold your focus for you" to an encounter?

It seems like apples and volkswagens to me.
It is. But that's no different than anytime you ask the question of whether a feat is "balanced" (which is this entire thread). Balanced against what? Against the opportunity cost of other feats you could have taken. Measured by what sort of utility? Measured by how much they let you contribute to a party facing appropriate encounters.

I'm losing patience with this conversation when I have to explain things like this, which everyone normally takes for granted, but that you are questioning just so you can "prove" your own opinions or statements to be superior.

If I ask you whether Darkstalker is a balanced feat, do you say "I have no idea, because there's no similar feat relating to arcane magic to compare it to!"? No, of course not. Measuring everything against its arcane casting equivalent is not the only way to judge balance.

In my book, that goes for psionics just as much as it goes for everything else. Just because they're both magic systems and one of them is the core default magic system doesn't mean the other can't be judged independently, ignoring comparisons to the (overpowered) default system. Psicrystals should be judged on their own merits, not just by comparing them to familiars, unless familiars have already been established by consensus as a well-balanced game mechanic to be judged against. (Hint: they haven't.)


My proposed change would simply remove one feat tax (Psicrystal Containment.) I don't think that would have a massive impact on the game by any means.


In addition, a single spell is a much cheaper investment than an entire feat.

Your minimization/maximization of the importance of a single feat seems to be a double standard.


There are restrictions intact - three of them, in fact.
It's clear we have very different views of how open-ended and player-controlled the Ardent Power Substitution variant is supposed to be. We could argue about it a lot more, but it's really getting off topic here and I'm losing interest fast.


With only 21 powers known, they can fill their entire repertoire with just 3 mantles. They get very little benefit from having more, so spending 2 feats per mantle is unnecessary for them; doubly so in fact, since they can get more mantles if they really want them naturally, without spending valuable feats.

I have an Ardent build I'm hoping to play sometime. Maybe I'm trying to do too much with him; that's entirely probable. But the fact remains that he'd like to have the Physical Power and Fate mantles (for Gishy melee buffs), the Freedom and The Planes mantles (for utility magic and action economy), the Life mantle (because he is the team healer, and yes I know that's not the optimal role for an Ardent), the Magic mantle (for party buffs and Dispelling that the party really needs), and the Mental Power mantle (for extra PP and a crucial clairsentience or two). And that's not even all the good mantles that he'd like to cherry-pick powers from; it's only the ones that are really important to him.

That's already one more Mantle than he gets by default. And that's without even sacrificing one to gain Dominant Ideal.

Just because your Ardent is content with three mantles, don't assume all of them are.


Are they? Let's look at their tiers:

Druid, tier 1
Cleric, tier 1
Wizard, tier 1
Sorcerer, tier 2

Now let's look at the non/partial casters:

Barbarian, tier 4
Rogue, tier 4
Fighter, tier 5
Monk, tier 5 (bottom)
Paladin, tier 5 (top)
Ranger, tier 4

Interestingly, the casters appear more balanced amongst themselves than the non-casters. I think a party of Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer is more balanced within the party than, say, Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger/Rogue. At least in the former, everyone will have something to contribute in pretty much every situation, even if it's just the Cleric casting "guidance" or the Sorcerer having a sky-high charisma.

Don't the definitions of "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" include the very phrase "breaking the game"? You may have iterated my point for me very nicely.

I wasn't talking about inter-party balance. I was talking about balanced classes. Standard Core spellcasters aren't them.

If someone on the Homebrew forum draws up a class that's as powerful as the Wizard and asks, "Is this a well-balanced class?" I would answer "no," even if there is the rare high-opt game where it would fit well. That's the sort of standard I thought this thread was all about, whether the feats we were discussing were psionic or not.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-02, 03:03 PM
Tier 2 is defined by the ability to break the game one way, while Tier 1 classes typically can break the game any way a Tier 2 class can, but can change how they're breaking the game from day to day.

That said, being capable of doing so doesn't mean they will. Played responsibly, Tier 1 and 2 classes can work quite nicely; personally I'd prefer that range over the 4-5 range. Though I do prefer 2-3 most.

Knaight
2010-07-02, 03:23 PM
Are they? Let's look at their tiers:

Druid, tier 1
Cleric, tier 1
Wizard, tier 1
Sorcerer, tier 2

Now let's look at the non/partial casters:

Barbarian, tier 4
Rogue, tier 4
Fighter, tier 5
Monk, tier 5 (bottom)
Paladin, tier 5 (top)
Ranger, tier 4

Interestingly, the casters appear more balanced amongst themselves than the non-casters. I think a party of Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer is more balanced within the party than, say, Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger/Rogue. At least in the former, everyone will have something to contribute in pretty much every situation, even if it's just the Cleric casting "guidance" or the Sorcerer having a sky-high charisma.

Rogue is tier 3, so that splits things up even further. That said, the tier 1 tier 2 gulf is massive, and the tier 4 tier 5 gulf really isn't. Tier 3-tier 4 is somewhat bigger, but still not huge. That said, if you allow splats more casters are tier 3 or so (Not the Wu-Jen, but Beguilers, Dread Necros, and I think the Warmage make good examples), as are ToB classes.

Sc00by
2010-07-02, 04:08 PM
I'm 9th level. I take Leadership. After calculating, I have an 8th level cohort. That cohort also has Leadership, giving her a 7th level cohort, who ALSO has Leadership. The cohort's cohort takes Leadership, giving HIM a 6th level cohort - who can also take Leadership, so we have a 5th level NPC who is the cohort to the cohort to the cohort to cohort to my PC.

Furthermore, when I go up a level, my cohort train can go up a level, meaning that the 5th level guy just because 6th level and can pick up Leadership


Regardless of a character’s Leadership score, he can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than himself.

So if you are 9th your cohort is 7th and his cohort is 5th. Still cheese, but not quite the Camembert you suggest

lsfreak
2010-07-02, 04:20 PM
In my mind, a good feat is one which you want to take, but it's not necessary for the build. Thus things like Power Attack, TWF, and the archery feats are extremely poor feats, because they are not choices, they are mandatory feat taxes. They should grant an additional option, or allow one of your existing options to be a little more versatile. They should be open to a wide variety of different builds (except perhaps things decidedly class-specific, like Smite enhancement), and shouldn't be easily replicated by items.

Some examples of good feats:
Air Devotion, Law Devotion, Knowledge Devotion
Robilar's Gambit, Karmic Strike
Improved Trip, Knockdown, Stand Still
Martial Stance, Open Chakra, Bind Vestige
Awesome Smite
Faith Unswerving, Gloom Razor, Clarion Commander, Stormguard Warrior

Some almost-good feats:
Shock Trooper (the charging part is a feat tax , the two bullrushing are good)
Weapon Mastery (requires two extremely poor prereqs that lock a character into a single weapon type)
Spring Attack (pisspoor prereqs, non-scaling)
High Sword Low Ax, Three Mountains (too hard of requirements)
Stunning Fist (1/day is poor, save DC is poor) and many of its follow-ups
Many of the Dodge-related feats (Defensive Throw, Sidestep Charge) made poor by Dodge

Jothki
2010-07-02, 04:42 PM
Doesn't Power Attack also singlehandly make one-handed weapons bad?

lsfreak
2010-07-02, 04:43 PM
Doesn't Power Attack also singlehandly make one-handed weapons bad?

Many things make one-handed weapons bad, but that's one of the bigger ones.

Kylarra
2010-07-02, 04:46 PM
That said, the tier 1 tier 2 gulf is massive, It's only massive in the sense that spont casters are tier 2 and prepared casters with potentially full access or full access are tier 1. Powerwise they're equivalent or near equivalents in that they break the game, tier 1 just can do it in dozens of different ways potentially changeable each day as opposed only a handful per given build.

Optimystik
2010-07-02, 04:58 PM
Draz, I'm willing to agree that focusing your psicrystal may be strong enough on its own for another feat, but I still consider it to be a tax for any psionicist who wants to either (a) get serious about using metapsionics, (b) use a number of other feats that require expending/maintaining focus or (c) both.

You say psionics should be measured on their own merits, and I don't disagree - however, what you need to take into account is that the challenges and encounters psionic characters face are little different from those faced by arcanists, and martialists, and divine casters etc. Comparing them to each other is meaningful because you will at some point be faced with similar obstacles. A dragon is a dragon no matter what power source you use.

I still think it should be a base ability, but you've convinced me that it is on the stronger end of the spectrum, perhaps even as strong as a similar enhancing feat for familiars. I would be fine if psicrystals had the base ability to focus, but as a full-round action (allowing you to strategize with your psicrystal even before acquiring containment), with the feat reducing it to a move action like PM does for its master.

Ozymandias9
2010-07-02, 05:14 PM
Regarding Run:

While the speed enhancer and jump bonus on run are more distinctly presented, the fact that you retain Dex to AC is more significant to my eye. While not particularly useful in general, I've seen that element used fairly well in low-level, heavily martial campaigns (that is, primarily humanoid, limited magic).

That is, however, an admittedly extreme example of a nonstandard campaign. It's only going to be remotely close to useful if you're seeing regular use of the run action.


Rogue is tier 3, so that splits things up even further

While I agree with your general statement on the difference between the more powerful tiers being more notable, I've never seen Rogue listed or defended as a 3 instead of a 4 (with the exception of the psionic rogue). Upon what are you basing this?

balistafreak
2010-07-02, 05:44 PM
So if you are 9th your cohort is 7th and his cohort is 5th. Still cheese, but not quite the Camembert you suggest

Additional feats exist to make your cohort merely 1 level lower. Some of them are a bit more reputable than most (I'd accept Heroes of Battle "Improved Cohort" but probably not Dragon Magazine's "Close Cohort"), but they exist.

Just had to throw that in there.

Draz74
2010-07-02, 05:51 PM
Draz, I'm willing to agree that focusing your psicrystal may be strong enough on its own for another feat, but I still consider it to be a tax for any psionicist who wants to either (a) get serious about using metapsionics, (b) use a number of other feats that require expending/maintaining focus or (c) both.
I guess this really comes down to our different views of feat taxes, then.

What are feat taxes? Well, at their base, they're really just feats that are better than their competition. The only real difference between a "feat tax" and an "overpowered feat" is whether you think the benefit involved is something the underlying build "needed."

With that in mind, my game design philosophy goes against ever taking a feat that is strong enough to be a no-brainer (needed or not), and making it stronger. Turn part of it into default class features? Sure. Improving other feats that it's competing with? Sure. But assume that everyone's going to take it anyway, so we might as well make it even better compared to its competition than it already is? No thanks, that hurts my soul.

But that's what you're proposing doing to the already-excellent Psicrystal Affinity feat. Making it even better. Yikes. Poor psionicists who have a "loner" character concept and don't want a pet rock just got even worse by comparison.

If familiars need nerfing, nerf 'em. But don't give two good feats for the price of one to out-overpower them.


You say psionics should be measured on their own merits, and I don't disagree - however, what you need to take into account is that the challenges and encounters psionic characters face are little different from those faced by arcanists, and martialists, and divine casters etc. Comparing them to each other is meaningful because you will at some point be faced with similar obstacles. A dragon is a dragon no matter what power source you use.

A dragon is a dragon if your character is the Moon-Destroying Hulking Hurler, too. That doesn't mean we need to boost spellcasters until they can deal with the dragon as easily as he can. Likewise, nothing says we need to make Vancian casting the baseline that psionics and other classes need to be shifted up or down to match.


I still think it should be a base ability, but you've convinced me that it is on the stronger end of the spectrum, perhaps even as strong as a similar enhancing feat for familiars. I would be fine if psicrystals had the base ability to focus, but as a full-round action (allowing you to strategize with your psicrystal even before acquiring containment), with the feat reducing it to a move action like PM does for its master.

Still makes Psicrystal Affinity way too no-brainer in my book. I am curious whether the latter feat would get taken in this case.

EDIT: While it's still a band-aid solution, I think I'd prefer dealing with "feat taxes" by just slapping more "Bonus Feats" onto the relevant classes, rather than combining multiple feats into one. All Psionic classes get a Bonus Feat at Level 1? (In addition to the ones that Psion/PsyWar/Erudite already get?) You could use it for your Psicrystal Containment, but another player might use it for whatever they want.

Gnaeus
2010-07-02, 05:56 PM
While I agree with your general statement on the difference between the more powerful tiers being more notable, I've never seen Rogue listed or defended as a 3 instead of a 4 (with the exception of the psionic rogue). Upon what are you basing this?

If you look at the brilliantgameologists forum where JaronK originally hashed out the tier system, there were some rather impassioned arguments that rogue is bottom of tier 3 (although weaker than Beguiler and Factotum). A lot of the difference depends on game assumptions. A rogue with all splatbooks in a world with magic marts is much closer than a core rogue without his choice of wands.

Also, a 1 tier difference is usually small. The difference between a tier 3 and a strong tier 4 is probably less than the difference in player skill between two players.

Still, general consensus puts rogue at tier 4. Part of but not nearly all of that is the weight of JaronK's opinion.

Umael
2010-07-02, 05:57 PM
Re: Leadership

Interestingly enough, what Sc00by quoted from the SRD is accurate, although a bit misleading, as in addition to cohorts, you can also get followers, which range in level from 1st to 6th, something I completely forgot.

(I don't think anyone is arguing that Leadership is cheese, but I find myself wondering if we are having a discussion based on what we believe to be the flavor of cheese and the relative health benefits and risks...)

Lans
2010-07-02, 08:41 PM
Binding feats are terrible. :smallyuk: I can't imagine why DragoonWraith was praising them, unless it's only for their fluff value.

They are pretty good actually, because they give versatility. Its mostly Savnok(armor), Malphas( Birdy), Dahlv-nar(armor), and Focalar (water breathing, making people sad), and Andromalius(see invisibility)that get used. The others no so much, but with some forwarning they can be useful. Going up against a sorceress who has a penchant for turning men into pigs? Bind Haagenti. Going to the plane of fire or volcano? Do Aym.

For general use I prefur Malphas for the scouting it can do while your hanging out at a bar.

JaronK
2010-07-03, 02:12 PM
I can't believe with all the feats there are, that it never occured to wotc to try and develop class based feats to help the lower tiers.

They did. Weapon Supremacy. Daring Outlaw. Master Spellthief. These are all specifically designed to boost weaker classes. It wasn't always necessarily enough, but it certainly helps.

And yeah, there were a lot of arguments that Rogues were T3 and Factotums T4, mostly from a very specific person who was told that by another person and wanted to argue that point. However, having played both Rogues and Factotums quite a lot (along with most of the T3 classes) there was no way in hell I was going to say that Rogues were on the same level as Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, ToB classes, and Factotums (and certainly weren't above any of those!).

But yes, the assumption was that the DM was going to constantly hand you every UMDable item in existance, plus you'd also get Truedeath Crystals, Razing Strike Wands (without worrying about them taking up a hand), and you'd never have to fight Plants or Oozes or Elementals. Basically, it was a massive class X fallacy (this class is powerful when the DM hands you the perfect items all the time), and it was combined with the idea that you'd only be doing combat against stuff you could sneak attack (and never doing anything outside combat, as I recall the argument was that nothing matters outside combat because that's all roleplayed anyway).

Anyway, Rogues are decidedly T4. They're one of the classes I used to define that Tier (a cornerstone of that Tier if you will) just like the Factotum is one of the classes that defines T3. And T4 and T5 do look pretty similar, mostly because Barbarians are pretty low in T4 while Fighters are pretty high in T5 so the classes people are most familiar with in those tiers are actually pretty close. Monk and Healer are sort of the cornerstone classes of T5, Sorcerer is the cornerstone of T2, Wizard of T1, Warrior of T6).

JaronK