Are feats to weak?

[MrRhin]

There is a lot of feats out there. Some bad, some good, some just boring or worthless.

A while back I couldn't help but to think that feats were to weak in general. Not only are they pretty unimpressive when compared to a lot of class abilities, and especially, spells, but they also suffer from feat tax and quite a bunch of other troubles.
Of course, this could just be my own opinion, and if one were to make feats to strong, it would screw up the system, but with a class such as the Fighter floating around, feats as they are just seemed flawed.

So I started to try and rewrite a bunch of feats, and add a few of my own. Too see if I could make them more of an interesting and important choice for my campaigns.

That said, I'd like to ask what peoples opinions about feats is. Am I right, and that they are to weak? Or am just being silly.
What would you say is a good example of a fair feat? Example of a poor one and so forth. Is it worth trying to 'fix' them or is it an exercise in futility.

[panaikhan]

I think a simple 'feat fix', is to adopt PF's method of simply giving out more of them. Feat 'taxes' hurt less, and you are not effecting the game balance of the individual feats themselves.

[Firechanter]

Most feats are too weak, yes, considering that in 3.5, most potential characters only get 7 of them in their entire career.

Someone here (Curmudgeon? Greenish?) said recently that apparantly the feat writers of 3.0 didn't take these 7 feats as scale, but the Fighter class with its 11 bonus feats. So they wrote the feats so that they would be "okay" if you get 18 of them.

I also read somewhere that the 3.0 designers originally intended a feat's average worth to be 3 skill points. So feats would be just a very minor part of the game. However, _some_ feats were simply a lot more useful than 3 skill points, and players turned out to _love_ the concept of feats for character customization. However, in all those splats you find about 90% crap feats with a couple of pearls hidden among them.

On another note, there used to be an era in the lifespan of 3.X where the recommendation for _anything_ would be "You can take that as a feat". That was another thing that downgraded feats. Any stupid little trick that you could pick up in 30 minutes in real life was supposed to eat 1/7 of a demi-god's resources.

In the later years, the designers realized that most feats were too weak, and offered different options. For example, the ToB Maneuver "Mithral Tornado" is like Whirlwind Attack with a +2 bonus, and costs 1 maneuver slot out of 14, and zero feats. Compare that to the original Whirlwind Attack which costs [correction] 5 feats.

Other incarnations of the D20 system also upgraded certain feats or feat chains. For instance, in Conan D20, most classes get TWF for free, and for a single ITWF feat you automatically get all iteratives with your off-hand. (And still TWF remains sub-par compared to THF.)

The typical approach to make feats better is to simply combine the typical candidates that usually have to be taken together, make them scale with level and suchlike. For instance:
- TWF: automatically give as many off-hand attacks as main-hand attacks without extra feat cost;
- combine Dodge and Mobility into 1, make the Dodge bonus apply against all opponents, and possibly make it scale with level;

You see, stuff like that.

As for what are good and poor feats, read various class handbooks with the popular colour-coding. Usually it goes something like: Gold means a superb choice, Blue means very good, Black means solid/okay, Red means terrible. Of course, different feats make more or less sense for different classes.

P.S.: the problem with PF is that it gives out a few more feats, but makes a lot of feats even weaker than they were to begin with. So PF as written doesn't solve a lot.
In my 3.5 game, we've adopted the PF feat progression as a houserule, i.e. 1 character feat every odd level, but without splitting up the feats the way PF does.

[MrRhin]

I think a simple 'feat fix', is to adopt PF's method of simply giving out more of them. Feat 'taxes' hurt less, and you are not effecting the game balance of the individual feats themselves.
It helps, for sure. But it doesn't (IMO) fix the problem with the feats themselves. Even with more feats, is (for example) Wirlwind attack really worth five feats?


Most feats are too weak, yes, considering that in 3.5, most potential characters only get 7 of them in their entire career.

Someone here (Curmudgeon? Greenish?) said recently that apparantly the feat writers of 3.0 didn't take these 7 feats as scale, but the Fighter class with its 11 bonus feats. So they wrote the feats so that they would be "okay" if you get 18 of them.

I also read somewhere that the 3.0 designers originally intended a feat's average worth to be 3 skill points. So feats would be just a very minor part of the game. However, _some_ feats were simply a lot more useful than 3 skill points, and players turned out to _love_ the concept of feats for character customization. However, in all those splats you find about 90% crap feats with a couple of pearls hidden among them.

On another note, there used to be an era in the lifespan of 3.X where the recommendation for _anything_ would be "You can take that as a feat". That was another thing that downgraded feats. Any stupid little trick that you could pick up in 30 minutes in real life was supposed to eat 1/7 of a demi-god's resources.

In the later years, the designers realized that most feats were too weak, and offered different options. For example, the ToB Maneuver "Mithral Tornado" is like Whirlwind Attack with a +2 bonus, and costs 1 maneuver slot out of 14, and zero feats. Compare that to the original Whirlwind Attack which costs [correction] 5 feats.

Other incarnations of the D20 system also upgraded certain feats or feat chains. For instance, in Conan D20, most classes get TWF for free, and for a single ITWF feat you automatically get all iteratives with your off-hand. (And still TWF remains sub-par compared to THF.)
Whoa. Thats a lot of history about this stuff I had no idea about. Thank you.
I can totally see how those approaches would lead to a few problems.


- combine Dodge and Mobility into 1, make the Dodge bonus apply against all opponents, and possibly make it scale with level;

You see, stuff like that.
It's funny that you point out the dodge/mobility idea. Cause that is exactly what I changed it too as well. =D
Also done the same with a lot of other feats that do seem compatible.


As for what are good and poor feats, read various class handbooks with the popular colour-coding. Usually it goes something like: Gold means a superb choice, Blue means very good, Black means solid/okay, Red means terrible. Of course, different feats make more or less sense for different classes.
I will have to do just that! I'll look around. But in the meantime, got any good places to check as a recommendation?

P.S.: the problem with PF is that it gives out a few more feats, but makes a lot of feats even weaker than they were to begin with. So PF as written doesn't solve a lot.
In my 3.5 game, we've adopted the PF feat progression as a houserule, i.e. 1 character feat every odd level, but without splitting up the feats the way PF does.
Two steps forward, two steps back, eh? Pretty funny how they do that. ^^
If it wasnt for the fact that I actually enjoy playing around with rewriting these sort of things, that could totally be a houserule I'd consider. (even though as I wrote earlier, it doesn't make a complete fix, its a good an easy one just as panaikhan said)

Thanks ^^

[Eldan]

In general, feats are weak. There are, however, some feats which are extremely powerful. No even semi-optimized wizard will ever lack Quicken Spell, as an example. I mean, output per unit of time is the key to winning combat in D&D, basically, and this basically doubles a wizards spell output.

Imagine, in comparison, a feat that allowed the fighter to make twice as many attacks on a full attack. It would still not be as good as Quicken Spell, since spells are normally a lot better than attacks.

[ranagrande]

The best thing about feats is the uniform consistency in their power. Obviously something like Diligent or Self-Sufficient is worth exactly as much as something like Leadership.

[Geigan]

The best thing about feats is the uniform consistency in their power. Obviously something like Diligent or Self-Sufficient is worth exactly as much as something like Leadership.

/sarcasm?:smallconfused:

[MrRhin]

In general, feats are weak. There are, however, some feats which are extremely powerful. No even semi-optimized wizard will ever lack Quicken Spell, as an example. I mean, output per unit of time is the key to winning combat in D&D, basically, and this basically doubles a wizards spell output.


The best thing about feats is the uniform consistency in their power. Obviously something like Diligent or Self-Sufficient is worth exactly as much as something like Leadership.
True, the inconsistency of feats is a big part of their problems. I guess a big part of that is because they are not set into a similar access system as Spells and class abilities is.

Leadership, of course, opens up a whole new can of worms by merely doing what it does. Being one of the more prominent feats for abuse.

And skill feats are just... pathetic. I've never seen anyone take one except when they were forced to to gain access to a PrC or something.
Personally I believe giving skill feats something more special in addition to their skill boost. Like being able to take-10 on certain situations or switching 'Use of skill is an X action' to 'Use of skill is an X or Y action' and so on.


Imagine, in comparison, a feat that allowed the fighter to make twice as many attacks on a full attack. It would still not be as good as Quicken Spell, since spells are normally a lot better than attacks.
And people would scream that it was overpowered or broken. Even if it was limited in its uses (say, in a similar manner as the Barbarians Rage is). Even if it would be balanced from an objective view.
Mundanes cant have shiny things =/

I'm all for buffing feats, but it's like walking on the edge of a knife sometimes, heh.

[MrRhin]

/sarcasm?:smallconfused:

If not, then I believe ranagrande has found a use for Self-Sufficient that few of us are aware about :smallwink:

[Pigkappa]

I'm all for buffing feats, but it's like walking on the edge of a knife sometimes, heh.

To balance them, you should buff the awful ones and nerf the good ones.

This would require a lot of work (because there are lots of feats to rewrite), and your players are likely happy when you buff something but seriously angry when you nerf them, so it's harder. But making Mobility better is much less balancing then nerfing Divine Metamagic and Natural Spell.

[MrRhin]

To balance them, you should buff the awful ones and nerf the good ones.

This would require a lot of work (because there are lots of feats to rewrite), and your players are likely happy when you buff something but seriously angry when you nerf them, so it's harder. But making Mobility better is much less balancing then nerfing Divine Metamagic and Natural Spell.

Good point.
At the moment I am mostly just working on core feats, but I'll probably keep going for a bit even after that.
Natural Spell isnt a problem for me, seeing as it has always been banned in my groups (Wildshape should be a choice after all, at least that is how we argue). So if I were to decide, it would be simply removed. That is a matter of taste of course, and writing up a lesser version might be a good thing to have around as well.

As for Divine Metamagic. I had never heard about it before I started to roam different forums, and I have only a rough idea of what it does (Trade Turn Undead for less slot penalty with metamagic, yes?). What book is it from?
If I where to change it though (going from what I 'think' it does) I'd say it would simply be a cumulative penalty in sorts. Pushing down a slot penalty one step would cost 1 TU, 2 steps would cost 3, 3 would cost 6 etc.

All in all, you're completely right. Buffing is always more appreciated than nerfs ^^

[subject42]

To balance them, you should buff the awful ones and nerf the good ones.

And if Pathfinder is any indication, people will lose their minds the instant that you touch improved trip or power attack.

[Pigkappa]

As for Divine Metamagic. I had never heard about it before I started to roam different forums, and I have only a rough idea of what it does (Trade Turn Undead for less slot penalty with metamagic, yes?). What book is it from?

Complete Divine.

IIRC, you expend (slot increase) + 1 TU attempts to apply the metamagic effect for free. So you can expend 7 attempts to make a buff Persistant. So, for example, you can use 7 attempts to persist Divine Power, so you have a permanent +6 Str, BAB of a Fighter, and some HPs. And 7 more to persist Righteous Might, so you have +4 Str, greater size, damage reduction. And so on.


It's bad because this doesn't depend on the slot of the spell you use it for (so you can Quicken or Persist a 9th level spell, for example, which is something you couldn't otherwise do), and because there are several ways to gather many Turn Attempts.

[Yora]

Instead of saying that most feats are too weak, I rather think that some feats are too strong. I don't think there are any feats in core, which are just plain great. They are customization instead of defining abilities of the characters. Especially when you consider that a huge amount of games played are low to mid level, where players only have two or three feats.

[MrRhin]

Complete Divine.

IIRC, you expend (slot increase) + 1 TU attempts to apply the metamagic effect for free. So you can expend 7 attempts to make a buff Persistant. So, for example, you can use 7 attempts to persist Divine Power, so you have a permanent +6 Str, BAB of a Fighter, and some HPs. And 7 more to persist Righteous Might, so you have +4 Str, greater size, damage reduction. And so on.


It's bad because this doesn't depend on the slot of the spell you use it for (so you can Quicken or Persist a 9th level spell, for example, which is something you couldn't otherwise do), and because there are several ways to gather many Turn Attempts.

Hmm. I see.
Sounds a bit broken indeed.
In my group that would probably either get banned or set with a limit in some way. Say, you can only use it on certain metamagic feats (the weaker ones).

But outside of my little world. Would people start to cry foul if one were to do something like that you think?

[Godskook]

Someone here (Curmudgeon? Greenish?) said recently that apparantly the feat writers of 3.0 didn't take these 7 feats as scale, but the Fighter class with its 11 bonus feats. So they wrote the feats so that they would be "okay" if you get 18 of them.

I don't know if anyone's said that, but I've said quite the opposite, in that they didn't mess up Fighter, they just failed to provide feats strong enough to make Fighter competitive with other options. You can bump Fighter clear into tier 2 simply by making feats that are actually strong, when compared to spells.


If not, then I believe ranagrande has found a use for Self-Sufficient that few of us are aware about :smallwink:

I think the last surprise the optimizing community is going to have with the +2to2 feats was Bubs the Commoner.

[MrRhin]

Instead of saying that most feats are too weak, I rather think that some feats are too strong. I don't think there are any feats in core, which are just plain great. They are customization instead of defining abilities of the characters. Especially when you consider that a huge amount of games played are low to mid level, where players only have two or three feats.

The problem with thinking like that is that we'd have to push all feats down to the level of those that just give a bonus to one or two skills.
No, I'm certain some feats are too weak. But yes, some are also to strong. Often those that are to strong however are metamagic feats. And while those needs to get knocked down a peg, the rest needs to get kicked up a notch (BAAM!).
And while for some classes feats are just customization, for others (like the fighter) they are his defining feature.

The best way to avoid making feats to strong at early levels / to weak at the upper ones, is to give them a decent benefit that scales.
Or so I believe at the moment at least. But of course, I could be wrong ^^

[Rannath]

Okay, does anyone have suggestions on how to balance over and under powered feats?

For instance How would you make self-sufficient an attractive choice? (and all other dual-skill feats).

[MrRhin]

Okay, does anyone have suggestions on how to balance over and under powered feats?

For instance How would you make self-sufficient an attractive choice? (and all other dual-skill feats).

As I briefly mentioned before, I'd give the +2/+2 feats something more added to them.

Something like this?
(Note; This was written for Pathfinder, but the idea still stands for 3.X I believe)
Acrobatic
Acrobatic
You are skilled at leaping, jumping and flying
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Acrobatics and Fly skill checks. If you have 10 ranks or more in one of these skills, the bonus increases to +4 for that skill. In addition, you are allowed to Take-1o when you move through a threatened square and is using Acrobatics to avoid an attack of opportunity, as well as when trying to Avoid Falling Damage with the Fly skill.

It's still not up to the level of the stronger feats, but its more attractive and gives people a reason to take it, cause it adds more options to what you can do.

[subject42]

For instance How would you make self-sufficient an attractive choice? (and all other dual-skill feats).

If I were going to make it attractive? I'd probably do something like this.

+2 bonus to each skill at 1st level

At 6th level, allow the character to take 10 on the skill, even when threatened or rushed.

+4 bonus to each skill at 10th level

At ~15th level, allow the character to take 15 on the skill when not threatened or rushed.

+6 bonus to each skill at 20th level.

[candycorn]

And if Pathfinder is any indication, people will lose their minds the instant that you touch improved trip or power attack.

Why touch those? Those are the power level non-caster feats SHOULD be.

Example:

Toughness: Double the bonus HP from Constitution, add Con modifier to any attempt to resist a combat maneuver with an opposed check (bull rush, trip, etc, only when someone's doing it to you, not when you're doing it to someone else). Requirements: No spellcasting, Base Fort +2, Endurance.

This could yield a significant HP increase, and provide a situational bonus. Represents "tough as nails" better.

Endurance: +1 to all saves per six character levels (minimum +1), and DR 1/- per five character levels.

MUCH more useful than the current incarnation of endurance.

Great fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning reflexes: Combine into one feat. +2 to all saves.

Improved Sunder/Cleave: Combine.

Improved Disarm/Improved Unarmed Strike: Combine, use IUS for requirements. Unarmed Strikes count as 2 handed weapons for disarming if you use both hands, and 1 handed weapon if you use 1.

These kinda things benefit physical combatants more than magical.

[subject42]

Why touch those? Those are the power level non-caster feats SHOULD be.

What do you consider to be the benchmark feat that could be used as a baseline?

I tend to look at Power Attack and Improved Trip as the baseline melee feats, and Maximize Spell and Craft Wondrous item as the baseline magic feats..


Sean K Reynolds has some... interesting ideas (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) on feat values. I don't entirely think I agree with them.

[ranagrande]

Also for the skill feats, I'd add that the skills affected are always Class Skills.

[Emmerask]

No, levels are too powerful in d&d :smalltongue:

[ranagrande]

What do you consider to be the benchmark feat that could be used as a baseline?

I tend to look at Power Attack and Improved Trip as the baseline melee feats, and Maximize Spell and Craft Wondrous item as the baseline magic feats..


Sean K Reynolds has some... interesting ideas (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) on feat values. I don't entirely think I agree with them.
Yes... interesting indeed. I think I entirely disagree with them. According to Sean, the skill feats actually are worth more than Leadership. And Skill Focus is worth twice as much as Natural Spell.

[Big Fau]

And if Pathfinder is any indication, people will lose their minds the instant that you touch improved trip or power attack.

Because those aren't even overpowered feats. They're merely decent feats. The Aelrynth arguments proved that years ago.

Honestly, compare Power Attack to Quicken Spell, Craft Wondrous Item, or Natural Spell. PA is worthless when placed next to feats like that. And the only reason people consider Improved Trip to be the best of the Improved X feats is because it provides a free attack. I've seen the guys at BG say that Bull Rushing would be as heavily touted as Tripping if the Improved Bull Rush feat provided a free attack to make up for the action it takes to use the Bull Rush attempt. Assuming Core-only, that is.

[TheStillWind]

I've never seen this done. But I always thought a good plan to deal with the overpowered and underpowered feats would be to separate them into two different features. Perks and feats or whatever. On a case by case basis separate each feat into minor and major. Divine metamagic- major dodge- minor. Weapon focus- minor Leap attack- major. Then change the progression to something like...

Major Feat at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18
minor feat at 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19

or
Major and Minor at every odd level

[MesiDoomstalker]

As for Divine Metamagic. I had never heard about it before I started to roam different forums, and I have only a rough idea of what it does (Trade Turn Undead for less slot penalty with metamagic, yes?). What book is it from?
If I where to change it though (going from what I 'think' it does) I'd say it would simply be a cumulative penalty in sorts. Pushing down a slot penalty one step would cost 1 TU, 2 steps would cost 3, 3 would cost 6 etc.

All in all, you're completely right. Buffing is always more appreciated than nerfs ^^

I like this fix (even though I like abusing DMM) but in this case make it that you don't have to specify a metamgic feat. It becomes worthless for large adjustment feats but suffers little for minimal ones. As is, your burning at least 2 feat slots for easy metamagic reduction for a specific metamagic. Severely increase the cost, it becomes only useful for +1 and maybe +2 metamagics. It would still drain your pool to persist a spell but at least you can use it elsewhere.

[Firechanter]

According to Sean, the skill feats actually are worth more than Leadership. And Skill Focus is worth twice as much as Natural Spell.

...nuff said.

You could get the impression that SKR was trolling.

--

As for fixing the feats, my advice is:
Fix what you _need_ to fix. For example, if someone in your group wants to make a TWFer, see if you can throw some love that way. If nobody is interested in TWF anyway, don't bother.

And it's definitly _not worth the bother_ trying to fix those >2000 crappy and useless feats that ever were officially published. The best course of action here is simply to ignore them, and take your picks out of the good stuff.

[subject42]

You could get the impression that SKR was trolling.

That's funny. I kind of thought the same thing when I first read it.

[MrRhin]

I like this fix (even though I like abusing DMM) but in this case make it that you don't have to specify a metamgic feat. It becomes worthless for large adjustment feats but suffers little for minimal ones. As is, your burning at least 2 feat slots for easy metamagic reduction for a specific metamagic. Severely increase the cost, it becomes only useful for +1 and maybe +2 metamagics. It would still drain your pool to persist a spell but at least you can use it elsewhere.
So, something like this?
Divine Metamagic.
You can channel energy into some of your divine spells to make them more powerful.
Prerequisite: Ability to turn and rebuke undead. At least 2 metamagic feats.
Benefit: When preparing your divine spells, you may spend your daily attempts at Turning or Rebuking undead to reduce the level increase a metamagic feat would apply to a spell. The cost of reducing a metamagic feats level increase this way is equal to the level of the spell and is cumulative. (So reducing a level increase one step costs you 1 turn/rebuke attempt, reducing it two steps costs 3 attempts, reducing it three steps costs 6 attempts etc.). You may not apply this feat to metamagic feats in combination with spells, if you do not posses a spell slot high enough to do so without the use of divine metamagic.
Special: If you are able to cast divine spells spontaneously, you may apply the benefits of this feat to your divine spells, as a free action.

Sorry bout the clunky writing, I'm sure someone else could do it better.

Also, in regards to the Skill feats.
Skill Focus
Pick any two skills. You have an extraordinaire affinity for those skills.
Benefit: Both skills selected are now always considered Class Skills. You get a +2 bonus on all checks involving your selected skills. At 10th level this bonus is increased to +4, and then again to +6 at level 20. At 6th level or higher you may always Take-10 with these skills, even when threatened or rushed. And at level 15 you may Take-15 as long as you are not threatened or rushed.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, it effects does not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to two more skills.


...nuff said.

You could get the impression that SKR was trolling.

--

As for fixing the feats, my advice is:
Fix what you _need_ to fix. For example, if someone in your group wants to make a TWFer, see if you can throw some love that way. If nobody is interested in TWF anyway, don't bother.

And it's definitly _not worth the bother_ trying to fix those >2000 crappy and useless feats that ever were officially published. The best course of action here is simply to ignore them, and take your picks out of the good stuff.
Heh, you got a good point there.
though I would like to see at least the core book feats remade, if for nothing else than to set a different standard to what feats are able to do. :smallsmile:

[candycorn]

What do you consider to be the benchmark feat that could be used as a baseline?

I tend to look at Power Attack and Improved Trip as the baseline melee feats, and Maximize Spell and Craft Wondrous item as the baseline magic feats..


Sean K Reynolds has some... interesting ideas (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) on feat values. I don't entirely think I agree with them.

Wait a tic.


(much like how magic missile is a benchmark for spells because it's the best 1st-level spell, and how fireball is your typical 3rd-level area attack spell, etc.)giggle.


1. Something that gives you an extra attack better than an equivalent feat that doesn't.Two-Weapon Fighting is better than Weapon Focus because TWF gives you one more opportunity to use Weapon Focus...Wait a second. TWF doesn't give you an extra attack. It reduces penalties for using an off hand (which is available to all classes)...

4. Giving a bonus is better than reducing a penalty.
While weapon focus gives a bonus. Shouldn't that mean that Weapon Focus is better than Two Weapon fighting?

...I know this guy's a designer... But did he READ the rules he helped make?


So, something like this?

Also, in regards to the Skill feats.
Skill Focus
Pick any two skills. You have an extraordinaire affinity for those skills.
Benefit: Both skills selected are now always considered Class Skills. You get a +2 bonus on all checks involving your selected skills. At 10th level this bonus is increased to +4, and then again to +6 at level 20. At 6th level or higher you may always Take-10 with these skills, even when threatened or rushed. And at level 15 you may Take-15 as long as you are not threatened or rushed.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, it effects does not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to two more skills.I would personally change it to:
At level 15, if you take 10 on either of these skills, and are not threatened or rushed, you gain an additional +5 bonus to the skill check.

Mechanically the same, but it falls entirely within established and existing game rules now.

[MesiDoomstalker]

So, something like this?
Divine Metamagic.
You can channel energy into some of your divine spells to make them more powerful.
Prerequisite: Ability to turn and rebuke undead. At least 2 metamagic feats.
Benefit: When preparing your divine spells, you may spend your daily attempts at Turning or Rebuking undead to reduce the level increase a metamagic feat would apply to a spell. The cost of reducing a metamagic feats level increase this way is equal to the level of the spell and is cumulative. (So reducing a level increase one step costs you 1 turn/rebuke attempt, reducing it two steps costs 3 attempts, reducing it three steps costs 6 attempts etc.). You may not apply this feat to metamagic feats in combination with spells, if you do not posses a spell slot high enough to do so without the use of divine metamagic.
Special: If you are able to cast divine spells spontaneously, you may apply the benefits of this feat to your divine spells, as a free action.

Sorry bout the clunky writing, I'm sure someone else could do it better.

Also, in regards to the Skill feats.
Skill Focus
Pick any two skills. You have an extraordinaire affinity for those skills.
Benefit: Both skills selected are now always considered Class Skills. You get a +2 bonus on all checks involving your selected skills. At 10th level this bonus is increased to +4, and then again to +6 at level 20. At 6th level or higher you may always Take-10 with these skills, even when threatened or rushed. And at level 15 you may Take-15 as long as you are not threatened or rushed.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, it effects does not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to two more skills.


Heh, you got a good point there.
though I would like to see at least the core book feats remade, if for nothing else than to set a different standard to what feats are able to do. :smallsmile:

Regular DDM is not used at preperation, its used spontaneously. Which is very flexible. I want to say you should keep that clause but it would further bring it down. Would it be more broken to have a small number of spontaneous metamgic reducers or have to do so ahead of time.

Note on spontaneous Divine magic: Say it wouldn't increase the casting time of spontaneous spells but they still take a full-round for applying metamagic to them.

Yes the wording is a bit clunky. I would just simplify them to "refer to chart below" and then also include a clause you can only do this once per spell. AKA, you cant do a Stilled, Silent, Widen, Extended, Energy Substituted, [other Misc +1 metamagic] Sleet Storm for the cost of the number of metamagics invovled. Not as broken as DMM: Persist, but still abusable. You can still apply all of those metamagics, but you can only sub out the cost of one.

For Skill Foci, personally, I'd like something special ontop of bonuses. Like combine all the feats that grant extra uses to old skills into the appropriate +2/+2 skill and stagger them out in level along with the chasis you already have. Gives skill monkeys a lot more uses for those excessive skill points.

Like for Stealthy, reduce the penalty to hide after taking a sniper shot or the penalty when moving while moving silently. Etc, etc. Like track should be incorporated into the skill that boosts Survival.

Then add synergy with the actual Skill Focus feat (which should get a seperate boost).

[subject42]

Mechanically the same, but it falls entirely within established and existing game rules now.

What is the wording for the bonus you get when expending psionic focus?

[Greenish]

Someone here (Curmudgeon? Greenish?) said recently that apparantly the feat writers of 3.0 didn't take these 7 feats as scale, but the Fighter class with its 11 bonus feats. So they wrote the feats so that they would be "okay" if you get 18 of them.I'll never confess. Never! :smalltongue:

[thompur]

Also for the skill feats, I'd add that the skills affected are always Class Skills.

I agree with this. Although, with this change, Magical Aptitude would be very popular!:smallbiggrin:

[Infernalbargain]

While SKR's rankings are definitely off, he's on to something. Instead of trying to equalize feats, if we try to price feats against each other things might be easier to balance.

[Partysan]

I think the spell feats are not neccessarily overpowered by themselves, rather it's some of the spells they can be used with that are overpowered.

[MrRhin]

Regular DDM is not used at preperation, its used spontaneously. Which is very flexible. I want to say you should keep that clause but it would further bring it down. Would it be more broken to have a small number of spontaneous metamgic reducers or have to do so ahead of time.

Note on spontaneous Divine magic: Say it wouldn't increase the casting time of spontaneous spells but they still take a full-round for applying metamagic to them.

Yes the wording is a bit clunky. I would just simplify them to "refer to chart below" and then also include a clause you can only do this once per spell. AKA, you cant do a Stilled, Silent, Widen, Extended, Energy Substituted, [other Misc +1 metamagic] Sleet Storm for the cost of the number of metamagics invovled. Not as broken as DMM: Persist, but still abusable. You can still apply all of those metamagics, but you can only sub out the cost of one.

I choose to write it like that cause it gives you the option to reduce the level increase of a metafeat just partially. Which is impossible if you just cast them spontaneously (as far as I understand at least) So it gives the feat more options in one way, while taking away some aspects in another. I dont think either way would be broken.
Though I do think (but this is just a personal opinion) that the feat should limit you to just being able to use Turn/Rebuke Undead you get from your class, to avoid cheese with a lot of Turn-Stacking. Granted, I'm only going by gut feeling with all of this, since as I said before, I've never played with this feat, and just recently discovered it. ^^
And yes I agree with you, it shouldnt change that spont-meta is still a full-round. I didnt intend for it o be, again, clunky writing =P


I'll rewrite it later, as well as make a spontaneous version.
The chart idea would also make it a lot less clunky I agree, as well as the 'only one per spell' thought. Good catch(es)





For Skill Foci, personally, I'd like something special ontop of bonuses. Like combine all the feats that grant extra uses to old skills into the appropriate +2/+2 skill and stagger them out in level along with the chasis you already have. Gives skill monkeys a lot more uses for those excessive skill points.

Like for Stealthy, reduce the penalty to hide after taking a sniper shot or the penalty when moving while moving silently. Etc, etc. Like track should be incorporated into the skill that boosts Survival.

Then add synergy with the actual Skill Focus feat (which should get a seperate boost).


Aye, I would like it to be like that as well. The only problem with that is that some skills benefit a lot more from that, while others dont. Skills that are usable in combat are easier, while those who generally isnt, have a hard time to get a decent buff.
Both are possible, and I might try to write up versions for both sides.

As for Skill Focus (the original) I was thinking along the lines that this would replace that feat as well, seeing as it now scales.
(Plus, I've never seen anyone take that feat either, soo.. ^^)

[Eldan]

My take on the skill feats was basically:
Choose one skill. Gain a +2 bonus to that skill. It now is always a class skill to you, and you can always take ten with it.

[Elitarismo]

...nuff said.

You could get the impression that SKR was trolling.

"Poverty is hard."

On topic, I've found a decent fix to be:

Everyone gets one "flavor" feat for free. This can be any weak feat.
Certain feat tax style feats are instead granted automatically for free either as innate abilities of everyone, or as things you gain at certain levels or BABs.
Certain weak feats are combined together into a single feat that scales with level.
Feats that apply to a specific weapon instead apply to a damage type.
The 2/2 skill feats are gone. Anything that required them now doesn't.

[CTrees]

I don't think there are any feats in core, which are just plain great.

Leadership and Natural Spell are both core, no? Just sayin'

SKR's list... again, interesting ideas, and I could see a feat points system working (I think I'd give a few points every level, personally), but... that's just ridiculous. I mean... All the metamagics at the same five points (ditto natural spell!), Leadership being cheaper than Self-Sufficient...

Let me reiterate that - LEADERSHIP. Cheaper than SELF SUFFICIENT. *brainexplosion*

[Firechanter]

"Poverty is hard."


Huh?
Sorry, seems to be a reference, but I don't get it. =)

[Elitarismo]

Huh?
Sorry, seems to be a reference, but I don't get it. =)

Paizo made something akin to Vow of Poverty for Monks. It's even worse though, as it does almost nothing but still means you cannot have any of your wealth. In response to people asking why this was so terrible, he responded with that and followed up by saying that it was ok to make things that are mechanically terrible for "roleplaying purposes". Or something to that effect. My brain crashed upon reading it, so I don't recall the exact wording.

[Firechanter]

*groan*

Never heard of this before, but... now my head's trying to explode...
Still, thanks for the info.

*facepalm*

[0Megabyte]

Man... this guy really doesn't understand the system he's working on, does he?

No wonder there are so many trap feats in this system.

[Elitarismo]

Man... this guy really doesn't understand the system he's working on, does he?

No wonder there are so many trap feats in this system.

This is why any game I run disallows any material by Paizo. That isn't the best example of their model at work though. He also has said things such as "it's alright if low level feats are terrible, or become obsolete, because they are low level". Well you can't change them when you aren't low level anymore, so no, they aren't.

[faceroll]

Power attack shouldn't even be a feat. Everyone should get it. In my games, everyone gets combat expertise, power attack, and point blank shot for free. Getting 2-to-1 returns for power attacking does require a feat, however.

[Firechanter]

Talking about giveaways, I give Dual Strike for free to any TWFer.

(side note: in Conan, this was the most stupid feat ever: it was badly written with a lot of grey area, but worst of all, it had _Power Attack_ as Prereq. So you were forced to buy a feat you couldn't even use (effectively) since you'd be using at least one Light Weapon.)

[faceroll]

^ I like that one.

At level 6, I let monks and fighters make full attacks as standard actions. I think I ruled that whirlwind attack lets you make a full attack as a move action, at the end of a feat chain that increases your move speed and lets you make a full attack throughout your move.

[Big Fau]

Man... this guy really doesn't understand the system he's working on, does he?

No wonder there are so many trap feats in this system.

That's what I've been saying the whole time!

[hex0]

Honestly, compare Power Attack to Quicken Spell, Craft Wondrous Item, or Natural Spell. PA is worthless when placed next to feats like that. .

Everything is situational and dependant on the makeup of the party, though. If you are trying to bust down a thick door, Power Attack is obviously nice to have for the front liner instead of having the spellcaster waste a disinigrate or whatever.

I'd say get rid of the Greater Weapon Focus, change weapon focus to just +1 (and an additional +1 for every 5 or 6 Fighter levels). Things like that.

[darkdragoon]

The vast majority are terribly weak. Or perhaps the end effect is OK, maybe even quite good, but you take up several slots to get there.

Even DMM can be framed as "I think I can eek more out of some Nightsticks etc. than a Rod of Metamatic"

[subject42]

This is why any game I run disallows any material by Paizo. That isn't the best example of their model at work though. He also has said things such as "it's alright if low level feats are terrible, or become obsolete, because they are low level". Well you can't change them when you aren't low level anymore, so no, they aren't.

Paizo's Pathfinder fighter actually can swap out feats. I think they're the only class that can explicitly do it.



Power attack shouldn't even be a feat. Everyone should get it. In my games, everyone gets combat expertise, power attack, and point blank shot for free. Getting 2-to-1 returns for power attacking does require a feat, however.

I tend to do the same thing in my high-op games, and then grant the Frenzied Berserker's improved power attack ratio as the Power Attack feat. FB itself is banned.

[Big Fau]

I'd say get rid of the Greater Weapon Focus, change weapon focus to just +1 (and an additional +1 for every 5 or 6 Fighter levels). Things like that.

That doesn't even solve half of the problems Weapon Focus has in my eyes. All it does is turn it into a bigger Bonus-type (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11607814&postcount=277) feat.

[Lord.Sorasen]

And people would scream that it was overpowered or broken. Even if it was limited in its uses (say, in a similar manner as the Barbarians Rage is). Even if it would be balanced from an objective view.
Mundanes cant have shiny things =/

I'm all for buffing feats, but it's like walking on the edge of a knife sometimes, heh.

I've been thinking about it, and I think the big problem with feats seeming imbalanced isn't their relation to the tier system but there relation to the class in general. Double the attacks would seem like an imbalanced feet, because it would be so incredibly powerful compared to typical fighter that I really can't think of any builds that wouldn't take it. I realize that natural spell is the same thing but considered ok, but honestly natural spell is so much a part of the druid that I often forget it even exists as a feat.

Anyway, as for fixing the feat issue, I see three fixes. Personally I would use them all:

1. Give more feats. I'd give 1 for every odd level, as Pathfinder.
2. The thing about bonus feats is, as has been mentioned, casters use bonus feats too, and many of them are better than melee feats (how could they not be? Magic is better than melee in general). I find a simple fix is to provide certain feats for free which benefit melee classes and add variety, without really benefiting magic. If I had a new group who didn't know the rules, I'd introduce these feats as combat rules rather than feats.

These free feats would be given for at least one of three reasons. First: Because the feat really should be something characters can do without needing a feat. I can't think of any examples right now, but I mean feats which you should be allowed to simply think of and do, that probably wouldn't provide too much mastery. The second reason would be those bread and butter type fighter feats. I'd probably give power-attack, point-blank shot, and weapon finesse for free, to name 3. The third reason would be that people can't not take the feat. As weird as it sounds, I might give natural spell for free for this reason. Also, on a related note, I'd give all player characters the ability to pounce and avoid seeing lion totem barbarian in builds without rage intent.

3 (shouldn't have put a list in my list). Power up certain feats, by either combining feats or simply adding to feats already existing. I personally enjoy the idea of combining the "improved x" feats into "combat technique" or something of the sort. I also like the idea of boosting skill feats. Maybe allowing skill focus to scale with level or something of that sort.

[DeAnno]

So it would be very divisive and take lots of work, but I have a silly idea that one could do about all this. You start with 8 feat points at 1st level, and every subsequent level, you get 2. Feat points can be either spent or kept when you level up, meaning you can hoard them if you wish. All feats are assigned a point value, usually between 1-10, with 6 being a feat that was "average". Natural Spell might have a value of 10, Weapon Finesse could be 6, and Stealthy might be worth 1.

From there, go nuts!

[TehLivingDeath]

The vast majority are terribly weak. Or perhaps the end effect is OK, maybe even quite good, but you take up several slots to get there.

Even DMM can be framed as "I think I can eek more out of some Nightsticks etc. than a Rod of Metamatic"

DMM doesn't need to be fixed imo. Banning nightsticks does an equivalent job with no headaches involved. Without buying loads of it, most clerics will only be able to Quicken a couple of spells or Persist one. Still powerful and leagues ahead of Sudden Quicken, but not game breaking by any means.

[ThiefInTheNight]

At least, no more than the Cleric was to begin with, you mean?

Even that's dubious. Cleric buffs are powerful, and saving a round is huge.

[MesiDoomstalker]

DMM doesn't need to be fixed imo. Banning nightsticks does an equivalent job with no headaches involved. Without buying loads of it, most clerics will only be able to Quicken a couple of spells or Persist one. Still powerful and leagues ahead of Sudden Quicken, but not game breaking by any means.

Incorrect. I made a DMM Cleric that could persist 2 spells and have 4 left over at 10th level. At 12th, it got to 3:2. But thats just the second Extra Turning. And thats without any cheese.

[RedWarrior0]

I would nerf DMM by saying that, to use it on Cleric spells, you need to burn turn attempts from the Cleric ability, and from that only. If you want DMM Paladin spells, your only source of turns is from turning provided in Paladin class abilities. And then explicitly ban Charisma-based divine casting on a turn-granting class forever.

[navar100]

And skill feats are just... pathetic. I've never seen anyone take one except when they were forced to to gain access to a PrC or something.
Personally I believe giving skill feats something more special in addition to their skill boost. Like being able to take-10 on certain situations or switching 'Use of skill is an X action' to 'Use of skill is an X or Y action' and so on.


Pathfinder improved skill feats. Skill Focus gives +3, but it becomes +6 when you have 10 ranks at no extra cost. That is worth something. Since there is no more cross-class cost nonsense, it is worth considering taking even for a non-class skill. A Fighter with Skill Focus Perception can have a better total Perception modifier than a Rogue at 10th level without Skill Focus and be only behind the Rogue's Stealth by a couple of points because the Rogue has much better Dex than a Fighter's Wis. The Rogue is supposed to be better at hiding than a Fighter looking for him as a game feature, but the Fighter at least now has a decent chance of actually finding him.

The +2/+2 Skill Feats become +4/+4 when you have 10 ranks in them. You can get the +4 in just one if only that skill has 10 ranks.

[TehLivingDeath]

At least, no more than the Cleric was to begin with, you mean?

Even that's dubious. Cleric buffs are powerful, and saving a round is huge.

Yeah, of course. CoDzilla exists regardless of DMM.


Incorrect. I made a DMM Cleric that could persist 2 spells and have 4 left over at 10th level. At 12th, it got to 3:2. But thats just the second Extra Turning. And thats without any cheese.

How did you get to 18 turn attempts? Extra Turning twice nets you 11 + Cha attempts.

The problem with not having nightsticks is that you have to go out of your way to get turning attempts, and even then you're heading into diminishing returns (taking Extra Turning once doesn't even let you Quicken by itself). DMM is still a very powerful feat, possibly a must have, but nightsticks are what make it a joke.

[Larpus]

One thing that I thought of doing for quite sometime is to instead of assign "1 feat" every odd level, the player gets a number of "feat points" every odd level. For the example let's say each player gets 3 feat points every odd level.

Now, not every feat costs the same, the poorer ones like the skill feats or the such cost only 1 point, decent but situational ones cost 2 points and the actually good ones cost 3 points. The player can store feat points for later usage and can freely mix and match the feats he's getting.

Similarly, feat trees are reworked so you can have them without getting the earlier feats in the tree by adding to its cost, something like 1 each feat. So Whirlwind Attack, to which I'll give the standard cost of 2 for this example, can either be taken as normal for 2 points, be taken without any pre-req for 5 points, taken with a single pre-req for 4 points and so on.

And yeah, some feats would be reworked, mainly the real stinkers, Toughness for example would be the Pathfinder version (+3 HP and after 3 HDs +1 HP per HD) and the ones that give a flat bonus (like Weapon Focus) would scale with HD.

Also, you can trade things, such as trading proficiency with all 2H weapons (and the ability to hold any weapon with two hands) and get TWF (which grants iterates for free) instead, and also give some bonus to sword and board so 2H is not so much better than the other options (not saying that it's too powerful, I'm saying that the others that aren't good enough).

Not sure if it would solve the problem or not, but I guess it would at least lessen the problem.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Yeah, of course. CoDzilla exists regardless of DMM.



How did you get to 18 turn attempts? Extra Turning twice nets you 11 + Cha attempts.

The problem with not having nightsticks is that you have to go out of your way to get turning attempts, and even then you're heading into diminishing returns (taking Extra Turning once doesn't even let you Quicken by itself). DMM is still a very powerful feat, possibly a must have, but nightsticks are what make it a joke.

Ok 2 things. I misread the feat I thought the cost was Adjustment=Turn attempts. So my numbers are wrong. But With a 16 starting Cha (+3), Cloak of Cha +4 (+2), Nightstick (a single one, +4), Extra Turning (+4), Reliquary Holy Symbol (+2), standard from Cleric 1 (+3)=18

So at 7 per Persist, thats 2 Persisted spells, with 4 leftover.....wait a second, thats what I had before. *goes back through notes* oh I didn't have the Reliquary Holy Symbol initially so the bonus from that accounted for the numbers I missed initially. Wow, my numbers are bad today. :smallredface:

Note, I still had a Nightstick, but a single one. If I remember correctly, it gets truely, utterly, irrevocably, game breaking when you use more than one to gain theoretically infinite turning attempts.

[Acanous]

there's a couple ways I know of to make feats more important.. they also (Kind of) bring casters down a peg, making everyone somewhere around T3.

It goes like this:
A Feat is gained when your Base Attack bonus hits 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18.
Ability increases are gained when your Base Attack bonus hits 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20.
Bonus Feats granted from classes are still granted normally.

Also, a couple homebrew feats for you here:

Duel With Death
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus 11, 14 ranks in any two skills.
Your prowess allows you to stay even the most determined of natural forces.
Use: If one of your companions dies due to any effect other than aging, you may put your life on the line to instigate a test of skill against death himself. This test must be declared within 1 day of your ally's death. Death follows the same rules as the "Death" card in a Deck of Many Things, with the exception that you may attempt a skill check in place of combat if you so choose. This choice must be made at the time you use this feat.
Should you win, your ally is returned to life with full hitpoints and loses 1 point of Constitution, which cannot be recovered by any means.
Your ally's body must be mostly whole in order for this ability to function.
Should you lose the contest, your life is forfeit.

Spellrender
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Knowledge: Arcana 5 Ranks, Spot 12 ranks
No mere magic can stand against your blade.
Use: Whenever you are targetted by a spell you are aware of, you may take an attack of opportunity against the spell itself. The spell's AC is identical to any save DC it would incur (If it does not have a save, calculate save DC as for a spell of the same school and level from the same caster) plus five (Size bonus) and it's hitpoints are equal to the spell's level. If the spell is successfully attacked and reduced to 0 hitpoints, it fails, and the caster loses that spell for the day. This ability may only affect spells cast on you in the round they were cast, and does not affect Area of Effect spells unless the spell requires a target.

[Infernalbargain]

It ain't the feats that make the casters tier 1 or 2, it is the spells. Much of the cheese that's known off hand doesn't require feat combinations just particular groupings of spells. You could just take away all the non-bonus feats from tier 1 and they will still be tier 1.

[Big Fau]

It ain't the feats that make the casters tier 1 or 2, it is the spells. Much of the cheese that's known off hand doesn't require feat combinations just particular groupings of spells. You could just take away all the non-bonus feats from tier 1 and they will still be tier 1.

You could actually deny them any and all feats entirely. The Druid blinks and slaps you, the Cleric doesn't really care to much, and the Artificer goes and cuts himself in the corner.

Archivists, Wizards, and Erudites are completely unaffected aside from PrCs. They remain Tier 1.

[Acanous]

That's where Spellrender comes in ;) There's also Spell Burster (Now you can kill AoE spells) and Spellreaver, which sends the spell back at the caster instead of just cancelling it.

Wizards and the like can still work around it, but it gives the melee class a bit more versatility, and makes them a little more threatening to casters. At the very least, it forces the enemy caster to change tactics.

[Coidzor]

OP: Even Monte Cook (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_Feats) noticed a problem with the feats system.
I don't know if anyone's said that, but I've said quite the opposite, in that they didn't mess up Fighter, they just failed to provide feats strong enough to make Fighter competitive with other options. You can bump Fighter clear into tier 2 simply by making feats that are actually strong, when compared to spells.

Well, the last time we had a brace of Fighter threads, I know I've certainly said that the Fighter was the albatross around the Feat System's neck. But I'm hardly a notable character, and I doubt they were recalling something I said about a week ago. :smallamused:

[candycorn]

Acanous, Spellrender isn't well balanced. At the level it's gained (9), a warrior with an 18 strength and a +1 greatsword, if he hits, will automatically destroy a 9th level spell. That's very generous, considering I expect to see an 18 strength and a +1 weapon on a level 4 character. By level 9, they should have 22-24 strength, ideally.

Add on that, at level 9, a +2 weapon, +9 BAB, and +6 strength = +17 to hit.
DC for a caster? 17+ spell level, typically, at this level. So a 5th level spell, by a level 9 caster? 80% chance to hit and autodestroy (2d6+11 damage, or 21.5 average).

This isn't a crazy powerful warrior. It assumes a +2 greatsword (common weapon), 18 base strength, +2 strength at level 4 and 8, and a +2 Strength item. And it does at a bare minimum, triple the damage needed to stop a level 4 spell (over double a level 5).

What does this mean? Every caster in the kingdom will invest in invisibility, or cloaking their casting. It's one thing to give an edge. It's another to go that far.

I could see: If the spell allows a saving throw, gain a bonus to the save = half the damage dealt. If it does not allow a saving throw, reduce the damage by the weapon damage rolled. If it does not allow a saving throw or deal damage, reduce the duration by a number of rounds equal to your character level (minimum duration 1 round).

[subject42]

OP: Even Monte Cook (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_Feats) noticed a problem with the feats system.

I like this bit:


On levels when you gain a new feat you get the choice of taking either one greater or two lesser feats. Greater feats are the item creation feats, Cleave, and so on.

Apparently cleave is on par with feats that let you construct items granting flight and the power to shoot lightning out of your forehead.

[Elitarismo]

Monks are an interesting and flavorful class with new abilities to look forward to at all levels.

[Greenish]

Well, the last time we had a brace of Fighter threads, I know I've certainly said that the Fighter was the albatross around the Feat System's neck. But I'm hardly a notable character, and I doubt they were recalling something I said about a week ago. :smallamused:My name's easier to remember. :smalltongue:

But I was actually riffing what you had said in an earlier thread. Much like I stole a TWF fix* from someone else in these forums.

*Which I will now pimp:
Two-Weapon Fighting [General]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand.

Prerequisite
Dex 13.

Benefit
Every time you make an attack (including standard action, part of a full attack action, or even strike maneuver) with your mainhand weapon, you may take -2 penalty to the attack and also make an attack with your offhand weapon at the same attack bonus (including the penalty).

Normal
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

Special
A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.

A fighter may select Two-Weapon Fighting as one of his fighter bonus feats.


[Edit]:
Monks are an interesting and flavorful class with new abilities to look forward to at all levels.That's true… from a certain point of view.

[Elitarismo]

No, you're supposed to respond with a sarcastic statement of your own.

Let's try that again.

Doing +2 damage with all attacks of a certain weapon type is on par with the ability to be a tiger who summons more tigers while shooting lasers.

[ericgrau]

Well look at the core class features. Rage is better than a feat, sure, but multiple feats can keep up and progress almost as well as it. Uncanny dodge and trap sense not so much usually; it often takes a specific campaign. Evasion is probably worth more than a feat, but like rage you have 5 different ways to grab it from a quick dip if you really need it. So past the first couple dippable levels most core class features are actually fairly meh compared to feats, even core feats. The ranger is a classic example, where combatwise you can actually do it all and more with a fighter taking the same feats plus more. A fighter is likewise more effective in combat than a rogue simply from higher attack bonus (more hits), more consistency, better defenses and the feats on top of that.

That's comparing martial to martial, apples to apples. Martial to caster is a whole other ballgame and you can't really make a fair comparison. But I do remember a thread where someone complained that weapon specialization sucks because fireball progresses faster. Yet martial characters do more damage than casters, and the key is that the feats stack on top of existing actions and fireball is its own action. Like using quicken to action-stack a second minor spell, a martial character stacking onto the same action - heck multiple times per round on a full attack - is very powerful.

Outside of core you need to compare non-core feats to non-core class features. If anything you could try to complain that core feats and class features are weak, but that's all relative. That's just power creep.

[subject42]

Monks are an interesting and flavorful class with new abilities to look forward to at all levels.

Wizards of the Coast Certainly Thought So. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a)

[2xMachina]

Wizards of the Coast Certainly Thought So. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a)

Yeah! The druid is the second-place offender of dead levels!

[Seerow]

Wizards of the Coast Certainly Thought So. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a)

Wow, just wow.

[Vladislav]

Wizards of the Coast Certainly Thought So. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a)
If I get this right, being able to increase Slow Fall from 60' to 70' was considered better than gaining access to a whole level of spells!?

Did someone in WotC decide to troll their audience?

[Firechanter]

There's more hilarity to be discovered every day. =D

Another note about increasing the number of attacks, although that topic seems to have been chewed a page ago: the problem with lots of attacks is that they take forever to resolve at the table, which gets boring. That's why I want my characters to combine their punch into as few rolls as possible. Sure, you can build a Girallon-type Multi-WFer with extra attacks here and there, but your buddies will sigh and groan whenever you pick up your dice to make eighteen attack rolls.
Just a thought.

[Big Fau]

Did someone in WotC decide to troll their audience?

WotC is not run by ValvE, nor have they hired Kubo Tite to write articles, so no.


Unless that's changed in the last thirty seconds.

[Elitarismo]

If I get this right, being able to increase Slow Fall from 60' to 70' was considered better than gaining access to a whole level of spells!?

Did someone in WotC decide to troll their audience?

Truenamer. Yes.

[Dsurion]

The case with some feats isn't even so much that they're weak. I think feats got a lot of confusion as to what they should do from the beginning and so it was never clear later on how much they should do of anything.

Some feats would work better in a Trait system where you pick two at character generation (Skill feats, Run, Endurance, Toughness, Diehard, Save-Boosters).

Some of them are better as innate class features (Heritage feats on a Sorcerer, Natural Spell - arguable, as I hate this feat, personally).

Some shouldn't even be feats at all, but general character options anyone can use (Finesse, Power Attack, Expertise).

And some things are just stupid and shouldn't have existed in the first place, usually geared toward eliminating one of the many penalties mired on to certain combat actions (Precise Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting). In my opinion, the Improved [Combat Action] feats shouldn't be there either, but should just carry no penalties if you're a 3/4 or full BAB class.

I also hold great contempt for feat chains.

[Midnight_v]

The Magic related feats are worthwhile, the combat and skill related feats are not.
I've read 3 pages of this and I'm sad that no one mentioned Frank and K's tome because really that means that either A. People forgot them. B. people don't know about them. or C. People hate those guys so much that the awesome works they DID do gets ignored, could mean something else but sitll.
I'm going to post a link to the Tome Series, and post an excerpt of how they and I think feats should work.
Link to: The Tomes "of how things should be" by frank and K (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453)
Sample Combat feat

Iron Will [Combat]
You are able to grit your teeth and shake off mental
influences.
Bab +0: You gain a +3 bonus to your Willpower saves.
Bab +1: You gain the slippery mind ability of a Rogue.
Bab +6: If you are stunned, you are dazed instead.
Bab +11: You do not suffer penalties from pain and fear.
Bab +16: You are immune to compulsion effects.


Sample Skill feat:


Detective [Skill]
You’re good at finding things out just by conversing
with townsfolk.
Gather Information ranks:
0: You gain a +3 bonus on your Gather Information
checks.
4: Your ability to pick up on the social context aids
you in establishing rapport. After succeeding on
a Gather Information check, you gain a +2 bonus
to Knowledge checks, Sense Motive checks, and
checks for Cha-based skills in the same milieu.
9: With 2d6 hours of research, you can study a specific
topic, such as a particular location or a wellknown
local monster, and substitute a Gather Information
check for any Knowledge checks pertaining
to the topic. You need access to local informants,
a library, scholars, or other appropriate
sources to use this ability.
14: You can gain the benefits of legend lore with a DC
30 Gather Information check. If you have the person
or thing at hand, or are in the place, this takes
a day; otherwise, it consumes the time as normal
for legend lore. You need access to individuals or
resources with relevant knowledge to use this ability.
19: With a DC 40 Gather Information check and 1d4+1
days of talking to people, you can either find an answer
to any question you can pose in ten words or
less, or find out where you need to go to get the answer.
You need access to individuals or resources
with relevant knowledge to use this ability.

Now when I do an overview of ALL the feats they made and included MOST of them I like, some of them I don't like all of them, personal preference of me in that case, but I DO think this is the way feats should be designed.
I say that in light of understanding the idea behind the tiers system and the knowledge of the sheer imbalance of magic, and its ability to obviate everyone barring master optimization, on behalf of a player.
It solves many an issue, but as mentioned before...
These feats, give non-casters, nice things, and the initial reaction to non casters getting nice things is "Thats broken, hell no." honestly even I fall into that trap sometimes, and I know better.

[Seerow]

Really, the more I think about it, the more I feel that the idea of what a feat is is too muddled, and feats in general should be gotten rid of entirely. I think Dsurion was on the right track with saying that some stuff should just be gotten at character generation, some should be class abilities, etc.


The thing is, feats are so all over the place, expectations are skewed. 4e actually DID fix the problem with feats, by making them all pretty much universally meh. This is more in line with what feats were originally intended to be, minor things for customization (nevermind the Fighter, the developers finally realized that was a bad choice), not character defining game changers. But people from 3.5 had already raised their expectations based on the few really good feats in 3.5, and wanted hundreds or thousands of options that are all that good.

I'm going to go ahead and say what those people want isn't really possible in any manner resembling being balanced. So here's the way I see it potentially working:

-The really weak feats, stuff like minor skill boosts, or small save/hp boosts, become background qualities. Everyone gets so many of these to customize their character a bit better from the start.

-Most of the "new option" feats, things like Power Attack, Robilar's Gambit, tactical feats, etc, become powers available to most classes. In this, I figure a 4e style system where everyone has powers is best, but with a 3e structure where the various power sources have different mechanics. (I would also include metamagic under this. I'd go into details on how to do so without overpowering it but that could derail the thread in a totally different direction)

-What feats are left become talents. The name changes from feats simply to disabuse the notion that these are feats. Most of these remaining feats are things like "Apply X stat to Y" or "Improve Z", typically stronger than the 'meh' feats like iron will or skill focus, but not considered worth taking while good options are on the table.

-Combat Style feats (feats that reduce penalties for fighting a certain way, or make a certain fighting style better) become condensed a LOT more, and get attached for free onto most martial classes. Martial Classes could spend talents to get more of them (if they wanted more than one combat style), or non-martial classes could spend talents to get them to be more competent with weapons. For what I mean by condensing the weapon styles see here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199946).





tldr version: Feats as they are represent too broad a term, and peoples expectations of them differ wildly because there are too many things that they are supposed to represent. My solution is to take each category of feat, and separate them, so you can have a clear expectation for what each thing is supposed to give you. After separating them out, the word feat vanishes from existence, or becomes the new name for fighter maneuvers, because it has too much baggage attached to it from 3.X

[Midnight_v]

In fact. . . to save people the linking.


The Failure of Feats
“How about instead of being able to travel anywhere in the multiverse, transform yourself into anything you can think of, stop time, and slay everyone you can see, we just give a nice +1 to hit with your secondary weapon?
Deal?”

Feats were an interesting idea when they were ported to 3rd edition D&D. But let’s face it; they don’t go nearly far enough.
Feats were made extremely conservative in their effects on the game because the authors didn’t want to offend people with too radical a change. Well, now we’ve had third edition for 6 years, and we’re offended. Feats are an interesting and tangible way to get unique abilities onto a character, but they have fallen prey to two key fallacies that has ended up turning the entire concept to ashes in our mouths. The first is the idea that if you think of something kind of cool for a character to do, you should make it a feat. That sounds compelling, but you only get 7 feats in your whole life. If you have to spend a feat for every cool thing you ever do, you’re not going to do very many cool things in the approximately 260 encounters you’ll have on your way from 1st to 20th level. The second is the idea that a feat should be equivalent to a cantrip or two. This one is even less excusable, and just makes us cry. A +1 bonus is something that you seriously might forget that you even have. Having one more +1 bonus doesn’t make your character unique, it makes you a sucker for spending one of the half dozen feats you’ll ever see on a bonus the other players won’t even mention when discussing your character.

We all understand this problem, what do we do about it? Well, for starters, Feats have to do more things. Many characters are 5th level or so and they only have 2 feats. Those feats should describe their character in a much more salient way than “I’m no worse shooting into melee than I am shooting at people with cover that isn’t my friends.” This was begun with the tactical feats, but it didn’t go far enough. It’s not enough to add additional feats that do something halfway interesting for high level characters to have – we actually have to replace the stupid one dimensional feats in the PHB with feats that rational people would care about in any way. Spending a single feat should be enough to make you a “sniper character” because for a substantial portion of your life you only get one feat. Secondly, we have to clear away feats that don’t provide numeric bonuses large enough to care about.
The minimum bonus you’ll ever notice is +3, because that’s actually
larger than the difference between having rolled well and having rolled poorly on your starting stats. Numeric bonuses smaller than that are actually insulting and need to be removed from the feats altogether. 3.5 Skill Focus was a nice start, but that’s all it was – a start.

Furthermore, the fundamental structure of feats has been a disaster. The system of prerequisites often ensures that characters won’t get an ability before it would be level appropriate for them to do so, but actually does nothing to ensure that such characters are in fact getting level appropriate abilities. Indeed, if a 12th level character decides that they want to pursue a career in shooting people in the face, they have to start all over gaining an ability that is supposed to be level appropriate for a 1st level character. Meanwhile, when a wizard of 12th level decides to pursue some new direction in spellcasting – he learns a new 6th level spell right off – and gets an ability that’s level appropriate for a 12th level character.

[Dsurion]

I've read 3 pages of this and I'm sad that no one mentioned Frank and K's tome because really that means that either A. People forgot them. B. people don't know about them. or C. People hate those guys so much that the awesome works they DID do gets ignored, could mean something else but sitll.I was going to link them myself, but the tone people tend to give whenever Frank and K are mentioned usually make it not worth the time :smallsigh:

They took an approach to make all of their feats something worth taking. Most are pretty ridiculous compared to what I like playing, but I like Frank's logic, they make your skill ranks/BAB WORTH something.

[Big Fau]

They took an approach to make all of their feats something worth taking. Most are pretty ridiculous compared to what I like playing, but I like Frank's logic, they make your skill ranks/BAB WORTH something.

Same here. Smart guys, but their ideal Tier Range is above where I like to play at. Although I wouldn't hesitate to play in a Tomes game, I wouldn't want to DM for one.

[Lord.Sorasen]

I like this bit:



Apparently cleave is on par with feats that let you construct items granting flight and the power to shoot lightning out of your forehead.

"The core feats like Power Attack, Dodge, magic item creation"

Dodge is just the best.

[Midnight_v]

Same here. Smart guys, but their ideal Tier Range is above where I like to play at. Although I wouldn't hesitate to play in a Tomes game, I wouldn't want to DM for one.


They took an approach to make all of their feats something worth taking. Most are pretty ridiculous compared to what I like playing, but I like Frank's logic, they make your skill ranks/BAB WORTH something
I remember the last time this came up serrow and I were talking about this very thing. He was saying these tome guys were only tier 3.
I'm not sure, I am sure they were shooting for something like tier 2 (though note, frank and K reject the tier system out right for various valid reasons). Honestly, I'm leaning towards Serrow being right except for a few exceptions.

My issuse is with the above is kinda like "Damn Big fau really?".
Well, I accept that logic if you likewise "would't want to dm a druid, or a sorcerer" or anyone of a higher tier than "x".

Regardless. . . If you don't accept that the CORE game, considers
Caster level = Base Attack Bonus
and
Feats & Skills = assortment of spells = Class Abilities
you'll always have some crazy disparity between people with magic and people without.
The core and most subsequent books do indeed erroneously consider it to be such.

Bonus Reading 1: On Dm'ing.
Also, someone probbably needs to write an encounter design handbook. Cause when I see people talk about things such as what classes do to "team: monster" I realize on thing that 4th has right is clearly labeling things as "Mook"; "Elite", "Boss" or whatever it is they use, (I only read enough of it to know I wasn't gonna play it) cause dm'ing can be easier if people understand the monsters they're roles, proper usage and justified cynicism and oversigh of the cr system by any dm.
Bonus Reading 2!



Most are pretty ridiculous compared to what I like playing, but I like Frank's logic, they make your skill ranks/BAB WORTH something
I'm looking and I don't see anything different in that system than is expressed in the tome of battle manuever system.

It is so frustrating cause, it sounds like a "nice things" argument... It might not be though.
So I ask you honestly, whats so ridiculous in the frank k system that isn't emulated by the tob? CoDzilla or a wizard/with a single prestige? Is there some specific ability you don't want the pcs to have... that ISN"T emulated by a spell?
I do think there needs to be some clarification to some of it, maybe even and errata here or there, but honestly I find that work to be damn indicative of what feats are worth, and what the base classes should be doing.
End

[Hiro Protagonest]

"The core feats like Power Attack, Dodge, magic item creation"

Dodge is just the best.

"The core feats like Power Attack, Dodge, magic item creation, etc. all offer abilities that dramatically change your character and affect, if not every encounter (often many times during that encounter), at least every adventure in a meaningful way."

A +1 AC bonus is as dramatic and character-changing as the ability to craft a cloak that let's you fly.

[Dsurion]

I'm looking and I don't see anything different in that system than is expressed in the tome of battle manuever system.

It is so frustrating cause, it sounds like a "nice things" argument... It might not be though.
So I ask you honestly, whats so ridiculous in the frank k system that isn't emulated by the tob? CoDzilla or a wizard/with a single prestige? Is there some specific ability you don't want the pcs to have... that ISN"T emulated by a spell?
I do think there needs to be some clarification to some of it, maybe even and errata here or there, but honestly I find that work to be damn indicative of what feats are worth, and what the base classes should be doing.
No need to get frustrated. I never defined what I was saying, so that's understandable. I don't like Tier 3 and above. I don't like Tome of Battle. I don't like (full-)casters. There, I said it. I dislike most of 3.5 :smalltongue:

...And now someone is going to come along and tell me how much I need to play a different system and blah blah blah. I LIKE playing a relatively basic game with Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, Knight, Rogue, Barbarian, Scout, and Swashbuckler. It works for our group and I really don't care what anyone says otherwise.

[Big Fau]

My issuse is with the above is kinda like "Damn Big fau really?".
Well, I accept that logic if you likewise "would't want to dm a druid, or a sorcerer" or anyone of a higher tier than "x".


I'm fine with Tier 2 classes, provided they avoid Story-breaking spells/abilities. I have DMed for that in the past, but wish to avoid doing so now that I'm more familiar with the system.

I actually like my players to play Tiers 2, 3, and 4, and ask that they avoid messing with Tier 1s (for various reasons) or Tiers 5/6 (because I don't want to house rule them up to par).

I base my campaigns on the builds my players use, not the classes themselves. If a player presented me with a Tier 3 Wizard build (not that I've ever seen one), I'd allow it on the grounds that they do everything in their power to keep the build that way. However, is a player approached me with a TWFing CW Samurai build, I'd ask him to reconsider the whole thing and explain why I don't want something that weak in my game.

[Midnight_v]

I'm fine with Tier 2 classes, provided they avoid Story-breaking spells/abilities. I have DMed for that in the past, but wish to avoid doing so now that I'm more familiar with the system.

I actually like my players to play Tiers 2, 3, and 4, and ask that they avoid messing with Tier 1s (for various reasons) or Tiers 5/6 (because I don't want to house rule them up to par).

I base my campaigns on the builds my players use, not the classes themselves. If a player presented me with a Tier 3 Wizard build (not that I've ever seen one), I'd allow it on the grounds that they do everything in their power to keep the build that way. However, is a player approached me with a TWFing CW Samurai build, I'd ask him to reconsider the whole thing and explain why I don't want something that weak in my game.

Well, then, based upon the above, you would have no problem dm'ing for the Tome classes/Combat and skill feats in your games (minus the fiend stuff and leadership.)
Cause those classes are either tier 3 or tier 2, the fighter can get complex but as long as its not optimized for damage (like almost anything else) its a really fun non-tob way to allow the base melee's and skill-monkeys to be useful.

I find it to be superior to the tome of battle for actually making those guys work. The other thing I really like about them is that they took a lot of fan made content based on thier ideas and included, it.

I LIKE playing a relatively basic game with Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, Knight, Rogue, Barbarian, Scout, and Swashbuckler. It works for our group and I really don't care what anyone says otherwise.
Well... okay then, there's no such thing as bad/wrong fun, if everyones having it, you've found a niche that so many of the rest of us search for in this game we love. Congrats. Most of what I say, really won't apply to you, though, I'm afraid.
Everyone else though, op included, should take a look at those feats, even if they disagree with the actual feats something might be learned that helps them form thier own version of feats that make skills, and base attack bonus worth SOMETHING compared to casting, and equally important what the monsters can do.

[Dsurion]

Well... okay then, there's no such thing as bad/wrong fun, if everyones having it, you've found a niche that so many of the rest of us search for in this game we love. Congrats. Most of what I say, really won't apply to you, though, I'm afraid.No problem. I've come to understand a long time ago that the vast majority of debate and conversation about 3.5 don't apply to the way I play anyway.


Really, the more I think about it, the more I feel that the idea of what a feat is is too muddled, and feats in general should be gotten rid of entirely. I think Dsurion was on the right track with saying that some stuff should just be gotten at character generation, some should be class abilities, etc. -snip intelligent words about feats-Sounds like a good premise for a new topic to me :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

Bonus Reading 1: On Dm'ing.
Also, someone probbably needs to write an encounter design handbook. Cause when I see people talk about things such as what classes do to "team: monster" I realize on thing that 4th has right is clearly labeling things as "Mook"; "Elite", "Boss" or whatever it is they use, (I only read enough of it to know I wasn't gonna play it) cause dm'ing can be easier if people understand the monsters they're roles, proper usage and justified cynicism and oversigh of the cr system by any dm.

That would be very, very nice to see, indeed.

[Midnight_v]

Its a good idea, I feel like an idiot suddenly though reading myself write "they're", instead of "their" though. Shucks. :smallwink:

[Dalek-K]

What I've learned that works really well is to throw out all feats in the rule books. Then each level that a character can gain a feat, the player will say "I want to do X" and the DM can say how they are allowed to do this.

If everyone is on the same page about the seriousness or goofiness of this game things work well.

My group tried this and I wanted to be able to jump better than normal people (Str 22 btw) so the DM gave me the feat "Jump" which allowed me to change the skill from current to Roll D20 + Skill = Feet you can jump (without dividing the number and stuff). Another player wanted to be able to change the element of her spells (when she prepared them) so the DM gave her a feat where whenever she prepared spells she could choose a different element (Fire, Cold, Sonic, etc...). Another wanted a better reflex save, so instead of the +2 that the real feat gives you, the DM gave a feat that gives +2 reflex +1/3 levels.

Sure these aren't always going to be on the same power level but the player gets what they want and can come away happy. :)

Plus this is a hell of a lot easier than to rewrite all those feats.