Fixing SKR's Feat Point System

[sonofzeal]

Sean K Reynold's Feat Point System (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) sounds like a wonderful thing. Much of his writeup is legitimately insightful, and the mechanics he chose are good ones.

The problem is in his ranking. Serious and systemic flaws in his perspective cause him to massively overvalue certain poor feats like Two Weapon Fighting (according to him, the best feat in core), and critically undervalue excellent feats like Natural Spell (according to him, one of the weakest feats in core).

This is my attempt to re-assign the point values. Any and all suggestions are appreciated. I think my initial scorings here are considerably more accurate than SKR's, but there will undoubtedly be flaws that need to be corrected.

Please feel free to provide your own rankings!


SKR's Mechanics:
Feat Points
Each time a character gains a feat, she instead gets 10 feat points which she can use to purchase feats. Characters must still meet all prerequisites as normal. Unspent feat points carry over from level to level, but a character can only purchase feats with feat points at the times in her adventuring career when she could normally select a feat, even if she has extra feat points left over (for example, a character with 6 feat points left over from character level 3 could not spend them until level 6--the next level at which she gains a feat) .


A class that grants bonus feats grants bonus feat points of the appropriate type. For example, the fighter class gives 10 fighter feat points at levels 1, 2, 4, 6, and so on. Typed feat points can only be used on feats of the appropriate type, so a fighter can only use his fighter feat points to purchase fighter feats. However, any normal (typeless) feat points can be combined with typed feat points to purchase typed feats. You can still only use these feat points to purchase feats of the type you could normally purchase at that level.
Example:Tegdar is a human ftr1 with 3 typeless feat points left over from 1st level. He reaches 2nd level and gains 10 fighter feat points. Tegdar decides to use 7 of those points to purchase Combat Reflexes (cost: 7 points) , leaving him with 3 fighter feat points and 3 normal feat points. He decides to combine these feat points and purchase Far Shot (cost: 6points) . He now is completely out of feat points. He could not have used his 3 normal feat points to purchase feats other than fighter feats because he can only select those feats at level 1, 3, 6, and so on.

Feat Point Debt
At 1st level, and 1st level only, a character is allowed to overspend her feat points by selecting one or more feats with a cost of 11 or more feat points. The extra cost of these feats is carried over until the next time she gains feat points of the appropriate type. She can go into "feat point debt" up to 3 points. Feat point debt is tracked separately by type of feat point (typeless, fighter, wizard, etc.) .The feat point debt system allows characters using it to maintain parity with characters who don't (characters using the standard rules could sometimes end up with several strong feats at 1st level, penalizing the feat-point character) .

Example: Vidda, a halflingrog1, has 10 feat points. She selects Two-Weapon Fighting (11 points) and goes into feat point debt by for point. The next time she gains typeless feat points (3rd level) she only gains 9instead of 10 because of the 1-point debt. She gains the normal 10 feat points at levels 6, 9, and so on.
Example:Tegdar, a human ftr1, has 20 typeless feat points (10 from being1st-level, 10 from being human) and 10 fighter feat points. He chooses Point Blank Shot (9 points) and Two-Weapon Fighting with his typless feat points, which brings his typeless feat points to 0 (if there were a 12-point feat he qualified for, he could have selected that instead of Two-Weapon fighting, which would have put him in debt for 1feat point) . He purchases Rapid Shot (11 points) with his fighter feat points, which puts him in debt for one fighter feat point. At 2ndlevel, he gains 9 fighter feat points instead of 10 because of the1-point debt. He gains the normal 10 fighter feat points at fighter level 4, 6, and so on. His typeless feat points (at level 3, 6, and soon) are unaffected (though if he had chosen a 12-point feat instead of Two-Weapon Fighting he would have paid that typeless feat point debt at level 3 when he gained more feat points) .


Virtual Feats
Virtual feats, such as those conditional feats granted by the monk and ranger classes, do not grant feat points, cost feat points, or cause or negate feat point debt.

{table]Feat Name|Feat Cost|Notes
Acrobatic | 4 |
Agile | 4 |
Alertness | 4 |
Animal Affinity | 4 |
Armor Proficiency (Heavy) | 5 |
Armor Proficiency (Light) | 5 |
Armor Proficiency (Medium) | 5 |
Athletic | 4 |
Augment Summoning | 10 |
Blind-Fight | 6 |
Brew Potion | 4 |
Cleave | 7 |
Combat Casting | 4 |
Combat Expertise | 6 |
Combat Reflexes | 8 |
Craft Magic Arms and Armor | 6 |
Craft Rod | 6 |
Craft Staff | 6 |
Craft Wand | 6 |
Craft Wondrous Item | 8 |
Deceitful | 4 |
Deflect Arrows | 7 |
Deft Hands | 4 |
Diehard | 3 | Near-worthless except as a requirement
Diligent | 4 |
Dodge | 5 |
Empower Spell | 7 |
Endurance | 3 |
Enlarge Spell | 7 |
Eschew Materials | 4 |
Exotic Weapon Proficiency | 5 |
Extend Spell | 7 |
Extra Turning | 8 |
Far Shot | 5 |
Forge Ring | 6 |
Great Cleave | 4 | Cleave is expensive, but the upgrade should be cheap
Great Fortitude | 7 |
Greater Spell Focus | 6 | Raised from 5
Greater Spell Penetration | 5 |
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting | 3 |
Greater Weapon Focus | 6 |
Greater Weapon Specialization | 4 |
Heighten Spell | 6 |
Improved Bull Rush | 5 | Bull Rushing is usually weaker than other maneuvers
Improved Counterspell | 7 |
Improved Critical | 8 |
Improved Disarm | 6 | Disarming is usually weaker than other maneuvers
Improved Feint | 8 |
Improved Grapple | 8 |
Improved Initiative | 8 |
Improved Overrun | 6 |
Improved Precise Shot | 8 |
Improved Shield Bash | 8 |
Improved Sunder | 6 |
Improved Trip | 10 | Tripping is widely considered excellent
Improved Turning | 6 | Lowered from 7
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting | 4 |
Improved Unarmed Strike | 4 |
Investigator | 4 |
Iron Will | 7 |
Leadership | 15 | A truly game-breaking feat if used right
Lightning Reflexes | 7 |
Magical Aptitude | 4 |
Manyshot | 7 |
Martial Weapon Proficiency | 4 |
Maximize Spell | 7 |
Mobility | 4 |
Mounted Archery | 5 |
Mounted Combat | 6 |
Natural Spell | 10 |
Negotiator | 4 |
Nimble Fingers | 4 |
Persuasive | 4 |
Point Blank Shot | 6 |
Power Attack | 10 |
Precise Shot | 7 |
Quick Draw | 5 | Lowered from 6
Quicken Spell | 10 | Possibly the best core Metamagic feat
Rapid Reload | 6 |
Rapid Shot | 8 | Originally listed as 5, I'll blame typo here
Ride-By Attack | 8 |
Run | 4 |
Scribe Scroll | 6 |
Self-Sufficient | 4 |
Shield Proficiency | 5 |
Shot On The Run | 8 |
Silent Spell | 7 |
Simple Weapon Proficiency | 3 |
Skill Focus | 5 |
Snatch Arrows | 4 |
Spell Focus | 7 | Raised from 5
Spell Mastery | 6 |
Spell Penetration | 8 |
Spirited Charge | 8 |
Spring Attack | 9 | With cheaper Dodge/Mobility, this feat becomes excellent
Stealthy | 4 |
Still Spell | 7 |
Stunning Fist | 8 |
Toughness | 3 |
Tower Shield Proficiency | 6 |
Track | 5 |
Trample | 6 |
Two-Weapon Defense | 4 |
Two-Weapon Fighting | 7 | With the later feats in the chain cheapened, TWF improves
Weapon Finesse | 8 |
Weapon Focus | 7 |
Weapon Specialization | 5 |
Whirlwind Attack | 9 |
Widen Spell | 6 |[/table]

[Aeryr]

As I mentioned in another post even if this is interesting I feel that it might end failing due to feats being valuable depending on the rest of the character options and there being to many feats to really consider all the interactions.

For example a 1st level half elf (because they are so OP) warlock can get a really good use of skill focus [bluff] and deceitful
Could have a charisma of 18 (not even going for aging) mod =+4
Bluff ranks +4
Skill focus (bluff) +3
Deceitful +2
Beguiling influence +6
Racial +2
Master work tools +2

That's a 23 mod and supposing that you roll a 1 on the check it goes up to a bluff check of 24. The bluff penalty to "almost too incredible to consider." is -20 (drops the check to 4) so unless the opposition has ranks in sense motive and a decent wisdom its going to outright believe your bluff in a roll of 1.

If flaws and traits are on (or just be human) you can raise the bluff check higher be it via silvertongue mask (shape soulmeld) or nymph kiss or even using traits to increase it.

If you don't consider age penalties cheesy well that adds some more too.

Does that make skill focus a strong feat? For that level 1 example, sure, it is, for anyone else? No.

Edit: Actually checking my numbers the half elf still has 1 feat point left so he can grab any feat that he wants (he will contract a debt, but who cares) let's say nymph kiss for another +2. Now he has a bluff check of 26 (rolling a 1) and the opposition has to have 4 skill ranks in sense motive and 14 wisdom to be able to not believe the most outrageous lie.

[sonofzeal]

As I mentioned in another post even if this is interesting I feel that it might end failing due to feats being valuable depending on the rest of the character options and there being to many feats to really consider all the interactions.

For example a 1st level half elf (because they are so OP) warlock can get a really good use of skill focus [bluff] and deceitful
Could have a charisma of 18 (not even going for aging) mod =+4
Bluff ranks +4
Skill focus (bluff) +3
Deceitful +2
Beguiling influence +6
Racial +2
Master work tools +2

That's a 23 mod and supposing that you roll a 1 on the check it goes up to a bluff check of 24. The bluff penalty to "almost too incredible to consider." is -20 (drops the check to 4) so unless the opposition has ranks in sense motive and a decent wisdom its going to outright believe your bluff in a roll of 1.

If flaws and traits are on (or just be human) you can raise the bluff check higher be it via silvertongue mask (shape soulmeld) or nymph kiss or even using traits to increase it.

If you don't consider age penalties cheesy well that adds some more too.

Does that make skill focus a strong feat? For that level 1 example, sure, it is, for anyone else? No.

Edit: Actually checking my numbers the half elf still has 1 feat point left so he can grab any feat that he wants (he will contract a debt, but who cares) let's say nymph kiss for another +2. Now he has a bluff check of 26 (rolling a 1) and the opposition has to have 4 skill ranks in sense motive and 14 wisdom to be able to not believe the most outrageous lie.
While it should be immediately obvious that the same feat can have radically different values for different characters, I don't think we need to consider every niche use. It's entirely acceptable if a particular specialized character finds certain feats especially good deals for them. That's going to be the case with any system. Pretty much every RPG ever will have that happen. The point is just to provide a reasonable baseline.

In general, I try to assume the character taking the feat has a valid reason for wanting it. This is why Skill Focus is a 5 instead of, say, a 3. For an average Rogue, "Skill Focus: Search" isn't worth even 5 points. But for someone who's getting good mileage out of a particular skill, it's got at least moderate value. But it already takes effort getting to the point where +3 to a skill is something you care about, and most of the time it's not really going to be a gamechanger, so it's not worth the big points even then.

Make sense?

[Aeryr]

It does make sense, it made sense since the beginning :smallsmile:

How does this interact with characters that start at level higher than 1?

For example can a fighter human starting at level 6 use his 70 feat points at level 6? That would make him meet more prerequisites of said feats.

Additionally what do you really intend to do with this system, I mean, each time the character get feats they get 10 feat points, but most of the feats that you propose cost less than 10 feat points, the fighter already has a lot of feats (he can have more this way, he probably doesn't see a lot of benefit) but spellcasters can get metamagic for less than a feat this way. It seems that the spellcasters get more goodies out of this than the mundane.

[sonofzeal]

It does make sense, it made sense since the beginning :smallsmile:

How does this interact with characters that start at level higher than 1?

For example can a fighter human starting at level 6 use his 70 feat points at level 6? That would make him meet more prerequisites of said feats.

Additionally what do you really intend to do with this system, I mean, each time the character get feats they get 10 feat points, but most of the feats that you propose cost less than 10 feat points, the fighter already has a lot of feats (he can have more this way, he probably doesn't see a lot of benefit) but spellcasters can get metamagic for less than a feat this way. It seems that the spellcasters get more goodies out of this than the mundane.
After I get the pricings worked out, I might try modifying the system. Gaining three "Feat Points" a level seems like a nicer way to go. That's a little less than SKR gave, but my feats are also cheaper on average, and three FP per level still likely balances out to more total FP than you'd have otherwise. The only question is how many additional FP to start with, and whether to do anything about classes that offer bonus feats at non-regular intervals, like Monk and Rogue.

I don't think mages benefit inordinately. Fighters do suffer, because feats in general become a bit cheaper and more accessible for everyone, but that doesn't affect other martial classes. And it's my experience that martial classes are traditionally a whole lot more feat-starved than spellcasters. A Wizard can do just fine with hardly any feats, but a Rogue really has to battle to get it all in. Increasing the availability of feats in general favours non-casters, in my opinion.

[Airanath]

This sounds really interesting.
But some questions came up for me:
1) Rapid Reload and Rapid Shot, what is the reasoning for RR being 1 point more expensive? It doesn't really shine that much, as the kinds of crossbow you can use for free action fighting are still gonna be limited, heavies requiring a DM houserule that you can take it twice, or enchantments that pretty much make the feat moot if I am not mistaken (There was a reloading enchant somewhere I believe). With that in mind, wouldn't Rapid Shot be superior? Even more so, because in a crossbow build were you can freely reload, you can also use Rapid Shot.
2) Do you plan to make expansions to the list for other feats available in the homunguous list of feats we have available to select from?

[sonofzeal]

This sounds really interesting.
But some questions came up for me:
1) Rapid Reload and Rapid Shot, what is the reasoning for RR being 1 point more expensive? It doesn't really shine that much, as the kinds of crossbow you can use for free action fighting are still gonna be limited, heavies requiring a DM houserule that you can take it twice, or enchantments that pretty much make the feat moot if I am not mistaken (There was a reloading enchant somewhere I believe). With that in mind, wouldn't Rapid Shot be superior? Even more so, because in a crossbow build were you can freely reload, you can also use Rapid Shot.
2) Do you plan to make expansions to the list for other feats available in the homunguous list of feats we have available to select from?
1) Fixed. Don't know how that happened.

2) Probably not every feat from every book; I believe there's at least 3000! But if other people help contribute, I'll certainly add it in.

[Airanath]

1) Fixed. Don't know how that happened.

2) Probably not every feat from every book; I believe there's at least 3000! But if other people help contribute, I'll certainly add it in.

1) Hehe was just wondering, typos and lack of sleepy, done my fair share of mistakes too.

2) I am still trying to break down the pricings properly, but from what I see I like the idea, I would help if I can get the hang of how it works. The hard part of this system is, you really can't skip feats if you are going to work on it, as its already taking into account not all feats are equal :smalltongue:

[sonofzeal]

I am still trying to break down the pricings properly, but from what I see I like the idea, I would help if I can get the hang of how it works.
You can follow the link for SKR's ideas on pricing. Strangely enough, the ideas themselves are mostly good, it's just how he applies them that's borked. Apply a bit of common sense and they should serve you well. Mostly, though, I just eyeballed:


10 FP: this feat is excellent, a high priority for any relevant characters
8 FP: this feat opens up some new tactical possibilities or expands existing ones significantly
6 FP: this feat is decent, but the sort of thing you'd otherwise pass over for lack of feat slots
4 FP: this feat is weak, and generally not worth thinking about except for highly specialized builds

[Airanath]

You can follow the link for SKR's ideas on pricing. Strangely enough, the ideas themselves are mostly good, it's just how he applies them that's borked. Apply a bit of common sense and they should serve you well. Mostly, though, I just eyeballed:


10 FP: this feat is excellent, a high priority for any relevant characters
8 FP: this feat opens up some new tactical possibilities or expands existing ones significantly
6 FP: this feat is decent, but the sort of thing you'd otherwise pass over for lack of feat slots
4 FP: this feat is weak, and generally not worth thinking about except for highly specialized builds


Figured that much, but there are the discounts and stuff like that, that are more common sense. Might pick up either CA or CAdv and play a bit with this. As soon as I learn to make a table!

[Curmudgeon]

Mostly, though, I just eyeballed:

10 FP: this feat is excellent, a high priority for any relevant characters
8 FP: this feat opens up some new tactical possibilities or expands existing ones significantly
6 FP: this feat is decent, but the sort of thing you'd otherwise pass over for lack of feat slots
4 FP: this feat is weak, and generally not worth thinking about except for highly specialized builds

I think you've mostly followed this a bit too slavishly, without allowance for extra benefits or limitations. For instance, Manyshot does open up some additional possibilities, but it also limits precision damage. So an 8 point score is too high. On the other hand, in some cases you've ignored those considerations. As an example, Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't meet the qualification for its high rank. Anyone (even a level 1 Commoner) wielding a second weapon can make an additional attack as part of a full attack; the feat only reduces the associated penalties without creating any new possibilities.

[sonofzeal]

I think you've mostly followed this a bit too slavishly, without allowance for extra benefits or limitations. For instance, Manyshot does open up some additional possibilities, but it also limits precision damage. So an 8 point score is too high. On the other hand, in some cases you've ignored those considerations. As an example, Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't meet the qualification for its high rank. Anyone (even a level 1 Commoner) wielding a second weapon can make an additional attack as part of a full attack; the feat only reduces the associated penalties without creating any new possibilities.
I agree about Manyshot, and I'll reduce it a little. It's still good though, so I think I'll leave it at a 7 for now unless someone else complains.

As for TWF, I think most characters would be hard-pressed to use two weapons sans feat and not end up in "flurry of misses" territory. It's also a significant stepping stone for those who do happen to have good sources of precision damage per-hit. And, as the note says, the Improved/Greater ones are now dirt cheap, making TWF as a style noticeably better. I'll keep it where it is now, unless more chime in supporting a lower grade for it.

[SSGoW]

I have to say I love the idea of this system and if it ever get's finished I would love to see this turned into a pdf.

I'm not sure how much help I'll be but...

In regard to Two Weapon Fighting line.. The only classes that really benefit from using two weapons is classes with extra damage dice such as Rogues. I could see the point of lowering the cost since most people who take it won't gain the full benefit from the feat. Sure a fighter or even a wizard (yes I've seen this happen) may take the feat but their damage output won't be high enough to really justify taking the feat at to high a cost. Although I'm not complaining on where it's at but I could see it being lowered since really in core only one class gets the full benefit from it (ranger get's it for free but no extra damage dice :( ... beyond favored enemy which is highly highly situational)

[sonofzeal]

I have to say I love the idea of this system and if it ever get's finished I would love to see this turned into a pdf.

I'm not sure how much help I'll be but...

In regard to Two Weapon Fighting line.. The only classes that really benefit from using two weapons is classes with extra damage dice such as Rogues. I could see the point of lowering the cost since most people who take it won't gain the full benefit from the feat. Sure a fighter or even a wizard (yes I've seen this happen) may take the feat but their damage output won't be high enough to really justify taking the feat at to high a cost. Although I'm not complaining on where it's at but I could see it being lowered since really in core only one class gets the full benefit from it (ranger get's it for free but no extra damage dice :( ... beyond favored enemy which is highly highly situational)
Yeah, it's a tough call.

On the one hand, we really shouldn't give a feat a high score just because it's useful in certain ultra-specialized builds. "Skill Focus" is brilliant for Jumplomancers, but 90% of the time it's filler and weak filler at that.

On the other hand, I think we have to work from the assumption that the people taking feats are the people who are making use of them. "Improved Trip" is a poor feat if you don't have the Str to back it up, but we have to assume that people who take it are going to be able to use it effectively.



I think TWF falls into the latter category. "Rogue" is hardly a specialized build, and there are other classes and builds that benefit from it. I think the category of characters that benefit significantly from it is large enough to be taken as the baseline for that feat. Others may certainly choose to pick it up even if it's not as effective for them, nobody's stopping them, but I think the pricing should assume that it's being put to profitable use.

[Seerow]

I'd recommend taking a few of the 100% necessary must have feats (like power attack) and just baking them into the baseline. Forcing characters to spend 10 points on power attack is mean given how every character who ever wants to pick up a melee weapon needs it.


I'd also recommend a lower low end. Like Endurance, Run, and skill bonus feats are such bull**** feats, it should be 1-2 points, not even 4. Yes this means you can pick up endurance, and 4-9 other feats just like it for the price of one feat. This is actually fair, because nobody would take those feats even at 4 points.


One other thing I'd suggest is rather than giving 10 points with every feat, just give a flat +5 feat points every level, with 10 at level 1. It makes things more granular and lets people feel like they're getting something each level, while still keeping the same number of total points gained. (You could do the same thing with the Fighter, having the Fighter gain +5 feat points every level, so you don't get those dead levels).

On the other hand, I would totally get rid of Wizard Bonus feats altogether. ESPECIALLY since the list posted has pretty much all Crafting and Metamagic feats down to 6-8 points. I mean really, not even Quicken Spell is worth a full feat? That seems kind of messed up.

Also I disagree with spring attack being worth 10 points, even with Dodge+Mobility being down to 10 points. It really isn't a great feat unless you're planning on rewriting it.

[sonofzeal]

I'd recommend taking a few of the 100% necessary must have feats (like power attack) and just baking them into the baseline. Forcing characters to spend 10 points on power attack is mean given how every character who ever wants to pick up a melee weapon needs it.


I'd also recommend a lower low end. Like Endurance, Run, and skill bonus feats are such bull**** feats, it should be 1-2 points, not even 4. Yes this means you can pick up endurance, and 4-9 other feats just like it for the price of one feat. This is actually fair, because nobody would take those feats even at 4 points.


One other thing I'd suggest is rather than giving 10 points with every feat, just give a flat +5 feat points every level, with 10 at level 1. It makes things more granular and lets people feel like they're getting something each level, while still keeping the same number of total points gained. (You could do the same thing with the Fighter, having the Fighter gain +5 feat points every level, so you don't get those dead levels).

On the other hand, I would totally get rid of Wizard Bonus feats altogether. ESPECIALLY since the list posted has pretty much all Crafting and Metamagic feats down to 6-8 points. I mean really, not even Quicken Spell is worth a full feat? That seems kind of messed up.

Also I disagree with spring attack being worth 10 points, even with Dodge+Mobility being down to 10 points. It really isn't a great feat unless you're planning on rewriting it.
Metamagic (including Quicken) is relatively cheap because it carries its own cost. Most reducers are feats themselves and you can bet the price tag on those will be high, and without reducers most metamagic isn't that great.

On hindsight though, Power Attack also carries its own cost, and should be devalued accordingly. What do you recommend? And, what do you recommend for Spring Attack?



(And I had a very similar idea to yours with adding granularity. I'm not sure why SKR didn't. Right now I'm just trying to work out the pricing based on his system; anything more would have to be over in Homebrew, I guess.)

[Airanath]

Metamagic (including Quicken) is relatively cheap because it carries its own cost. Most reducers are feats themselves and you can bet the price tag on those will be high, and without reducers most metamagic isn't that great.

On hindsight though, Power Attack also carries its own cost, and should be devalued accordingly. What do you recommend? And, what do you recommend for Spring Attack?



(And I had a very similar idea to yours with adding granularity. I'm not sure why SKR didn't. Right now I'm just trying to work out the pricing based on his system; anything more would have to be over in Homebrew, I guess.)

I would keep power attack at 10 tought. It opens up Shock Trooper and Leap Attack, grab Battle Jump and Blink Shirt + Pounce. You can now full attack 2x every round... for a retarded ammount of damage. Sure I am taking a built into consideration, but Power Attack opens up all of those options. As such, it does fit the 10 pricing. Some of the others due to reqs are just 8s or 6s. (Shape Soul Meld being a definite 10)

Metamagic isn't so good for non sorcerers in core. And even them see limited use for it, exactly because of its cost, and it being steep. Metamagic only gets to 8+ power when you stack loads of it due to metamagic enhacers. Which are specialized builds, making the most of the small tools.

[cfalcon]

I am surprised that he makes no distinction between ranged and melee attacks, believing them equivalent. He prices Rapid Shot and Two Weapon Fighting the same, whereas I would argue that Rapid Shot is substantially superior. Hell, even things like Weapon Specialization: Longbow are better than the melee equivalents, because melee weapons have higher damage normally, and adding 2 to a small number is better than adding them to a high number.


Beyond that, I get a lot of what he is saying. Looking at that chart, you can read a lot about his DMing style.

First, I get the impression that he likes low and mid level games a bit more- there's not much level variation taken into account. I mean, he has Quicken Spell at 5, one of the lower numbers (tied with Run), and that feat definitely shines later in the game.

Second, many of his enemies play their Int scores. Like, a bunch of orcs will mob whomever is in front, instead of being controlled like a bunch of game pieces. You can tell this is the case because he seems to assume that melee attacks and full attacks will happen. Once the opponents (and the players) start gaming full attacks and kiting, the game becomes much longer to resolve, and archers and casters gain an increase in power. But if the orcs decide to full attack the fighter because that's THEIR best damage, regardless of the fact that allowing the fighter a full attack increases his damage by a zillion...

Third, his baselines are ones that we probably disagree with, based I suspect on time spent. While I think the +2 save feats have mostly stood the test of time, I think they are overpriced. In fact, I suspect 2.5 would be about right given the value of a 3.5 feat, and I think we don't see many of those feats chosen until Pathfinder, which both makes feats more plentiful and doesn't have really over budget feats like some of the later 3.5 things did. But Toughness as a baseline? I've been running the Pathfinder Toughness (ceil[Level,3]) since before Pathfinder, and even then it's not a popular choice even among a tough character who is assured he'll "be able to tank". As an NPC feat it's acceptable of course, but I think I've seen Toughness taken only a couple more times than Run.

Fourth, you can tell that he doesn't have anything like Ye Olde Magic Item Shoppe, as he definitely puts high values on item creation.

So... overall, I don't think we can "fix" it. I think his system would work PERFECTLY in his game, where your two weapon guy will routinely get a full attack. Feats are what the DM makes them. I think you should ADJUST them for the type of games you run- these wouldn't be correct for my games either, that's for sure!




In my games, I basically:

1)- Power Attack lets you Cleave, and counts as both.
2)- Dodge also gives you Mobility. Dodge is always active (+1 to AC, no declare)
3)- Enlarge Spells gives you the ability to use both Enlarge Spell and Widen Spell, as if you had chosen both feats.
4)- I have a "Fortunate" feat that is +1 to all saves.
5)- Improved Two Weapon Fighting- Now also grants the benefits of Greater and Perfect, such that when your BAB is +11 you gain the third off hand attack, and +16 you gain the fourth offhand attack. These attacks are worth so very little that spending a feat on a -15 attack is insulting, and it's lame to not have symmetry.
6)- Potent Spells gives you the ability to use both Heighten and Extend Spell, as if you had chosen both feats.
7)- Improved Precise Shot- Now grants the benefit of Point Blank Shot to all ranges (this simplifies the math late game, as this plus PBS just make a +1 to hit, and the +1 is no longer interesting or fun to optimize around past about 6th level)
8)- Point Blank Shot- Now also grants the benefits of Precise Shot.
9)- Spirited Charge- Now also grants the benefit of Ride-by-Attack
10)- Whirlwind Attack- Prereqs changed to BAB +4, Dex 13, Dodge, Spring Attack (by the time a fighter qualifies for this in my game, it is VERY rare that he faces hordes of enemies, and in general it is often so superior to focus a full attack on one target that I would prefer the requirements on this feat be lower- even with these requirements it is not popular or that powerful in my games).
11)- Mounted Combat- Now also grants the benefits of Mounted Archery
12)- Subtle Spells- Grants the ability to use Silent Spell and Still Spell, as if you had taken those feats.

Now, reading through that list, you can probably get a pretty good idea about how my combats go. First of all, you get the impression that I want ranged attacks to be a bit easier to qualify for, not a specialist-only thing. You see that I don't value the multi-target attack things much, so I made them much cheaper, so you can guess that when you are in range of multiple targets, more often that not one of them at least will be very powerful, and it will be a choice whether to use Whirlwind Attack, or risk attacking a plebian to cleave into a powerful enemy. You'll also note that I expect casters to spend their feats somewhere besides rarely taken metamagic feats- with a few feats, casters gain access to the non-damage and non-action-economy ones. The only one that I consider even vaguely high-budget is Subtle Spells, because silent and still spells can be used to get around somewhat dire conditions at times. The others, such as Heighten and Extend, or Widen and Enlarge, are in no real way overpowered in my games (and probably not many games will be broken by a character who can make their fireball big AND long range having only spent one feat).



Anyway. This is a good thread, and I hope my post is useful.

[Curmudgeon]

In regard to Two Weapon Fighting line. The only classes that really benefit from using two weapons is classes with extra damage dice such as Rogues. I could see the point of lowering the cost since most people who take it won't gain the full benefit from the feat.
As an afficionado of Rogues, I have to disagree with you: Two-Weapon Fighting is a very bad choice for the class.

Feats are precious to Rogues. Given how few feats a Rogue can get there are always going to be better choices than TWF, so it's not worth considering with the standard cost of 1 feat. With the FPS cost of 8 points that prices TWF higher than most other feats, so it's still not worth considering. (Since the feat doesn't create any new possibilities and only provides a benefit in a limited context ─ i.e., when using a full attack action ─ it's hardly worth 8 points, but that's another consideration.)
At best TWF will lead to -2 penalties to all attacks, or -4 if using a non-light off hand weapon. But Rogues start with only 3/4 BAB. Additional attacks are useless if they're just additional misses. Remember the First Rule of Sneak Attack: If you don't hit, your sneak attack damage is zero.
As noted, TWF can only be used with a full attack. Full attacks necessarily allow full enemy counterattacks. With class abilities severely penalized when wearing anything more than light armor and only d6 hit dice, Rogues are too squishy to make this a viable tactic.
Superior combat feat choices include Snap Kick (a bonus unarmed attack with any sort of melee attack, including not only full attacks but also standard action attacks, attacks of opportunity, and bonus attacks such as from Improved Trip), Knowledge Devotion (bonuses to both attack and damage based on Knowledge skill checks), and Craven (bonus to sneak attack damage scaling with character level). Pretty much regardless of the cost, Two-Weapon Fighting is a bad choice for Rogues.

[Airanath]

-snip-.
This is Slice McDicey, a rogue 11/Swordsage 1/rogue 8.
The Basics:
Bab: 15 (Full attack 15/10/5)
Sneak Attack: 10d6(12d6 when on Assassin Stance, which should be always)
Lets assume the following ability scores:
STR:14 Dex:16 (+4 from levels) CON:14 INT:10 WIS:10 CHA:10
Slice is a Human, meaning he has no ability adjustment, gains extra skill points and an extra feat.
Human Bonus: Two Weapon Fighting
First Level: Mage Slayer
3rd Level: Weapon Finesse
6th Level: Blind Fighting (In place of Special Ability)
9th Level: Improved Two Weapon Fighting
10th Level: Crippling Strike
12th Level:Shadow Blade Technique
13th: Craven (In place of rogue special ability)
15th: Greater Two Weapon Fighting
16th: Staggering Strike (In place of rogue special ability)
18th: Pierce Magical Concealment
19th: Dark Stalker (In place of rogue special)

Stances Known: Assassin Stance (Swordsage level was delayed to get this stance due to non initiator's class counting as half initiator levels)
Manuevers Known:
Cloak of Deception (Boost)
Sudden Leap (Boost)
Wolf Fang Strike (Strike)
Shadow Jaunt
Any other 2 you can learn

Skills (Total of 207 skill points to use):
Balance: 5; Climb: 10; Disable Device: 23; Escape Artist: 23, Hide: 14; Move Silently: 14; Open Lock: 23; Search 23; Use Magic Device: 19; Spot: 23; Tumbe: 23; Spellcraft:2.
That is 187 Ranks used. He does most everything you expect a rogue to do, he is a bit distracted towards what people are saying, but nobody is perfect, right? You could spend the rest on knowledge skill and sleight of hand, if you want to pick pockets for fun.
He is also not maxed on some skills, that is because he found out the wonders of magic items, and became reliant on them to improve some of them, neglecting his training there.
Lets assume, for this excercise, you don't, and get some skill tricks instead:
8 Ranks Used: Acrobatic Backstep (If you tumble behind an oponent, you make him flat footed, fixed DC 25), Clarity of Vision (You can see invisible enemies for 1 round as a swift action), Easy Escape, Escape Attack (Bonus to escape grapples, and a free attack when you escape a grapple, where the foe is flat footed, must use a Light weapon(Daggers anyone?)).
Now, one does not become such a good Rogue without obtaining some wonderful loot, right? Lets check out some of the gear Slicey carries with him now.
Equipment and Weapons to Slice mostly everything:
He is allowed to spend 760k gold according to the WBL.
First and foremost: Collar of Continuous Umbral Metamorphosis (22k) - Hide in Plain Sight, Darkvision, minor Resistance to Cold, Superior Low Light Vision, a speed bonus and a racial bonus to Hide and Move Silently? And this thing was in the bargain bin because?
Armor: Mithral Breastplate + 5 (Slick, Shadow, Silent Moves, Called) - 76,350 gp. Not the best protection money can offer, but if you aren't wearing it, you can call it, and it makes you stealthier. Study your marks first to improve it with appropriate energy resistance.
Weapon: +1 Eager Transmuting Colision Daggers of Deadly Precision - 98,302 each (x2)
Manuals Granting +4 Dex - 110,000
Gloves of Dexterity +6 - 36,000
Feathered Wings graft (flight speed = 2x Land speed) -10,000
Wand of Divine Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm) - 21k; Each charge lasts for 7 rounds, 2 more than your typical combat.
Tiger Claw Bracers(Pouncing Charge) - Charge and full attack for 15,000. I love Magi-O-Mart bargain bins!
We still got some gold to spend, so:
Scabbard of Greater Magic Weapon (2): Once per day, when drawing your weapon from this, you can activate the effect of the spell Greater Magic Weapon(CL 20) upon it. - (20(CL)*3(Spell Level)*2000(Use Activated)/5 (1 use per day) *1.5 = 36k each, lets call it 48k instead, because 36k is dirty cheap, considering the spells will last 20h unless dispelled.
Scroll of Contingency and Greater Heroism (2x1650 gold +1500gold for the focus) = 4800
Boots of Speed - 12k
Dorje of Offensive Precognition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/precognitionOffensive.htm) At 17th Manifester level (+6 insight bonus to Attack)- 114,750
If I didn't mess up anywhere: Remaining gold 93,496. Go buy yourself a house or something.


Le Combat:
Now, this is what we have been waiting for, isn't it?
Stats after gearing:
STR:20 (14+6 Divine Power) Dex:30 (16 +4 from levels +4 Tome + 6 Manual) CON:14 INT:10 WIS:10 CHA:10
BAB: 20 (Divine Power)
Init: 13 (+10 Dex +1 Sword Sage +2 Eager Enchant)
Attack Bonus:
Either Dagger: 44(20+5 Enhacement Bonus + 10 Dex -2 TWF + 4Morale +1 Unnamed(Haste)+6 insight)/39/34/(29 MH Only)
Damage:
MH: 1d4+5(STR)+10Dex +5(Enhacement Bonus)+5 (Colision)+13d6 +20 (Craven) Sneak Attack
OH: 1d4+2(STR)+10Dex +5(Enhacement Bonus)+5 (Colision) +13d6 +20 (Craven) Sneak Attack

Now kind sir who loves rogues... I beg of you... Please make me a 1 weapon fighting rogue that can hit dragons as many times per round as mine, for the same ammount of damage.
Other than damage and ability to hit a chosen foe, you can play however you like, so long as you remain a rogue, with at most a level dip in other classes for some usefull ability. You can outfit him to the best WBL can offer. I will admit to using a custom item, the scabbard one, feel free to use them too. Only restriction: Avoid obscure bonuses (a stone that gives +x to competence, insight, morale, luck and etc all day), I used those, but all come from a core source that can be easily traced (and dispelled).
The challenge is on, show me how TWF is bad for a rogue.

As you did say, if you don't hit... damage is 0, but hitting is a function that you have to properly prepare and customize for. This guy can easily slash trought dragon scales... He can TANK the Tarrasque, given that its not immune to the staggered condition, he will take damage, but its not gonna be one shot by the big T. Since he has quite a few ways to make his opponent flat footed every round, I doubt sneak attacking will be an issue without outright immunity, and given how much money he was left with, buying wands of gravestrike, golemstrike and vinestrike is not an issue.

On topic: My somewhat optimized rogue above, shows why TWF first feat is an 8 I guess, its follow ups are only cheaper because they are feat taxes.
Finally, I'll try to list up the feats on Complete Adventurer tomorrow sonofzeal.

Edit: Oh yeah, the reason Staggering Strike is on the build is to make moot your point on counterfull attacks. Good luck pulling those of with either a standard or a move action. I'll concede this guy might suffer if he fights a caster. If he is seen, that is.

[Flickerdart]

The bluff penalty to "almost too incredible to consider." is -20 (drops the check to 4) so unless the opposition has ranks in sense motive and a decent wisdom its going to outright believe your bluff in a roll of 1.
If the opponent has no Sense Motive ranks and 10 Wisdom, they will still disbelieve a Bluff check of 4 80% of the time.

Also, for Rogues missing with attacks - why not just finagle some touch attacks to hit with? A simple 1-level dip into Pyrokineticist gives you both the means of making easy hits, and the reach to avoid some enemy counterattacks.

[Airanath]

If the opponent has no Sense Motive ranks and 10 Wisdom, they will still disbelieve a Bluff check of 4 80% of the time.

Also, for Rogues missing with attacks - why not just finagle some touch attacks to hit with? A simple 1-level dip into Pyrokineticist gives you both the means of making easy hits, and the reach to avoid some enemy counterattacks.

Because then your sneak attack is always fire damage, and you are damned to hell if you face a red wyrm. But hey, that is one way to work around missing. Also, pyrokneticist doesn't seems to be able to TWF.
Hitting stuff is not a rogue problem, everyone but the casters will need solid investment to go past creatures AC after a while, its expected you find ways to hit stuff. TWF needs a bit more of investment on this than using a two hander. But the guy using a two hander, unless abusing shock trooper, needs heavy investment on to-hit too, or else he can't power attack at all.
And if you can't hit your power attack, there is no damage, or so I hear anyway.
But indeed, resolving stuff as touch attacks is a nice way to do it, I just didn't want to make custom item of wraithstrike. That would be cheating =p

[Seerow]

Spoilered for off topic

Just computing average damage for the rogue posted for ease of comparison. I'm trusting the numbers provided are accurate, and not going through the build line by line. Though I am curious, why use daggers instead of short swords? Having d6s for weapon damage instead of d4s would make it easier to condense stuff, and been marginally more effective assuming everything else still works with it.

Going with an enemy that has an AC of 40, because that's a decent middle of the road level 20 AC.


Attack routine with haste is: +44/+44/+44/+39/+39/+34/+34/+29

1d4+13d6+45 (average: 93, crit: 143.5) on 5 attacks, and 1d4+13d6+43 (average: 91, crit: 139.5) on 3 attacks.


Main Hand
Attack 1, 2, and 3:
10%: Crit Threat, 95% confirm (143.5), 5% not (93), average: 140.975
85%: Hit. Average: 93
5%: Miss. Average: 0

Average Damage per Attack: 93.1475

Attack 4:
10% Crit Threat, 75% confirm, 25% not, Average: 130.875
65% Hit. Average: 93
25% Miss. Average: 0

Average Damage per Attack: 73.538

Attack 5:
10% Crit Threat, 50% confirm, 50% not, Average: 118.25
40% Hit. Average: 93
50% Miss. Average: 0

Average Damage Per Attack: 49.025

Total Mainhand average damage: 402.0055



Offhand:
Attack 1:
10%: Crit Threat, 95% confirm (139.5), 5% not (91), average: 137.075
85%: Hit. Average: 91
5%: Miss. Average: 0

Average damage per attack: 91.0575

Attack 2:
10%: Crit Threat, 75% confirm, 25% not, average: 127.375
65%: Hit. Average: 91
25%: Miss. Average: 0

Average damage per attack: 71.8875

Attack 3:
10%: Crit Threat, 50% confirm, 50% not, average: 115.25
40%: Hit. Average: 91
50%: Miss. Average: 0

Average damage per attack: 47.925

Total offhand damage: 210.87


Total damage with two weapon fighting: 612.8755



Now as a point of reference, two weapon fighting has a -2 penalty to hit, so without it, the last two main hand attacks would be altered as follows:
Attack 4:
10% Crit Threat, 85% confirm, 15% not, Average: 134.225
75% Hit. Average: 93
15% Miss. Average: 0

Average Damage per Attack: 83.1725 (+9.6345)

Attack 5:
10% Crit Threat, 60% confirm, 40% not, Average: 122.1
50% Hit. Average: 93
40% Miss. Average: 0

Average Damage Per Attack: 58.71 (+9.685)

Total Damage gained from losing the -2 penalty: 19.3145.


This means that for two weapon fighting to not be viable, you need to find 3 other feats that combine to adding 191.5555 damage to the rogue's full attack.

Seems like a pretty tough sell to me.

[deuxhero]

Pretty much regardless of the cost, Two-Weapon Fighting is a bad choice for Rogues.

But in a Core-only game?

[Airanath]

-question in spoilers-
No particular reason to use daggers, its just the first shadow hand weapon that came to mind actually.
Edit: Also, nice catch on the hast extra attack, I don't usually melee, so I tend to forget it =X

[Curmudgeon]

But in a Core-only game?
In a core-only game? I'd play a Druid. Rogue is an attractive class because of the flexibility the class offers. But the core Rogue has many flaws, and the flexibility ─ to fix those problems, and to open up new options ─ lies in many supplements.

[Dumbledore lives]

I think spell focus might be undervalued, because while not a definite pick if I'm at all focusing on one school it can be pretty useful. With this a Gnome illusionist could get even more ridiculous DCs, getting effectively +2 for what used to be +1. I'd say they should both be around +7, but I'm not expert on these kinds of things.

[sonofzeal]

I think spell focus might be undervalued, because while not a definite pick if I'm at all focusing on one school it can be pretty useful. With this a Gnome illusionist could get even more ridiculous DCs, getting effectively +2 for what used to be +1. I'd say they should both be around +7, but I'm not expert on these kinds of things.
Accepted. I'll raise Spell Focus to 7.

[Airanath]

And even if you are focusing on a single school, there are usually better feats. +1 to the DC is nice, but you can achieve that in other ways. Spell Focus is mostly a requisite for some Prestige Classes. It might be a bit low at 5, but I think 7 is too high, it lacks versatility, and is situational, more than, for instance, any of the metamagic feats (even without cost reducers).
I would say 8-10 for sure if it actually lowered metamagic costs for the foci school.
Also, if you are going to take it just for the DC increase, you are also going to take Greater Spell Focus, which will increase its price to proper levels for +2 d/c (That would certainly be a 10 as a pair). With that in mind, 6 for spell focus is what I would recomend, maybe 7, and lower Greater by one point in that case. Either way, it costs 11 points for the combo.

Edit: Also, the problem with DCs lies in how spellcasting DCs progress, they are a static number based on spell level. Look at psionics, where you can invest extra power points (use higher spell slots), to get the benefit of an increased dc. You can still use Psionic Endowment(and Greater) to raise the DCs more, but they usually progress pretty well with your levels. Spell focus isn't cheap/powerfull, Heighten Spell is the silly feat in there.

[Curmudgeon]

This is Slice McDicey, a rogue 11/Swordsage 1/rogue 8.
First Level: Mage Slayer
Prerequisite: Spellcraft 2 ranks, base attack bonus +3. BAB +3 at 1st level? :smallconfused:
12th Level:Shadow Blade Technique Also not legal.
Prerequisite: One Shadow Hand stance. Step 7. Feats must come before step 9. Class Features in the Level Advancement sequence (see Player's Handbook on pages 58-59), so you can't satisfy the feat prerequisite.

Stances Known: Assassin Stance (Swordsage level was delayed to get this stance due to non initiator's class counting as half initiator levels)
Regardless of initiator level, you follow the rule for what stance you get at Swordsage 1:
Stances Known: You begin play with knowledge of one 1st-level stance from any discipline open to you.

First and foremost: Collar of Continuous Umbral Metamorphosis (22k) - Hide in Plain Sight, Darkvision, minor Resistance to Cold, Superior Low Light Vision, a speed bonus and a racial bonus to Hide and Move Silently? And this thing was in the bargain bin because?
That Dark Creature template's Hide in Plain Sight doesn't overcome the need for cover/concealment in order to use the Hide skill, and you only can guarantee cover/concealment for 1 round per combat with Cloak of Deception and only if you've got a swift action available ─ though that still won't work in daylight.

Scabbard of Greater Magic Weapon (2): Once per day, when drawing your weapon from this, you can activate the effect of the spell Greater Magic Weapon(CL 20) upon it.
Bogus nonexistent custom magic item.

Dorje of Offensive Precognition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/precognitionOffensive.htm) At 17th Manifester level (+6 insight bonus to Attack)- 114,750

The manifester level of a dorje cannot be more than five higher than the minimum manifester level to use the power it contains.
Now kind sir who loves rogues... I beg of you...There are just so many rules violations that I'm not going to bother with any more of this.

[willpell]

IMO you guys are a little too judgmental. Endurance may not be strong but it can save your life if you're stuck in the desert or something, plus it's the prereq for Diehard, plus it means you never have to take off your armor. It should be cheap, but not practically free.

And 5 points for Skill Focus is really really low, considering how SF lets you do everything from giving a Fighter/Cleric/etc. a decent check on one more skill than he could afford, to having your already-skillful Rogue bust the Level 1 skill cap by almost double. I would have way too much fun being able to buy two Skill Focuses for the price of one feat.

Also I don't think SKR was far off in pricing Manyshot at a 12; it lets you get extra attacks and that's always going to be a fairly big deal, if only because you trust your luck.

[sonofzeal]

IMO you guys are a little too judgmental. Endurance may not be strong but it can save your life if you're stuck in the desert or something, plus it's the prereq for Diehard, plus it means you never have to take off your armor. It should be cheap, but not practically free.
Generally speaking the only characters who would pick this up (likely as a prereq for a PrC like Dwarven Defender) are usually the characters who already have the highest Con / Fort. If they're in a position where having this feat is going to save them, the rest of the party is probably pooched. And such occurences are not frequent in most games; I don't know if I've ever once had a character who was forced to make those checks.

And Diehard isn't that great either. The only time it kicks in is when you'd be unconscious, or in other words "out of the fight and alive". Most of the time, continuing to fight under those circumstances puts you in grave risk of actual death. Not to mention that, past lvl 4 or so, the chances of hitting that relatively narrow range is not huge. It's a better feat than Toughness I suppose, but that's really not saying much.


And 5 points for Skill Focus is really really low, considering how SF lets you do everything from giving a Fighter/Cleric/etc. a decent check on one more skill than he could afford, to having your already-skillful Rogue bust the Level 1 skill cap by almost double. I would have way too much fun being able to buy two Skill Focuses for the price of one feat.
A +3 is not going to matter much in most cases. If you haven't already invested in that skill, it's not going to get you a reliable success. And if you are investing in that skill, there are plenty of ways to boost it. Masterwork Tools are 50gp a pop for a +2. Boosting skills is not "expensive" in game terms.


Also I don't think SKR was far off in pricing Manyshot at a 12; it lets you get extra attacks and that's always going to be a fairly big deal, if only because you trust your luck.
The attack penalty on Manyshot is simply too high. The range is too limited. And because it's a "volley", you can only apply precision damage (Sneak Attack, Skirmish, Favoured Enemy) once. Manyshot is not a good feat, and it becomes worse as you level and your full attack routine improves in comparison.

[willpell]

It's a better feat than Toughness I suppose, but that's really not saying much.

Speaking of which, do you know where SKR got the idea of Toughness +5? Did he just make it up or is it in one of the books somewhere.


A +3 is not going to matter much in most cases. If you haven't already invested in that skill, it's not going to get you a reliable success.

Perhaps not, but it significantly ups your odds of an unreliable one. 1d20+0 will hit a DC 10 check half the time; 1d20+3 makes it closer to two-thirds. I prefer for my character to have at least a chance of contributing in a lot of situations, and just generally seeming like a well-rounded individual, instead of being a one-trick pony who's dumb as a box of rocks (unless being dumb as a box of rocks is a part of his characterization, rather than just a consqeuence of not having any skill points).


And if you are investing in that skill, there are plenty of ways to boost it. Masterwork Tools are 50gp a pop for a +2.

There are many checks for which a masterwork tool doesn't make sense, and others for which it's overpriced (Alchemist's Lab being the obvious example, but even Climb costs 80 gold rather than 50, and that's a big deal for level 1 characters unless the GM is generous). Plus you can stack Skill Focus and the masterwork tool, and ranks and an ability score. Maybe there are other sources of bonuses in books I haven't read, but at least in core Skill Focus has utility for helping your check hit an absurd bonus at the early levels.


The attack penalty on Manyshot is simply too high. The range is too limited. And because it's a "volley", you can only apply precision damage (Sneak Attack, Skirmish, Favoured Enemy) once. Manyshot is not a good feat, and it becomes worse as you level and your full attack routine improves in comparison.

Being able to full-attack is not something you can rely upon in my experience. And precision damage only matters to a handful of classes. Multiple attacks as a standard action is danged impressive according to everything I've seen (which is admittedly not much compared to professional optimizers, or even people who get to play every week for a year or so; I am sadly not one of those people).

[sonofzeal]

Speaking of which, do you know where SKR got the idea of Toughness +5? Did he just make it up or is it in one of the books somewhere.
No idea, sorry. I think he just made it up, as a tacit acknowledgement that Toughness by itself is ridiculously weak.




Perhaps not, but it significantly ups your odds of an unreliable one. 1d20+0 will hit a DC 10 check half the time; 1d20+3 makes it closer to two-thirds. I prefer for my character to have at least a chance of contributing in a lot of situations, and just generally seeming like a well-rounded individual, instead of being a one-trick pony who's dumb as a box of rocks (unless being dumb as a box of rocks is a part of his characterization, rather than just a consqeuence of not having any skill points).

That's a fair call as far as personal preference goes, but taking a couple off-specialty Skill Focuses is hardly a significant balance concern. I'm happy with it being cheap; if it fits your playstyle and is a good deal for you, take it!



There are many checks for which a masterwork tool doesn't make sense, and others for which it's overpriced (Alchemist's Lab being the obvious example, but even Climb costs 80 gold rather than 50, and that's a big deal for level 1 characters unless the GM is generous). Plus you can stack Skill Focus and the masterwork tool, and ranks and an ability score. Maybe there are other sources of bonuses in books I haven't read, but at least in core Skill Focus has utility for helping your check hit an absurd bonus at the early levels.
You're right that skills can be pumped very easily. Still, for most skillchecks, all that matters is success or failure. Unless you're substituting skillchecks for saves or attack rolls, even having autosuccess on a particular skill you've focused on isn't that big a deal. Again, not something I'm worried about. For most characters in most situations, Skill Focus at half value isn't all that tempting from an optimization perspective. And for those few exceptions, it'll remain worthwhile even if I up the cost a point or two, which is all I'd be doing anyway. I think it's fine where it is.


Being able to full-attack is not something you can rely upon in my experience. And precision damage only matters to a handful of classes. Multiple attacks as a standard action is danged impressive according to everything I've seen (which is admittedly not much compared to professional optimizers, or even people who get to play every week for a year or so; I am sadly not one of those people).
It's nice, but you still have the other limitations mentioned: -4 or more to attack rolls is pretty crippling, and 30 range is highly limiting for an archery character. And archers are usually the characters who can most reliably depend on being able to full attack consistently. For a melee character, something like this would be nice... but for an archer, there's a pretty heavy "why" quotient.

[Curmudgeon]

Multiple attacks as a standard action is danged impressive according to everything I've seen (which is admittedly not much compared to professional optimizers, or even people who get to play every week for a year or so; I am sadly not one of those people). Multiple attacks with just a standard action? Not too hard to come by:
Manyshot feat
Improved Trip feat
Cleave feat
Snap Kick feat
Bounding Assault feat
Splitting weapon property
Skirmisher Boots magic item
Claw Gloves magic item
Animate Plants spell
Control Plants spell
Control Undead spell
Evard’s Black Tentacles spell
Giant Vermin spell
Insect Plague spell
Meteor Swarm spell
Scorching Ray spell

Any number of area effect spells will also "attack" multiple targets with a standard action casting, but I only listed spells which feature actual attack rolls, either by the spellcaster directly or by multiple entities under their control.

[The Glyphstone]

Being able to full-attack is not something you can rely upon in my experience. And precision damage only matters to a handful of classes. Multiple attacks as a standard action is danged impressive according to everything I've seen (which is admittedly not much compared to professional optimizers, or even people who get to play every week for a year or so; I am sadly not one of those people).

..you're an archer. Any attack you make is a full attack, unless you started your turn out of line of sight of an enemy.

[Aeryr]

If the opponent has no Sense Motive ranks and 10 Wisdom, they will still disbelieve a Bluff check of 4 80% of the time.

Also, for Rogues missing with attacks - why not just finagle some touch attacks to hit with? A simple 1-level dip into Pyrokineticist gives you both the means of making easy hits, and the reach to avoid some enemy counterattacks.

Then don't make incredible lies, and don't roll a 1 :smallamused:

On the rogue matter if I were going for damage I prefer a well educated daring outlaw.

Something like: rogue 3 / Swashbuckler 3 / barbarian 1 / Swashbuclker +6 / Fighter 2 / Swashbuckler +5

Human from silverymoon with ewp elvish courtblade and education (from players guide to faerun) (as first level feats)

3 level feat is knowledge devotion (rogue with penetrating strike acf)

6 level feat is daring outlaw

7 level is barbarian (with spirit lion totem and whirling frenzy)

9 level mage bane

12 level wild cohort (AKA flanking buddy that gains HD, my personal favorite is a snake with martial study (cloak of deception), martial stance island of blades, darkstalker etc...)

fighter 1 is at 14 (martial study shadow hand (cloak of deception) grab the hit and run tactics fighter ACF)

fighter 2 is at 15 (martial stance assassin's stance and shadow blade)

18 level whatever, I personally don't like craven but I suppose that if you are going for damage you can take it or just power attack :smallsmile:.

This ends with a BAB of 19/14/9/4

But with knowledge devotion and education well... it can get a bonus +4 or +5 (if you have collector of stories it will probably be that high reliably)

You should have a high dex (even more bonus to hit, let's assume dex 26, because it is not that difficult to get, 30 is not really difficult either) and a high int (let's say 26 again).

knowledge checks 23+8+2 bonus = 30 if you roll a 1 you get +4 to attack and damage, if you roll a three or more you get a +5 to attack and damage (if you want you can reroll with collector of stories).

Total BAB (assuming an ordinary weapon)

32/27/22/17

let's get a magic weapon, something like a +1 keen elven courtblade of speed, collision and deadly precision. Add a friendly party caster with greater magic weapon or a tooth of leraje, or whatever to upp the bonus to +5

35/35/35/30/25/20 (speed grants extra attack, like haste, and whirling frenzy)

what about flanking? Well as long as you are by the snake you are flanking, that's a +4

39/39/39/34/29/24 of course you can always add morale bonus and stuff (with such a high int you can just buy use magic device or use psionic device cross class, note that since you have rogue levels UMD is caped at 23, but that is not really reliable) you get one more attack, for the sake of the argument the snake is not attacking (it is just hiding).

damage (let's assume I took craven, because why not)

1d10 (weapon damage) +5d6 (half SA damage) +5 (enhancement) +5 (collision) + 8 (dex) + 8 (int) + 8 (str, with a frenzy and a two handed weapon... easy) + 20 (craven)

Oh wait, applying SA is rather easy (flanking is rather easy)

1d10 + 11d6 + 5 + 5 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 20

And wait, if the enemy is flat footed you add your dex bonus again

1d10 + 11d6 + 5 + 5 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 20 = 1d10 + 11d6 + 62 (that is more damage that you were getting)

and you crit on a 15-20 you might crit for 2d10 + 11d6 + 124 + 2 STR damage

I haven't mentioned many magic items, but since this guy doesn't need magic to get pounce, only needs to enhance a weapon and can SA without needs of hiding and stuff he can pretty darn well get more goodies, and having such a good use magic device he can activate them easily. Right now bracers of murder (drow of the underdark seem great) but since custom magic item are on the table just add them bracers of the hunter (secrets of xen'drik), +1d6 SA and reroll SA dices that result in a 1 (and +2 initiative, +4 to hide). A rogue's vest is another +1d6. Grab a belt of battle or something. Or just buff your defenses. After that, well I suppose you can invest on those scrolls of greater heroism and dorjes...

Summing up:

49/49/49/44/39/34

for 1d10+13d6 (reroll ones) + 62

Init: 21=8(dex)+2(fighter)+2(bracers)+4 (wand of sign)+5 (wand of neverskitter) + (if you want you can actually buy an eager weapon)

That ends doing more damage and hitting more often, with one weapon, and I haven't gone over all the possible magic items, there are much better iterations.

[Curmudgeon]

Something like: rogue 3 / Swashbuckler 3 / barbarian 1 / Swashbuclker +6 / Fighter 2 / Swashbuckler +5
Assuming you've got Swashbuckler as your favored class (which would be the case if you were a Human or Half-Elf) you're still suffering a 20% XP penalty from having Barbarian more than 1 level below your next-highest class.

[Aeryr]

True, my bad to used to ignore multiclass penalties (it can work trading the levels in fighter for swordsage, and graving the jumping/pouncing maneuvers).

[Ernir]

If feats are being assigned a value, I'd like to see the lower end of the scale used more. There are some hilariously terrible feats out there.
Like the +2/+2 skill feats. I can't imagine the situation where I'd like to risk delaying my Mounted Combat line in favor of one.

I'd be pricing them at something like 2...


Increasing the availability of feats in general favours non-casters, in my opinion.

Not sure I agree with this being true in general. This is true at the extreme feat shortage end of the scale, where the spellcasters can actually contribute without using feats, while the (non-ToB) melee characters can barely do anything but hack away with their 1d8+4 longsword.
But it changes a bit once the feat shortage is less than critical, IMO. Some spellcasting feats are really, really strong, and easy to cherry-pick.

I don't think increasing feat availability necessarily benefits the casters more, but I wouldn't trust it closing the gap very much.

Especially when Empower Spell is cheaper than Weapon Finesse. :smallfrown:

[willpell]

If feats are being assigned a value, I'd like to see the lower end of the scale used more. There are some hilariously terrible feats out there.
Like the +2/+2 skill feats. I can't imagine the situation where I'd like to risk delaying my Mounted Combat line in favor of one.

I'd be pricing them at something like 2...

It should probably come as no surprise by now that I love those feats.

[Airanath]

BAB +3 at 1st level? :smallconfused: Also not legal.
Sure, switch this with blind fight, it was a distraction from the rogue 20 build I made to free up some feat slots, and one of the feats not require, but fun to have.


Step 7. Feats must come before step 9. Class Features in the Level Advancement sequence (see Player's Handbook on pages 58-59), so you can't satisfy the feat prerequisite.
I posted the order I took the levels, at 12th, its when he took swordsage 1, which, by the way, grants a stance known and 6 manuevers knows.
Lets say Island of Blades, due to your next point, to which I'll concede.


Regardless of initiator level, you follow the rule for what stance you get at Swordsage 1:
Sure, I'll concede to this point by RAW.
As such lets switch some feats around:
Lvl 10: Craven (In place of Crippling strike, since I am going for raw damage, and stuff can be immune to this anyway)
Lvl 13: Martial Stance (Assassin Stance)


That Dark Creature template's Hide in Plain Sight doesn't overcome the need for cover/concealment in order to use the Hide skill, and you only can guarantee cover/concealment for 1 round per combat with Cloak of Deception and only if you've got a swift action available ─ though that still won't work in daylight.
With all the remaining money, I just need to get creative.
Smoke Sticks, Wands of Darkness, Flash Pellets, a pletora of items that don't consume even a small part of the wealth.


Bogus nonexistent custom magic item.
Its still not custom, I forgot about that part of the Dorje rule, which is particularly silly one way or another. Let's use power stones instead. From the pricing given at the EPH, each would cost: 12.5x1(Power Level)x19(ML)= 237,5 gold to create, double that for market price, 475gp a pop. Allowing us to purchase 241 of those babies for the same price as the Dorje, and have some change. And they actually improve the Insight bonus by an aditional +1! I should have looked at that earlier, its cheaper than a Dorje, just less space friendly. I recon that base of operations you can buy with the money you still have is important now. You need what? 1? 2 of those a day? If you fight more than 1 mark that is!
A custom magic item would grant me +6 insight bonus while worn, for a insanely cheaper price.
Something like: Bracers of Combat Awareness:
These bracers make you more aware and able to exploit your mistakes in combat. They grant +6 insight bonus on attack rolls. (Pricing: Bracer slots give combat bonus, so no extra modfier. Following WotC sugestion for the ring of true striking: 6^2*1000 = 36,000 gp, for always on bonus. Lets double that and add +6 luck bonus? 36,000*1.5+36,000 = 90k for +6 luck and +6 insight! Both could be obtained with the ammount I spent on that dorje mistake, and would me make the poor dragons with all my attacks even more often. Maybe I should add some damage boni too? Just joking.

There are just so many rules violations that I'm not going to bother with any more of this.

There were 2, and due to distractions during the creation. And they were so big it took me 5 minutes after waking up to solve them. Also, thank you for actually improving this character! Who would have tought 240 ML 19 Power Stones, were cheaper than a dorje with the same power at ML 17! Who would have tought of that!

@Aeryr: TWF still deals more damage, due to a simple problem: Sneak Attack doesn't double on crits. So you are hitting attacks a bit more often, but the raw damage output is lower. The whole debate of rogues and TWF is that. I won't argue tought, I would play your daring outlaw more often than said rogue, just because it seems a funnier character concept. My point was, statisticaly, TWF is a viable choice for rogues, as it meshes well with SA. I didn't bother with considering flanking because I was making the char as self suficient as possible. He can provide for all his buffs on his own trough items.

[Fitz10019]

Overall, I think is a great approach. [My houserule is to handle L4, L8, L12, L16, L20 stat bumps as an increase in the point buy system, so I favor this kind of resource spending.]

Mostly, though, I just eyeballed:

10 FP: this feat is excellent, a high priority for any relevant characters
8 FP: this feat opens up some new tactical possibilities or expands existing ones significantly
6 FP: this feat is decent, but the sort of thing you'd otherwise pass over for lack of feat slots
4 FP: this feat is weak, and generally not worth thinking about except for highly specialized builds

[elsewhere...]
Metamagic (including Quicken) is relatively cheap because it carries its own cost.
Because metamagic feats can be applied to many different spells, to me they would always ping as 10 (excellent) or 8 (new tactical possibilities).

I think the latter comment ("carries its own cost") shows you have more rules at work that aren't listed in the bullet points of the premise. It'd be good to articulate those other factors. Here are other possible factors:


The number of prerequisites a feat requires could be a factor. Use 10,8,6,4 FP as a baseline, then calculate 12-(# of prereqs), and take the lower score.

A feat could have different costs for different classes. A preparation caster with a huge spell list like a wizard, cleric or druid gets much more versatility from a metamagic feat than more limited casters like sorcerers, bards, rangers, paladins, or beguilers.

[sonofzeal]

After several comments, I've raised Metamagic feat costs slightly. I also lowered TWF from 8 to 7.

[Curmudgeon]

There are just so many rules violations that I'm not going to bother with any more of this.

There were 2, and due to distractions during the creation. As a useful guideline, if you're distracted and haven't gotten the details right, you might not want to post and broadcast your unreadiness to the entire community.

Illegal Mage Slayer feat (prerequisite not met)
Illegal Shadow Blade feat (prerequisite not met)
Illegal stance @ Swordsage 1 (not 1st level)
2 bogus custom items (scabbards). These don't exist in the game, and you need to be a magic item creator with Craft Wondrous Item, plus DM approval, to introduce such into the game. You don't have those.
Illegal dorje (manifester level higher than allowed)
I stopped enumerating after the first 5 illegal components in your build. There were more, but (as I noted) I'm not going to bother fixing any more of them for you. :smallsigh:

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Would you allow this feat?

Battle Experience
Prerequisite: none
Effect: You gain a permanent +1 bonus to hit, damage, armor class, saves, initiative, hit points and combat maneuvers opposed checks.
Special: you can select this feat multiple times. It's effects stack
Special: A fighter can select
Special: Whenever the effects of this feat or multiple iterations of it are equal or superior to those granted by another feat presented in the Player's Handbook, you are considered as having that feat for the purpose of prerequisites. IE, if you have selected Battle Experience twice, you are treated as having Dodge, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization.

I believe this feat could fix most problems without the need of introducing a point-based system,
I also believe that this is still not as powerful as Knowledge Devotion, Craven, or Shock Trooper.

EDIT: I'm not trying to make a point, I just want some feedback.
The reason why I consider this feat inferior to those above mentioned it's that it gives a lot of small, static, unfocused bonuses. It makes you overall better but not easily powerful.
Even if you took it 5 times, you'd still be only as good at attacking as a character who took once Knowledge Devotion. And with the other 4 feats he could have obtained effective tactics (charging, jack b quick etc).
Your defense would be better, but defense matters less than offense.
I really think that this feat would make a good, balanced addition to the game, and be a decent (but not excellent) fighter fix.

[sonofzeal]

Would you allow this feat?

Battle Experience
Prerequisite: none
Effect: You gain a permanent +1 bonus to hit, damage, armor class, saves, initiative, hit points and combat maneuvers opposed checks.
Special: you can select this feat multiple times. It's effects stack
Special: A fighter can select

I think this is still not as powerful as Knowledge Devotion, Craven, or Shock Trooper.
It's more powerful. Craven mostly just boosts damage, and boost it relative to your level. Given that hp also goes up relative to your level, that's only natural. Damage needs to scale.

To-hit, AC, Saves, Init, and combat maneuvers work differently. For those, you're working off a d20's range, which is static. I'd take this feat over any of those, especially since (unlike most of them) there's no prereqs or other investments necessary, and (unlike all of them) it can be stacked repeatedly.

I'm not sure what your point is though. None of those feats are under discussion yet.

[Fitz10019]

I thought it might be interesting to categorize the feats, to see if the Feat Point Cost values are consistent. I think this would make it easier to evaluate the 3000 other feats from various sources.

{table]Feat Name|Feat Cost|Category|Categorization Notes
Improved Feint|8|action economy upgrade|a standard action is improved to a move action, or a move to swift, etc.
Quick Draw|5|action economy upgrade|
Rapid Reload|6|action economy upgrade|
Improved Critical|8|any attack, possible|always could apply
Combat Expertise|6|any attack, with trade-off|build-in trade-off you can choose
Power Attack|10|any attack, with trade-off|
Manyshot|7|any attack, with trade-off|
Blind-Fight|6|combat, situational, opponent(s)|you do not directly decide when this is applicable, because it varies by opponent
Cleave|7|combat, situational, opponent(s)|
Dodge|5|combat, situational, opponent(s)|
Great Cleave|4|combat, situational, opponent(s)|
Greater Spell Penetration|5|combat, situational, opponent(s)|
Improved Precise Shot|8|combat, situational, opponent(s)|
Improved Turning|6|combat, situational, opponent(s)|
Spell Penetration|8|combat, situational, opponent(s)|
Deflect Arrows|7|combat, situational, other(s)' choices|you can't create the needed situation, others do
Improved Counterspell|7|combat, situational, other(s)' choices|
Snatch Arrows|4|combat, situational, other(s)' choices|
Two-Weapon Defense|4|combat, situational, other(s)' choices|
Improved Flanking|8|combat, situational, your choices|you can try to create the needed situation
Mobility|4|combat, situational, your choices|
Mounted Archery|5|combat, situational, your choices|
Mounted Combat|6|combat, situational, your choices|
Point Blank Shot|6|combat, situational, your choices|
Ride-By Attack|8|combat, situational, your choices|
Shot On The Run|8|combat, situational, your choices|
Spirited Charge|8|combat, situational, your choices|
Greater Weapon Focus|6|every attack, definite; improved attack|can be used in every round of combat, usually every attack
Weapon Finesse|8|every attack, definite; improved attack|
Weapon Focus|7|every attack, definite; improved attack|
Greater Weapon Specialization|4|every attack, definite; improved damage|can be used in every round of combat, usually every attack
Weapon Specialization|5|every attack, definite; improved damage|
Knowledge Devotion|8|improved damage, situational, other expense, scaling|included because it's different from PHB feats, notably scaling
Extra Turning|8|limited count|a finite resource
Stunning Fist|8|limited count|
Toughness|3|limited count|
Combat Reflexes|8|combat, situational, other(s)' choices; limited count|two limiters here
Augment Summoning|10|magic|I failed to differentiate much among magic-related feats
Empower Spell|7|magic|
Enlarge Spell|7|magic|
Eschew Materials|4|magic|
Extend Spell|7|magic|
Greater Spell Focus|6|magic|
Heighten Spell|6|magic|
Maximize Spell|7|magic|
Natural Spell|10|magic|
Quicken Spell|10|magic|
Silent Spell|7|magic|
Spell Focus|7|magic|
Still Spell|7|magic|
Widen Spell|6|magic|
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting|3|More Attack(s) (with more precision damage possible)|'more attacks' groups many ways this is done
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting|4|More Attack(s) (with more precision damage possible)|
Rapid Shot|8|More Attack(s) (with more precision damage possible)|
Snap Kick|5|More Attack(s) (with more precision damage possible)|added as a Non-PHB example
Whirlwind Attack|9|More Attack(s) (with more precision damage possible)|
Trample|6|More Attack(s) (without more precision damage)|the mount attacks, probably without precision damage
Brew Potion|4|non-combat only|does not occur during combat
Craft Magic Arms and Armor|6|non-combat only|
Craft Rod|6|non-combat only|
Craft Staff|6|non-combat only|
Craft Wand|6|non-combat only|
Craft Wondrous Item|8|non-combat only|
Forge Ring|6|non-combat only|
Scribe Scroll|6|non-combat only|
Spell Mastery|6|non-combat only|
Track|5|non-combat only|
Improved Initiative|8|once per combat|used once per combat (unlike Power Attack)
Spring Attack|9|once per round|gives an attack that's designated as a standard action
Armor Proficiency (Heavy)|5|Proficiency|could probably be folded into category Remove Penalty
Armor Proficiency (Light)|5|Proficiency|
Armor Proficiency (Medium)|5|Proficiency|
Exotic Weapon Proficiency|5|Proficiency|
Martial Weapon Proficiency|4|Proficiency|
Shield Proficiency|5|Proficiency|
Simple Weapon Proficiency|3|Proficiency|
Tower Shield Proficiency|6|Proficiency|
Improved Unarmed Strike|4|Remove AoO|not as good as next
Improved Bull Rush|5|Remove AoO+Bonus|no AoO and a bonus on the opposed roll; this is a whole family of combat feats
Improved Disarm|6|Remove AoO+Bonus|
Improved Grapple|8|Remove AoO+Bonus|
Improved Overrun|6|Remove AoO+Bonus|
Improved Sunder|6|Remove AoO+Bonus|
Improved Trip|10|Remove AoO+Bonus; More Attack(s) (with more precision)|SoZ noted Improved Trip is better, and here it falls into two categories with no limiters
Far Shot|5|Remove Penalty|a penalty is removed or lessened
Improved Shield Bash|8|Remove penalty|
Precise Shot|7|Remove Penalty|
Two-Weapon Fighting|7|Remove Penalty|
Diehard|3|Remove Penalty|the inability to act is removed(?) - this was difficult to categorize
Run|4|Remove Penalty; action economy upgrade; Skills, Combat applicable|unlike Improved Trip, hitting more than 1 category does not mean higher value
Endurance|3|Saves|
Great Fortitude|7|Saves|
Iron Will|7|Saves|
Lightning Reflexes|7|Saves|
Acrobatic|4|Skills, Combat applicable|some skills apply in combat
Alertness|4|Skills, Combat applicable|
Animal Affinity|4|Skills, Combat applicable|
Combat Casting|4|Skills, Combat applicable|
Deft Hands|4|Skills, Combat applicable|
Magical Aptitude|4|Skills, Combat applicable|
Stealthy|4|Skills, Combat applicable|
Skill Focus|5|Skills, Combat applicable (some); Skills, Non-combat (some)|
Agile|4|Skills, Non-combat applicable|some skills do not apply in combat
Athletic|4|Skills, Non-combat applicable|
Deceitful|4|Skills, Non-combat applicable|
Diligent|4|Skills, Non-combat applicable|
Investigator|4|Skills, Non-combat applicable|
Negotiator|4|Skills, Non-combat applicable|
Nimble Fingers|4|Skills, Non-combat applicable|
Persuasive|4|Skills, Non-combat applicable|
Self-Sufficient|4|Skills, Non-combat applicable|
Leadership|15|special case|As SoZ said:A truly game-breaking feat if used right
Extras
Ascetic Hunter|10|multiple class feature advancement|the best of two worlds
Daring Outlaw|10|multiple class feature advancement|
Swift Ambusher|10|multiple class feature advancement|[/table]

I don't intend to update this table -- consider it a snapshot of SonofZeal's primary table in the OP.

I'd really like to know how people would evaluate multi-class compatibility feats, like Ascetic Hunter, Daring Outlaw and Swift Ambusher. I would say these are 10's for multiple class feature advancement. [appended to table above]

[Curmudgeon]

I'd really like to know how people would evaluate multi-class compatibility feats, like Ascetic Hunter, Daring Outlaw and Swift Ambusher. I would say these are 10's for multiple class feature advancement. [appended to table above]
I think you're off with describing Ascetic Hunter as "multiple class feature advancement" and "the best of two worlds". This feat advances unarmed damage with Ranger levels, but it doesn't advance favored enemy bonuses with Monk levels. The benefit which it does give is situational (actually nonexistent without another feat: Stunning Fist). So this feat and a 1-level Monk dip gives good unarmed damage; it's really just for Monk 1/Ranger X. It's a decent feat if you'll be making unarmed strike, so worth about 6 points due to dip cost and situational nature.

Swift Ambusher provides a boost to skirmish, but no boost to sneak attack, from combined Rogue+Scout levels. The only benefit on the Rogue end is in qualifying for some Ambush feats, which is definitely not worth the cost of a feat. Again, it's a dip feat: Scout 3/Rogue X, instead of a real multiclassing feat. Another situational feat with a high associated cost (a 3-level dip with loss of 1½d6 sneak attack damage); worth about 5 points.

Daring Outlaw, on the other hand, gives full advancement to sneak attack, grace, and dodge bonus ─ useful features from both Rogue and Swashbuckler classes. Sneak attack is the stronger pick-up, especially since this feat as worded lets you achieve full sneak attack progression with zero Rogue levels. Fully worth 10 points; maybe 12.

[Set]

I think spell focus might be undervalued, because while not a definite pick if I'm at all focusing on one school it can be pretty useful. With this a Gnome illusionist could get even more ridiculous DCs, getting effectively +2 for what used to be +1. I'd say they should both be around +7, but I'm not expert on these kinds of things.

The wonky bit is that Spell Focus's value is dependent upon the school chosen.

Spell Focus - Abjuration and Spell Focus - Divination are kinda junky. (Barring access to a bunch of homebrew or third-party Abjuration or Divination spells that make more use of saves than the current batch.)

Spell Focus - Evocation, Transmutation, Illusion, Enchantment, Necromancy or Conjuration are going to be much more useful, and, even then, Spell Focus - Conjuration seems to be taken 9 out of 10 times as a prereq for Augment Summoning, and not for it's own sake.

[Fitz10019]

Valid points. I was thinking about Daring Outlaw but wanted to list more than one of the type. I agree with 12 for Daring Outlaw, less for the others.

I guess that goes to show that these hybrid class feats should not be treated as their own category, but as more members of the other categories. We should look at what they do.

Daring Outlaw would fall into:

combat, situational, your choices + improved damage [improving Sneak Attack]
combat, situational, opponent(s) [improving Dodge]
Saves [improving Grace]

Ascetic Hunter would fall into:

every attack, definite; improved damage [damage die]
limited count [really an improvement to an existing limited count, Stunning Fist]
remove restriction [new category: multi-classing permitted where otherwise not]

Swift Ambusher would fall into:

combat, situational, your choices; +improved damage [skirmish damage]
combat, situational, your choices; +improved AC [skirmish AC]
limited feat type [new category: allowed as a Scout bonus feat]

Are these categories useful, or am I just muddying the water?

I'm keen on the idea that you can homebrew a feat, give it a low price for its situational type, and watch your players enjoy it. All the while it doesn't have to be a be-all-end-all improvement over all other feats.

[imneuromancer]

I respect SKR, but I almost literally LOL'd in front of complete strangers when I read the text of Combat Casting:

"since most of the time you're make Concentration checks are in combat so it's in your best interest to take this +4 feat over the general +3 feat"

You only get the bonus when casting on the defensive or when in a grapple.

If you are casting on the defensive or when grappling, you probably have not done something right, and that extra +1 ain't gunna help you. But that extra +3 may help against that archer or monk that is trying to disrupt your spellcasting through damage (which is not covered in Combat Casting)...

[sonofzeal]

Fitz10019 - thanks for the table! I'm not quite sure what to do with it yet, but it looks handy!


I respect SKR, but I almost literally LOL'd in front of complete strangers when I read the text of Combat Casting:

"since most of the time you're make Concentration checks are in combat so it's in your best interest to take this +4 feat over the general +3 feat"

You only get the bonus when casting on the defensive or when in a grapple.

If you are casting on the defensive or when grappling, you probably have not done something right, and that extra +1 ain't gunna help you. But that extra +3 may help against that archer or monk that is trying to disrupt your spellcasting through damage (which is not covered in Combat Casting)...
I also love how that very line has a grammar mistake.

Other gems - admitting that EWP is 50% as good as Weapon Spec but giving it 90% the cost, or describing Improved Initiative as "not quite as good as a +2/+2 skill feat because you normally can only use it once per combat".

[hoverfrog]

Some of these feats are worth more in different kinds of games. For example Track is almost completely useless in urban campaigns but in a wilderness campaign where the PCs are on the hunt for escaped fugitives or dangerous monsters it becomes almost indispensable. For that reason it seems to be to be very difficult to choose appropriate points for a generic system because each game will be different.

Also Scribe Scroll (6 points) is more expensive than Brew Potion (4 points) though potions and oils are usable by anyone while scrolls are usable only by a caster of the same type as the maker. True there are costs for item creation and potions don't have the range of versatility of a scroll but surely that is balanced out and the costs should be the same?

I don't mind if you disagree but I'd like to understand the reasoning for the difference, small though it is.

[Flickerdart]

Potions are awful. I've never once seen anyone use a potion, even one they didn't pay for. If a million Player's Handbooks were printed without Brew Potion, I do not think anybody would notice.

[sonofzeal]

Some of these feats are worth more in different kinds of games. For example Track is almost completely useless in urban campaigns but in a wilderness campaign where the PCs are on the hunt for escaped fugitives or dangerous monsters it becomes almost indispensable. For that reason it seems to be to be very difficult to choose appropriate points for a generic system because each game will be different.

Also Scribe Scroll (6 points) is more expensive than Brew Potion (4 points) though potions and oils are usable by anyone while scrolls are usable only by a caster of the same type as the maker. True there are costs for item creation and potions don't have the range of versatility of a scroll but surely that is balanced out and the costs should be the same?

I don't mind if you disagree but I'd like to understand the reasoning for the difference, small though it is.
Flickerdart kind of nailed it about Potions. They're almost invariably a horrible price for the benefit. Healing Potions are the most common, but almost any character is better off with some other method, even just a Healing Belt (MIC). Rare is the party where there isn't at least one spellcaster or someone who has UMD, and either of those are all that's necessary for wands and scrolls to absolutely dominate in any cost/benefit analysis. And if there isn't a caster or UMDer, who's taking this feat? Even 4 points is a bit harsh, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. It still gets a lower score than any other item creation though.

As to Track, I'm of the opinion that it's mostly a glorified plothook disguised as a class feature. Generally speaking, if the DM wants you to follow something they'll be able to give the context clues without the feat. That said, I've used it before, especially when combined with Scent, to gain advantage even in an Urban setting... but such uses are not major. It makes sense that some characters can track better than others, but there doesn't really need to be a feat for it in the first place. If it was just a survival/search roll in the first place, nobody would have cared.

Neither feat is worthless, but I think both are the sort of highly situational/marginal things that really can't be given much weight.

[Amoren]

I recommend Divine Metamagic to be anywhere from 15-20 point cost, when you get to it. It is THAT good. :P

Anyway, improved feint seems to be a bit high, especially since it requires a prerequisite of combat expertise. And given how feinting is almost considered to be worthless by everyone, probably too much for the 8 price tag I saw it with. In fact, the only build I know of that uses Improved Feinting for any real effect is an Invisible Blade build, and only so they can qualify for surprising riposte if the DM won't rule that having a class feature that not only is equal to it, but surpasses it eventually, qualifies you as having it.

I recommend giving it a cost of six, since it's a 'decent' feat, but not something someone would take with limited choices because it is so rare and with better options. Surprising Riposte, however, should likely be given an 8, since it not only makes it deadly on Invisible Blade builds (especially with Hit and Run Fighter), but it means someone else can use it on the BBEG and make him flat footed for everyone ELSE until his turn comes up.

[Tyndmyr]

If feats are being assigned a value, I'd like to see the lower end of the scale used more. There are some hilariously terrible feats out there.
Like the +2/+2 skill feats. I can't imagine the situation where I'd like to risk delaying my Mounted Combat line in favor of one.

I'd be pricing them at something like 2...

Yeah, I don't know that I've ever taken one of them. They're pretty terrible.

Now, here's the big problem with the whole ball of wax....it's subjective as hell, and feats vary depending on combos. Iron Will is better if it's an entry requirement for that sweet PrC you want. What combos are available will vary depending on allowed sources.

So, long story short, feats don't have static values, which kind of undercuts the whole thing.

Edit: The original list really is quite hilarious. I admit I'd enjoy playing with it quite a bit, and gleefully taking "worthless" feats like Improved Init.

[hoverfrog]

Even 4 points is a bit harsh, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. It still gets a lower score than any other item creation though.Awesome. I would definitely take it at that point cost and use it to make oils of magic weapon, keen edge, etc and those handy boost things like bull's strength that every fighter needs just before a fight. A whole party can boost up in a few rounds rather than have the buff spell casters waste their spells and time doing it. Still, I get that it isn't for everyone. Thanks for the explanation.

[sonofzeal]

Yeah, I don't know that I've ever taken one of them. They're pretty terrible.

Now, here's the big problem with the whole ball of wax....it's subjective as hell, and feats vary depending on combos. Iron Will is better if it's an entry requirement for that sweet PrC you want. What combos are available will vary depending on allowed sources.

So, long story short, feats don't have static values, which kind of undercuts the whole thing.

Edit: The original list really is quite hilarious. I admit I'd enjoy playing with it quite a bit, and gleefully taking "worthless" feats like Improved Init.
Well, I'm mostly tried to err on the side of caution. Many feats have secondary purposes, which is why even the terrible ones don't have a negligible cost. And I tried working from the assumption that the people taking the feat are the people most likely to benefit from it.

So... while feats vary in value a lot, by trying to aim on the higher end of that range (maybe at the 75% mark), we end up with costs that are reasonable for some, a good deal for some, a bad deal for some, but unlikely to be particularly abusive except in extremely specialized builds. And people can pick and choose around the ones that are bad deals for any given character, since there'll likely be others that are better deals now that costs are lower on average.

It's a problem, you're right, but I don't think it's a big one. And it's certainly better than the current system which effectively assigns each feat a value of 10.


Awesome. I would definitely take it at that point cost and use it to make oils of magic weapon, keen edge, etc and those handy boost things like bull's strength that every fighter needs just before a fight. A whole party can boost up in a few rounds rather than have the buff spell casters waste their spells and time doing it. Still, I get that it isn't for everyone. Thanks for the explanation.
Honestly, I think that's excellent if I'm hitting the sweet spot where people start thinking "hey, y'know, maybe I could actually make use of this". Someone already mentioned that for all those +2/+2 skill ones, and more power to them! Neither they nor Brew Potions are ever going to seriously unbalance the game, but if it's low enough to pique people's interests without being a obviously good deal, I think that's perfect. :smallsmile:

[Tyndmyr]

Well, I'm mostly tried to err on the side of caution. Many feats have secondary purposes, which is why even the terrible ones don't have a negligible cost. And I tried working from the assumption that the people taking the feat are the people most likely to benefit from it.

There is no side of caution. Overvalue a bunch of feats, and the rest end up undervalued relative to them.


So... while feats vary in value a lot, by trying to aim on the higher end of that range (maybe at the 75% mark), we end up with costs that are reasonable for some, a good deal for some, a bad deal for some, but unlikely to be particularly abusive except in extremely specialized builds. And people can pick and choose around the ones that are bad deals for any given character, since there'll likely be others that are better deals now that costs are lower on average.

It's a problem, you're right, but I don't think it's a big one. And it's certainly better than the current system which effectively assigns each feat a value of 10.

How do you know that? The exact same issues exist with the current system true, but how do you demonstrate that in the end, your system is better?

Let's consider my current char that I'm playing. He's an Incantatrix, with a number of metamagics and iron will(class prereq). He's....well on the high end of the optimization curve.

Iron Will...only costs 7/10ths of a feat now. Awesome. Less expensive for me to get into my critical PrC.

Empower. Also only 7/10ths of a feat. More winning.

Maximize. Also only 7/10ths

I didn't bother with quicken, since I save my swift actions for abrupt jaunt. Now, the rest of my feats are non-core, so I can't say what they'll end up costing, but it's pretty clear that this system makes my high-powered build more broken, not less so.

Power attack still crushes TWF, too.

[sonofzeal]

There is no side of caution. Overvalue a bunch of feats, and the rest end up undervalued relative to them.



How do you know that? The exact same issues exist with the current system true, but how do you demonstrate that in the end, your system is better?

Let's consider my current char that I'm playing. He's an Incantatrix, with a number of metamagics and iron will(class prereq). He's....well on the high end of the optimization curve.

Iron Will...only costs 7/10ths of a feat now. Awesome. Less expensive for me to get into my critical PrC.

Empower. Also only 7/10ths of a feat. More winning.

Maximize. Also only 7/10ths

I didn't bother with quicken, since I save my swift actions for abrupt jaunt. Now, the rest of my feats are non-core, so I can't say what they'll end up costing, but it's pretty clear that this system makes my high-powered build more broken, not less so.

Power attack still crushes TWF, too.
I've said repeatedly - specialized characters can expect to find things along their specialty that are good deals for them. That's the nature of specialization, and not a strike against the point system. The problem here is not that Empower and Maximize are undercosted, just that metamagic reduction in general and Incantatrix in particular are simply too good. And Incantatrix is already widely known as a potential trouble spot, and is beyond the scope of a feat point system to correct. Take metamagic reduction out of the equation (or at least make the feat-based ones dear indeed), and I think it works out reasonably well.

And really, what are you suggesting? That this is somehow worse than the level ground we started from? I think you're far from establishing that. Feats people picked up before are still going to be popular, but several users have posted already looking at lower-costed feats as suddenly more viable alternatives. This isn't going to knock the really awesome ones off their pedestal, except potentially a few known issues like Greenbound Summoning, Arcane Thesis, Divine Metamagic, etc. And even then they'll still probably be worth picking up for the appropriate builds. But by at least narrowing the gap between the awesome feats and the sucky feats, it helps expand options and gives motivation to scrounge around a little more off the beaten path of the old favorites. I think it accomplishes what it set out to do, and helps feat-starved melee classes more than it helps T1's.


All that said, I think Empower/Maximize are a bit under-priced right now. I might move them up to 8. Any thoughts?


(As a side note, it looks like the new average price ends up around 8.5 in SKR's pricing, and maybe closer to 7 for mine, meaning all those feats your character chose are merely average rather than discounts.)

[Tyndmyr]

I've said repeatedly - specialized characters can expect to find things along their specialty that are good deals for them. That's the nature of specialization, and not a strike against the point system. The problem here is not that Empower and Maximize are undercosted, just that metamagic reduction in general and Incantatrix in particular are simply too good. And Incantatrix is already widely known as a potential trouble spot, and is beyond the scope of a feat point system to correct. Take metamagic reduction out of the equation (or at least make the feat-based ones dear indeed), and I think it works out reasonably well.

But it's making already good builds STRONGER.

This is not indicative of something that improves balance.


And really, what are you suggesting?

That a set of homebrewed rules needs to provide some clear benefit over not using them to justify their existence.

[sonofzeal]

But it's making already good builds STRONGER.

This is not indicative of something that improves balance.
Does it make it that much stronger? I mean, it's not like you weren't going to get those feats anyway. You'll have enough feats to get your core concept off the ground either way, and anything you pick up with the odd little remainders is almost by necessity going to be a lower priority and hence less relevant.

And you're still using a rather specific build that's both T1 and benefits from higher feat availability more than most. My experience thus far is that most T1's don't really have to care all that much about feats, since most feats have less effect than most spells, and there's always spells like Heroics that outright grant feats. A Barbarian's likely going to need three or four feats to do what they want to do, and often five or six if they don't want to be a one-trick pony, but a Wizard often only really needs a couple... and many Wizards don't even need that. And it's been often said that all a Druid needs is Natural Spell and perhaps Augment Summoning. Only some T1 characters really need that much in the way of feats, but virtually all T4 and below need as many as they can get.

There's exceptions of course, and if you'd asked I would have described metamagic specialists as one of those, but on the whole I think non-magical classes get a slightly better deal here, sheerly from increased overall availability.


That a set of homebrewed rules needs to provide some clear benefit over not using them to justify their existence.
"It makes weaker feats more viable as options, and hence increases the potential variety and nuance of character builds".

Even if you dispute whether feat availability helps weaker classes more, I think it should be pretty hard to argue with this claim.

[Tyndmyr]

Does it make it that much stronger? I mean, it's not like you weren't going to get those feats anyway. You'll have enough feats to get your core concept off the ground either way, and anything you pick up with the odd little remainders is almost by necessity going to be a lower priority and hence less relevant.

The "odd remainders" are .9 of a feat. So, that's kind of relevant, as most additional metamagics are less than that.

Also, in this particular case, Skill Focus(Spellcraft) is actually quite helpful, due to several incantatrix abilities running off them. Both this and Improved Init are things that my current build lacks, but could afford to add with these changes, and would make me demonstratably stronger.


And you're still using a rather specific build that's both T1 and benefits from higher feat availability more than most. My experience thus far is that most T1's don't really have to care all that much about feats, since most feats have less effect than most spells, and there's always spells like Heroics that outright grant feats. A Barbarian's likely going to need three or four feats to do what they want to do, and often five or six if they don't want to be a one-trick pony, but a Wizard often only really needs a couple... and many Wizards don't even need that. And it's been often said that all a Druid needs is Natural Spell and perhaps Augment Summoning. Only some T1 characters really need that much in the way of feats, but virtually all T4 and below need as many as they can get.

Adding extra feats to a wizard does a great deal more than adding extra feats to a fighter.

Also, good point on the fact that heroics interacts terribly with this feat system.


There's exceptions of course, and if you'd asked I would have described metamagic specialists as one of those, but on the whole I think non-magical classes get a slightly better deal here, sheerly from increased overall availability.


"It makes weaker feats more viable as options, and hence increases the potential variety and nuance of character builds".

Even if you dispute whether feat availability helps weaker classes more, I think it should be pretty hard to argue with this claim.

Feat availability helps classes with less feats more. Fighter already has a giant pile of feats. He's not great even with them. Adding another feat or two to fighter does not make them catch up in tier.

Adding a feat or two to any tier 1 is like optimization crack.

[Fitz10019]

In defense of this exercise, feats already have relative value. And that relative value leads to many feats never being used (or only being used by people unaware of better options). By enumerating those values and enumerating the feat-granting system, we should be able to get a better distribution of power, and see more interesting things at the gaming table. It would also indirectly serve as a guide to what feats are powerful.

Tyndmyr makes a valid point when he says that an alternate system is not a significant improvement if it further vamps up already-strong builds.

The tier system could be of help here. Tier 1 classes should accumulate feat points more slowly than other classes. Tier 5 classes should accumulate them more quickly. [Note: Changing the accumulation rate by tier is better than changing the purchase price per tier because it accounts for multi-classing.]

So let's continue to tinker with the relative value of feats as best we can, and later we can add a system of feat point accumulation rates per tier as an alternate rule.

[Fitz10019]

Not to distract from the primary goal of assigning point values to feats, I propose that 1 feat point can be used to buy 3 skill points (and thereby skill tricks from Complete Scoundrel) but not vice versa, to give more interesting options to skill-point-starved classes. These would be normal skill points, subject to normal skill point caps.

[Curmudgeon]

Not to distract from the primary goal of assigning point values to feats, I propose that 1 feat point can be used to buy 3 skill points ...
There's already the Open Minded feat from Complete Adventurer:

Benefit: You immediately gain 5 skill points.

[demigodus]

(As a side note, it looks like the new average price ends up around 8.5 in SKR's pricing, and maybe closer to 7 for mine, meaning all those feats your character chose are merely average rather than discounts.)

May I suggest possibly moving the average up a bit then? Maybe increase everything by the same percentage so the average comes out to around 9? That might help Tyndmyr's concerns.

[Curmudgeon]

May I suggest possibly moving the average up a bit then? Maybe increase everything by the same percentage so the average comes out to around 9? That might help Tyndmyr's concerns.
That would also defeat much of the purpose of this revamp. Most feats just aren't that good, and the prices should fairly reflect their real worth.

[hoverfrog]

I think that the best way to look at this is by looking at examples.

Here is a standard elf wizard 5 randomly generated at mythweavers (http://www.myth-weavers.com).

Hemil, male elf Abjurer5: CR 5; Size M (5 ft., 5 in. tall);
HD 5d4+5; hp 20; Init +4; Spd 30 ft.; AC 14; Attack +1
melee, or +6 ranged; SV Fort +2, Ref +5, Will +5; AL NG; Str
8, Dex 19, Con 13, Int 17, Wis 13, Cha 13.

Languages Spoken: Common, Draconic, Elven, Gnome, Sylvan.

Skills and feats: Hide +4, Knowledge (Arcana) +11,
Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) +8, Knowledge
(Geography) +10, Knowledge (Nature) +9, Knowledge (Religion)
+10, Listen +3, Move Silently +4, Search +5, Spellcraft +10,
Spot +3; Craft Wand, Enlarge Spell, [Scribe Scroll], Silent
Spell.

Possessions: 4,300 gp in gear.

Prohibited Schools: Enchantment, Conjuration.

Wizard Spells Known (4/4+1/3+1/2+1): 0th -- Arcane Mark,
Dancing Lights, Detect Magic, Detect Poison, Disrupt Undead,
Flare, Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand, Mending, Message,
Open/Close, Prestidigitation, Ray of Frost, Read Magic,
Resistance, Touch of Fatigue. 1st -- Endure Elements, Hold
Portal, Magic Missile, Protection from Chaos, Shield,
Ventriloquism. 2nd -- Arcane Lock, Bull's Strength, Minor
Image, Obscure Object, Protection from Arrows, See
Invisibility. 3rd -- Haste, Keen Edge.

These are the points for the feats in the revised system:
Craft Wand - 6
Enlarge Spell - 7
Scribe Scroll - 6
Silent Spell - 7
Total - 26

A 5th level wizard gains 10 points for being a 1st level character, 10 points for a bonus wizard feat at 1st, 10 points for a character feat at 3rd and 10 points for a bonus wizard feat at 5th. That's 40 points. This leaves the 5th level wizard with 14 extra points to spend if we keep the existing feats as they are.

Brew Potion is cheap at 4 points so I'd take it as a handy add on for those times when you know you're going up against a specific foe and can create consumable bolster items. There's even enough left over for another metamagic feat and a skill boost feat. i.e. Heighten Spell - 6 and Alertness (if for some reason you don't choose to have a familiar) - 4. I'd probably choose Combat casting though.

Brew Potion - 4
Combat Casting - 4
Craft Wand - 6
Enlarge Spell - 7
Heighten Spell - 6
Scribe Scroll - 6
Silent Spell - 7
Total - 40

This isn't a game killer but it does give a nice boost but the standard wizard still has nearly twice as many feats under this new system.

If we assume that these rules apply to the whole world then wizards will be much more likely to take metamagic and item creation feats as well as those feats that improve their survivability. That means that magic items will be more common with even middling spellcasters and hedge wizards having basic item creation abilities.

Almost every feat is cheaper than 10 points (what a feat would cost in the existing rules) so we should expect characters to always have around 40% to 60% more feats. Fighter types will meet the prerequisites for great feats like Improved Trip faster which makes combat more challenging.

I could live with that. As long as the rules apply to everyone it just makes a more interesting game though one that is necessarily not low magic.

Interestingly making a low magic game is easier this way because all you have to do is bump up the point costs for item creation feats. That makes them rarer automatically without having to up the XP or GP costs involved or just declaring magic items to be rare.

Here is my concern though. The difference between characters of different levels is further exaggerated. Sure a 5th level wizard is tougher than a 4th level wizard but in addition to his third level spell slot he now has a couple of extra feats. This probably translates better between fighters of one level difference. Try some examples and see how the power difference is exacerbated.

It is like the olden days of 1e when a fighter of level 7 gained an extra attack and was suddenly significantly better than a character of one level lower. To balance this I might suggest having the average point cost at 10 rather than at 6 or 7.

[sonofzeal]

hoverfrog - your calculations are a bit off. Going by SKR's system, the Wizard just gets Scribe Scroll at lvl 1, not an extra 10 feat points. They only get feat points if they're taking the Fighter Bonus Feat variant. So your basic Wizard is working off 30 points, plus Scribe Scroll on top of that. Not that it's a big change, but it's still four points down.


Personally, my inclination is to change the system so that you start with perhaps 12 points at lvl 1, and gain 3 each level after that. This adds granularity to the process, and avoids SKR's little "feat point debt" subsystem. It also reduces a bit of the gap between my costs and the former average. Classes that get bonus feats off a decently open list at regular intervals (Fighters, Wizards, Scouts, Warblades, etc) instead gain a certain number of feat points every level, adding into a separate pool that can only be used off their bonus feat list. I think Wizards (bonus feats every 5 levels) will only gain +1. Scouts and Warblades (every 4 levels) would get +2. Fighters (every 2 levels) would probably get +4. The general rule of thumb being, "whatever number leaves them closest to but still less than 10 in the relevant interval". Of course, Fighters being Fighters I may try to sneak them in at +5. It's a work in progress, but assigning values to feats is the most arduous step.

This is all speculative though

[Tyndmyr]

hoverfrog - your calculations are a bit off. Going by SKR's system, the Wizard just gets Scribe Scroll at lvl 1, not an extra 10 feat points. They only get feat points if they're taking the Fighter Bonus Feat variant. So your basic Wizard is working off 30 points, plus Scribe Scroll on top of that. Not that it's a big change, but it's still four points down.

So wait, instead of taking Scribe Scroll, you could take a the ACF, get ten feat points, spend six feat points on Scribe Scroll, and come out a net four feat points ahead?

This seems like a problem.

[sonofzeal]

So wait, instead of taking Scribe Scroll, you could take a the ACF, get ten feat points, spend six feat points on Scribe Scroll, and come out a net four feat points ahead?

This seems like a problem.
No. By SKR's, if you take the ACF, you gain 10 FP... but they go into a separate pool. You can only spend those 10 on Fighter Bonus Feats. Which doesn't include "Scribe Scroll", last I checked.

[Tyndmyr]

No. By SKR's, if you take the ACF, you gain 10 FP... but they go into a separate pool. You can only spend those 10 on Fighter Bonus Feats. Which doesn't include "Scribe Scroll", last I checked.

They can only be used on fighter bonus feats, true, but this still means that any build that uses fighter bonus feats at all can suddenly gain extra feat points without trading away anything. Say, an orb user who is going to get the ranged feats anyway.

[sonofzeal]

They can only be used on fighter bonus feats, true, but this still means that any build that uses fighter bonus feats at all can suddenly gain extra feat points without trading away anything. Say, an orb user who is going to get the ranged feats anyway.
I think the popular thing to do is to drop it on Improved Initiative. I haven't seen many Wizards taking ranged feats; PBS is a bit of a waste, Rapid Shot and Multishot don't do much, and Far Shot is pretty meaningless. Precise Shot is nice, but that's about it and even it's not that necessary when working from Touch Attacks.

But really, the Fighter's getting more mileage out of this whole thing than anyone else. With FP up the wazoo, and a whole lot of feats now becoming fairly good bargains, their options are going to expand more dramatically than anyone else's. Rather than just picking up a line or two, they can invest in all sorts of options and situational maneuvers while still picking up everything they need for their focus.

Everyone benefits from higher feat availability, including Wizards. But the ones that benefit most from this method are feat-starved classes, and classes that would (under my proposed shift above) gain larger numbers of FP every level. Using the tentative numbers I gave, this puts Fighters as definite winners, Scouts and Warblades coming out with only a marginal advantage relative to other classes, and Wizards actually suffering a bit.



That does bring up a point though - ACFs that interact with feats in significant ways might get a little wonky, especially things that trade away Bonus Feats for actual class features, like many Fighter ACFs do.

Any suggestion?

[hoverfrog]

Personally, my inclination is to change the system so that you start with perhaps 12 points at lvl 1, and gain 3 each level after that. This adds granularity to the process, and avoids SKR's little "feat point debt" subsystem.That would help the leaps of power problem that I mentioned earlier too. Characters would gain feats at whatever level they accumulated enough points for rather than two or even three when they hit a bonus feat level.

I'd love to see a D&D system where abilities and race are points base and level increases are also points based. i.e. you have X number of points to buy hit dice, special abilities, feats, spell ability, etc so that you could customize your character completely. I doubt if it is possible though as D&D isn't really that kind of system. You'd need to break it and rebuild it and then it would be a very different system.

[Doug Lampert]

That would also defeat much of the purpose of this revamp. Most feats just aren't that good, and the prices should fairly reflect their real worth.

Oh? Is much of the purpose to more or less globally increase the number of feats characters get, even optimized characters with nothing but good feats get?

Because if not then increasing all the costs by the same ratio, say 50% so 4 becomes 6 and 10 becomes 15 leaves the relative cost ratio is the same and leaves the lower cost feat AT LEAST as much more attractive as the base system.

One very basic problem with the feat point idea as its being discussed here is that each CURRENT feat is being converted to 10 points, and 10 points is basically being defined as "absolutely must take overpowered feat".

This means it's a nearly global power-up, almost any character will take a few lower than 10 feats (prerequisites if nothing else), and the only feat suggested for more than 10 is Leadership.

A Druid with Spell-Focus Conjuration, Augment Summoning, and Natural Spell hasn't taken anything but his best three feats, and yet he STILL gets 3 extra feat points from this system to "compensate" him for the terrible loss of taking such sub-par feats!

Either the conversion rate needs to be less than 10 per feat (7 or so say), or the feat costs need to be globally higher, or this is simply a global powerup which helps overpowered characters as much or more than anyone else (probably more in practice, the overpowered characters mostly have players willing to do the research, and this is a more complicated system).

[Curmudgeon]

Oh? Is much of the purpose to more or less globally increase the number of feats characters get, even optimized characters with nothing but good feats get?
No, it's not. That's why I suggested 12 points for Daring Outlaw, which is a good multiclassing feat. I think 10 points for Power Attack is too low, and I'd put Heighten spell at 10 points because it does something other metamagic feats can't: change the actual spell level instead of just the slot. Unique effects, when they can be leveraged in combination with other feats, tend to be have greater worth than would be apparent when considering the feat in isolation.

So yes, the purpose is to increase the number of feats characters get when you consider the thousands of poor feats available in the game, but the purpose should not be to globally increase the number of good feats a character can take.

[Waker]

That does bring up a point though - ACFs that interact with feats in significant ways might get a little wonky, especially things that trade away Bonus Feats for actual class features, like many Fighter ACFs do.
Any suggestion?

Well, since you are going to the trouble of assigning value to feats, you might also consider alternative feat points for a class. You could say that at each level a Fighter would gain 7 feat points, a Rogue 5 feat points and a Wizard 3 feat points. Bonus feats would give you a preset number of points. PrCs feat points would be determined by the entry class. This could be wonky in the case of a multi-classing, but I dunno.
None of the numbers I suggested are set in stone, merely there to represent the idea.

Alternatively as a way to manage the issue of multi-classing and PrCs, you might say that at each level a character gains a minimum of 2 Feat Points and gains additional points based on their class.
Fighter +5
Rogue +3
Wizard +1
Any PrC +1

[Fitz10019]

Alternatively as a way to manage the issue of multi-classing and PrCs, you might say that at each level a character gains a minimum of 2 Feat Points and gains additional points based on their class.
Fighter +5
Rogue +3
Wizard +1
Any PrC +1
If you base it on tier, you won't have to evaluate every class. Maybe use your 'pre-prestige' average for any prestige class levels.

[Waker]

If you base it on tier, you won't have to evaluate every class. Maybe use your 'pre-prestige' average for any prestige class levels.

Has some potential. What about classes that straddle tiers?

[Fitz10019]

There's already the Open Minded feat from Complete Adventurer:
Benefit: You immediately gain 5 skill points.
A fair note, but what should that feat cost in this feat point system? 2 feat points?

[Fitz10019]

Has some potential. What about classes that straddle tiers?

Just pick one, taking chosen ACFs into account.

Addition:
Alternatively as a way to manage the issue of multi-classing and PrCs, you might say that at each level a character gains a minimum of 2 Feat Points and gains additional points based on their class.
Tier 5: +5
Tier 3: +3
Tier 1:+1
or simply Tier #: +#
Any PrC +[average tier of non-PrC levels]
I like this better than my earlier suggestion. With this approach, the time of purchase does not matter.

[Dsurion]

I'd love to see a D&D system where abilities and race are points base and level increases are also points based. i.e. you have X number of points to buy hit dice, special abilities, feats, spell ability, etc so that you could customize your character completely. I doubt if it is possible though as D&D isn't really that kind of system. You'd need to break it and rebuild it and then it would be a very different system.There's always Mutants & Masterminds for this. It does fantasy pretty well and has a book devoted to Sword and Sorcery (Warriors and Warlocks).

[Curmudgeon]

A fair note, but what should that feat cost in this feat point system? 2 feat points?
If it's a balanced feat, it should cost whatever the average feat is worth. That looks like around 7 points.

[Tyndmyr]

A fair note, but what should that feat cost in this feat point system? 2 feat points?

That's a bit low. 5 skill points is...about on par with the +2/+2 feats normally. It's an additional +1, but you can't use it to go over skill point caps. On the plus side, it has somewhat more flexiblity in allocation....but it works much worse for non-class skills.

It's probably about the same as a good +2/+2 feat. It's definitely inferior to something like Open Minded.

[sonofzeal]

That's a bit low. 5 skill points is...about on par with the +2/+2 feats normally. It's an additional +1, but you can't use it to go over skill point caps. On the plus side, it has somewhat more flexiblity in allocation....but it works much worse for non-class skills.

It's probably about the same as a good +2/+2 feat. It's definitely inferior to something like Open Minded.
On the other hand, there's a number of things in the game that do require actual ranks (PrCs, some class features, Synergy bonuses), and "Open-Minded" is a big help there. It's also great if you're multiclassing and want to pump a new class skill that your old class didn't have. I'd call it 5 points at least. One FP = one HP = one skillpoint. I think that's a reasonable exchange rate, honestly.

[Curmudgeon]

On the other hand, there's a number of things in the game that do require actual ranks (PrCs, some class features, Synergy bonuses), and "Open-Minded" is a big help there.
How is Open Minded more helpful there? Its benefit is skill points, not skill ranks.
Benefit: You immediately gain 5 skill points. Spend these skill points as normal. You cannot exceed the normal maximum ranks for your level in any skill.

[demigodus]

How is Open Minded more helpful there? Its benefit is skill points, not skill ranks.

It is helpful if you are trying to get into a PrC that has more skill reqs then how many you have skill points to spare on?

So it could help a low int non-human character in a 2 skills/level class qualify on time for a PrC that requires, say, 8 ranks in 3 or 4 different skills.

So VERY conditionally.

[sonofzeal]

It is helpful if you are trying to get into a PrC that has more skill reqs then how many you have skill points to spare on?

So it could help a low int non-human character in a 2 skills/level class qualify on time for a PrC that requires, say, 8 ranks in 3 or 4 different skills.

So VERY conditionally.
Even on characters with a few more skillpoints jangling around, there's often a few skills they intend to use often that need to be high. Once you've got a few demands on your points already, spending outside that to meet PrC requirements can be burdensome.

[Tyndmyr]

It is helpful if you are trying to get into a PrC that has more skill reqs then how many you have skill points to spare on?

So it could help a low int non-human character in a 2 skills/level class qualify on time for a PrC that requires, say, 8 ranks in 3 or 4 different skills.

So VERY conditionally.

That's...pretty marginal. And probably a really unefficient build. Skill point-based prereqs tend to correlate to expected entry classes, so your fighter, etc PrCs tend to be more feat heavy, and less skill point heavy.

Additionally, racial paragon classes tend to fix this significantly more efficiently.


On the other hand, there's a number of things in the game that do require actual ranks (PrCs, some class features, Synergy bonuses), and "Open-Minded" is a big help there. It's also great if you're multiclassing and want to pump a new class skill that your old class didn't have. I'd call it 5 points at least. One FP = one HP = one skillpoint. I think that's a reasonable exchange rate, honestly.

This means that Improved Toughness, at level 20, is worth 20 feat points, and is one of the best feats in game. This is...not really true. So, that math should get tossed.

Meeting skill prereqs is rarely hard, and very rarely is Open Minded a good way to do it. The worst examples are things like unusual entries into Mindbender...but those are painful because they're not class skills. Open Minded is pretty bad at fixing that.

Additionally, pumping a new class skill can also be done via +2/+2 feats. And frankly, those work on non-class skills too. It's much more flexible. The main advantage is the 1 extra skill point, and there's a LOT of tradeoff for it.

[sonofzeal]

This means that Improved Toughness, at level 20, is worth 20 feat points, and is one of the best feats in game. This is...not really true. So, that math should get tossed.
Well, hp are a bit odd in that the value of X hp changes significantly over time. At lvl 1-3, heck, +20 hp is huge. It might not be worth 20 FP, but it's up there. At a 1-1 exchange rate, and my tentative starting values, a 1st level character dumping their FP into hp gets +12, which is a sizeable chunk of survivability when housecats are a lethal threat to everyone else. However, the value of that +12 hp goes down significantly as you level, until it's practically irrelevant by lvl 20.

Going by my rule of thumb that the pricing assumes that players are reasonably intelligent (an indefensible position, really, but a useful working point), any price for a static amount of hp should be based on the context of low-level characters. And I think a 1:1 ratio is reasonable if a little conservative, but I like to err on the side of conservativeness.

Of course, as I implied above, ideally any feat-based source of hp should scale with level like Improved Toughness.


Meeting skill prereqs is rarely hard, and very rarely is Open Minded a good way to do it. The worst examples are things like unusual entries into Mindbender...but those are painful because they're not class skills. Open Minded is pretty bad at fixing that.

Additionally, pumping a new class skill can also be done via +2/+2 feats. And frankly, those work on non-class skills too. It's much more flexible. The main advantage is the 1 extra skill point, and there's a LOT of tradeoff for it.
I wouldn't compare Open-Minded to the +2/+2 feats at all, given how narrowly specific they are. I think Skill Focus is a much better comparison, especially since Open Minded skillpoints are generally all going to get dumped into the same skill. And a +5 into a skill is worth a heck of a lot more than a +2, or even a +3.

That said, yeah, there's a bunch of limitations. It's still a reasonable feat, though. I've ended up taking it on at least three characters, to shore up various skills.

[Roguenewb]

Could I propose going farther? How about each class gets a certain number of feat points per level? Fighters get a bunch, like 15, Wizards get like 3, Samurai get 1000000000. You can buy any feat you can afford, whenever you want. Wizards would replace their bonus feats with: "Bonus Feat: At levels 5, 10, 15 and 20, a Wizard gains a metamagic, item creation or reserve feat worth 10 or less Feat Points"

[Oscredwin]

I'm guessing that giving the Samurai a billion feat points is going to actually kick it up to tier 2-3.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Bonus Feat: At levels 5, 10, 15 and 20, a Wizard gains 10 Feat Points, which can only be spent for metamagic, item creation or reserve feats this way it works better

[Doug Lampert]

Could I propose going farther? How about each class gets a certain number of feat points per level? Fighters get a bunch, like 15, Wizards get like 3, Samurai get 1000000000. You can buy any feat you can afford, whenever you want. Wizards would replace their bonus feats with: "Bonus Feat: At levels 5, 10, 15 and 20, a Wizard gains a metamagic, item creation or reserve feat worth 10 or less Feat Points"

I would fold the bonus feats for wizards and fighters and the like into the same X points per level mechanism. You can make this a separate reserve of "fighter feat points" and "wizard feat points" that must be spent on "appropriate" feats, but I don't see any real gain.

Wizards get 5 bonus feats, they're off a limited list, eliminate them entirely and given them an extra 2 feat points per level (which is what they get if those 5 feats average 8 feat points). A smart wizard will be taking metamagic, item creation, or reserve feats, so what's the point in limiting them.

You gave a wizard 3 feat points, add the two for his "bonus" and a Wizard gets 5 feat points a level, and we eliminate the bonus feats and scribe scroll. (Maybe with a small bonus at level 1 to make starting with scribe scroll easier.)

Similarly, a fighter gets 11 bonus feats, they'll probably average a fairly functional 7 points or so, so give the fighter an extra 4 feat points a level (plus the bunch extra they need to not suck, plus whatever your baseline is). 15 a level is probably fine (it will still be lower tier than a wizard, this isn't going to balance the classes unless you use "feats that give level 9 casting" types of cheeze).

DougL

[Lans]

I'm guessing that giving the Samurai a billion feat points is going to actually kick it up to tier 2-3.

At first I was going to say low tier 3 at best with the caveat of restricting him to 1 of a particular feat per level, so no billion hp toughness boost.

Then I remembered about Complete Champion, Magic of Incarnum and all those feats.

7 sp, +3 to a skill, d10+4hp, a soulmeld, weapon focus, an extra use of every devotion feat, a martial stance at every level is probably tier 3 by itself

[willpell]

Of course, as I implied above, ideally any feat-based source of hp should scale with level like Improved Toughness.

What would you think of this?

Lingering Toughness: If you take this feat at 1st level, you gain 3 hit points. Upon attaining 2nd and 3rd levels, you gain 2 additional hit points each. Thereafter, you gain 1 hit point per level. If you take this feat at a later level, gain hit points as if you had had it since level 1.

[sonofzeal]

What would you think of this?

Lingering Toughness: If you take this feat at 1st level, you gain 3 hit points. Upon attaining 2nd and 3rd levels, you gain 2 additional hit points each. Thereafter, you gain 1 hit point per level. If you take this feat at a later level, gain hit points as if you had had it since level 1.
I think, why not just stick with "Improved Toughness"? That's a nice middle-of-the-road feat already.

[willpell]

I think, why not just stick with "Improved Toughness"? That's a nice middle-of-the-road feat already.

I'm not sure adding 2 more HP makes it any more worth a feat. I like the idea of gaining extra benefit every level throughout your career. Compare Lingering Toughness to Psionic Body or Incarnum-Fortified Body, which are much more powerful but restricted to characters that are heavy into psionics and incarnum respectively.

[sonofzeal]

I'm not sure adding 2 more HP makes it any more worth a feat. I like the idea of gaining extra benefit every level throughout your career. Compare Lingering Toughness to Psionic Body or Incarnum-Fortified Body, which are much more powerful but restricted to characters that are heavy into psionics and incarnum respectively.
Bhuh?

Improved Toughness isn't +5hp, it's +1 hp/lvl. Complete Warrior. Doesn't even require Toughness, just a fairly trivial base Fort save.

[willpell]

I was confused, I thought it was the thing SKR had made up that gave 5 HP.

[SowZ]

What do you do about feats that combine two feats in one? Obviously, it should cost less than the two feats individually because it is more specialized, (probably.) But how much less?

Would Hand Crossbow Focus cost, say, 10? What about a really bomb feat like Craven or Dead-Eye?

[sonofzeal]

What do you do about feats that combine two feats in one? Obviously, it should cost less than the two feats individually because it is more specialized, (probably.) But how much less?

Would Hand Crossbow Focus cost, say, 10? What about a really bomb feat like Craven or Dead-Eye?
Weapon Focus is 7 already; Hand Crossbow Focus could be 9 or 10, yes. "Really bomb feats" in general should be 10. A few that are significantly abusive or otherwise excessively powerful (like Leadership) should be more, but that's fairly rare. DMM:Persist might qualify. Possibly Arcane Thesis as well. Dragonwrought too, depending on DM interpretation.

[SowZ]

Since Toughness costs 3 points, a 1 for 1 HP trade, why not just give players the option of spending leftover feat points on HP at a 1 for 1 trade? Whether that is 2 or 4 feat points leftover? Toughness could still exist as a 3 coster for pre-reqs, I suppose.

If you don't do '3 feat points a level' but follow the original mechanic, some people may feel forced to spend all or most their feat points since, say, they aren't going to play to level 9 so their excess points will be wasted. It gives something, anyways.

[sonofzeal]

Since Toughness costs 3 points, a 1 for 1 HP trade, why not just give players the option of spending leftover feat points on HP at a 1 for 1 trade? Whether that is 2 or 4 feat points leftover? Toughness could still exist as a 3 coster for pre-reqs, I suppose.

If you don't do '3 feat points a level' but follow the original mechanic, some people may feel forced to spend all or most their feat points since, say, they aren't going to play to level 9 so their excess points will be wasted. It gives something, anyways.
I'm perfectly fine with that idea. I never really got around to drafting an "official" version of my variant. The only thing of note here is the table (arguably the hardest part of the whole thing), which is hopefully much-improved over SKR's, and is useable with both SKR's version and your own variations thereof.

[Sith_Happens]

So how many points is Arcane Thesis (Animate Thread)?