Combat Feats that shouldn't be Feats? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

limejuicepowder

2013-12-22, 10:15 PM

Ride-By Attack
Shot on the Run
Spring Attack
Combat Expertise
Power Attack
Improved Unarmed Strike
Weapon Finesse

These are the ones that immediately come to my mind - I'm sure there's more. Then there's all the feats that give flat, numerical bonuses to various things (weapon focus, dodge, skill feats, toughness, etc) that are just complete crap and not worth the paper they are printed on.

Slipperychicken

2013-12-22, 10:18 PM

Power Attack, for both ranged and melee. Call the ranged version "deadly aim" like Pathfinder did.

Point Blank Shot

Precise Shot.

Weapon Finesse.

All "feat taxes", like Iron Will.

EDIT:

Also Exotic Weapon Proficiency. There are so many cool weapons which nobody ever uses because they cost a feat. Maybe full BAB classes can get it as a class feature. Seriously. Like some master of weaponry is going to be like "Oh no this spear has a curvy bit at the end, so I'm totally clueless as to how to use it."

Improvised weapon proficiency should be a thing, however.

Arael666

2013-12-22, 10:37 PM

Certainly not weapon finesse.

Seriously though, I have quite a list:

Dodge. Seriously? "I'm paying attention to that guy", should be standard for anyone, like fighting defensively, or at least be incorporated into another feat.

Point Blank Shot. The name states the obvious, it's a shot at point blank range! do I really need a feat to take advantage of that?

Weapon Focus and the greater version. Fighters should get it for free, along with the bonus fighter feat on the appropriate level.

Weapon specialization and the greater version. Same as above.

Heighten Spell Not like casters need the buff, but IMHO every caster should be able to do this without needing to waste a feat. You're already wasting a higher level slot to cast a low level spell, the DC should follow the slot spent.

Blind Fight The feat just scream monk. I's there a more appealing fluff than a blind monk? They should get it for free, on level 1.

Endurance. Dwarfs should get it, instead of bonus to saving throws against poison.

Eschew Materials Sorcerers should get it for free. Magic runs in their blood. It's the guy with the pointy hat and the long beard that should be mixing bat guano and bull dung to create a powerful explosion or enlarge the barbarian's oiled muscles.

Spell Focus Again, it's not like the casters need the buff, but specialized wizards should get spell focus on the school they are specialized in. It just makes sense.

Isamu Dyson

2013-12-22, 10:44 PM

All "feat taxes", like Iron Will.

I'm a fan of how Spycraft 2.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycraft) beefed up the Save Feats.

For example: Lightning Reflexes proves a +3 bonus to Reflex Saves *and* lets you re-roll your Initiative check.

TuggyNE

2013-12-22, 10:49 PM

cleave. why does swinging a weapon when all your enemies are directly next to each other require a feat if you intend to swing through your enemy anyway..

Probably because maneuvering your weapon to hit multiple enemies is not a simple "swing like a baseball bat" arc as you are probably visualizing.

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-22, 10:56 PM

Probably because maneuvering your weapon to hit multiple enemies is not a simple "swing like a baseball bat" arc as you are probably visualizing.

depends entirely on their placement and the force put into the blow. cleaving requires 2 or more enemies within your threatened space adjacent to each other. swinging in an arc with enough force for the blow to keep going after the first hit (which is ideal if you intend to actually cut through an enemy or break bone) would lessen the impact of the second blow but it would still allow one to be made. you aren't trying to glance one to hit both, you aren't using a limited amount of force, you're striking, and if the hit causes the weapon to pull back a bit re-extending to hit the second one.

Thurbane

2013-12-22, 11:45 PM

The big one for me is Reckless Offense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#recklessOffense): it's more-or-less just reverse "fighting defensively", and IMHO should not cost a feat.

Reckless Offense [General]
You can shift your focus from defense to offense.

Prerequisite
Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit
When you use the attack action or full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of -4 to your Armor Class and add a +2 bonus on your melee attack roll. The bonus on attack rolls and penalty to Armor Class last until the beginning of your next turn.

Seharvepernfan

2013-12-23, 12:06 AM

In my houserules I made a number of feats into combat options with prerequisites.

SassyQuatch

2013-12-23, 12:08 AM

Also Exotic Weapon Proficiency. There are so many cool weapons which nobody ever uses because they cost a feat. Maybe full BAB classes can get it as a class feature. Seriously. Like some master of weaponry is going to be like "Oh no this spear has a curvy bit at the end, so I'm totally clueless as to how to use it."

Agreed, but almost entirely because of the weakness of exotic weapons. I can understand the concept behind the bastard sword since it lets you do something special that you couldn't do with just martial proficiency, but "it's a sword that works like every other sword but you obviously can't grasp the concept of how to use this particular sword... because" is overused and illogical. Basically, EWP should give new abilities to a martial weapon or be scrapped.

Scow2

2013-12-23, 12:13 AM

Throw Ally/Enemy. You shouldn't need a feat to pick up and throw an object, no matter how much it squirms. Same with Awesome Blow, and other size-based feats.

The spring attack and Vital Strike lines also come to mind.

avr

2013-12-23, 12:15 AM

Spell Thematics is a feat which your DM should be truly grateful you're taking - it shows the player cares enough to invest quite a bit of time into retheming their choices, and the mechanical benefits are minimal.

Quick Draw doesn't have enough oomph to be a feat on it's own. Like the way Spycraft apparently beefed up the save feats, it needs some beefing up. Mounted Archery similarly.

TuggyNE

2013-12-23, 12:17 AM

depends entirely on their placement and the force put into the blow. cleaving requires 2 or more enemies within your threatened space adjacent to each other. swinging in an arc with enough force for the blow to keep going after the first hit (which is ideal if you intend to actually cut through an enemy or break bone) would lessen the impact of the second blow but it would still allow one to be made. you aren't trying to glance one to hit both, you aren't using a limited amount of force, you're striking, and if the hit causes the weapon to pull back a bit re-extending to hit the second one.

Not sure whether you're talking about PF Cleave or 3.5 Cleave here.

In any case, it's a trick that is not automatic to those who know how to fight, although perhaps most melee combatants would pick it up with sufficient experience (i.e., automatically at BAB +3 or whatever). And my point was that aiming an attack to hit one foe may or may not readily allow you to hit another foe; usually it will not, because most strikes are not horizontal, and even those that are generally use up pretty much all momentum on impact.

ngilop

2013-12-23, 12:22 AM

Power Attack and Combat expertise.

they were general rules that everybody could take advtage of back in 2nd ed. tunred into feats and made even worse becuase they were not spells. that and Fighters when using the option got higher bonuses than any other class using the same option

Spring attack, again another ' this use to be a general rule in ealrier editions but we don't care only vcasters have nice things ow'

also DO NOT call the range version of power attack Deadly aim bexause how does decreasing your chance to attack succesfuly make your aim deadly?

actually any of the feast that fighters use tog et for free should be class features..

idk why WoTC shat on fighters so hard in 3rd ed.. but they did and it makes me sad.

Scow2

2013-12-23, 12:26 AM

I prefer "Ranged Power Attack" being referred to as "Overdraw".

I hate how Power Attack doubled Two-handed weapon damage and ignored light weapons in 3.5: It should be a flat 1-for-1 tradeoff. Two-handed weapons already do good damage from larger damage dice and half-again strength.

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-23, 12:26 AM

Not sure whether you're talking about PF Cleave or 3.5 Cleave here.

In any case, it's a trick that is not automatic to those who know how to fight, although perhaps most melee combatants would pick it up with sufficient experience (i.e., automatically at BAB +3 or whatever). And my point was that aiming an attack to hit one foe may or may not readily allow you to hit another foe; usually it will not, because most strikes are not horizontal, and even those that are generally use up pretty much all momentum on impact.

pathfinder, prerequisite there being power attack, logic being "ok you can now hit REALLY REALLY HARD. that gives you enough to slice through, now spend another feat to be able to use that logically" heck power attack on its own really doesn't strike me as feat-worthy since it's essentially just swinging with all your strength.

and I wasn't saying you will hit more than one enemy with every attack you do, I'm saying that if you have multiple enemies and sufficient strength behind the attack you COULD hit more than one. especially in a world where a 10 is average strength and most melee adventurers seem to start closer to 18 and get higher from there..

Triskavanski

2013-12-23, 01:27 AM

Mostly from pathfinder

Weapon Finesse is one of my top feats that shouldn't be. Like Braavos swords men.. "You're not swinging a hatchet.. but a needle." Its like using STR to draw or paint but if you take this feat then you can paint like a freaking normal person.

Secondly, is everything after two weapon fighting. You know, like Improved, Greater. Some of the other branches are kinda okay.. But I really hate having to spend 6 feats to be able to swing two weapons around about the same ability as a -normal- person while by this time Wizards are turning enemies inside out, exploding them and using the shards of there bones to kill crowds of enemies just by snapping their fingers without even spending one damn feat.

Likewise, Combat Maneuver feats. Combat Expertise, Improved, Greater.. To do something relatively limited. Improved makes it so you don't provoke, and greater makes it actually useful. Again though Spell casters can slice the arms off with a thought, trip crowds of enemies, throw armies off cliffs with a wave a hand. IF I was to improve this, I'd have Improved at least give you a new version every few levels. Like rename it to Improved Tactical Combat Manuvers. Every three or so BAB you have, you get another Tactical Combat Manuver or some such. Same thing with Greater, but like 6 bab.

Zanos

2013-12-23, 01:27 AM

Triskavanski

2013-12-23, 01:29 AM

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-23, 01:34 AM

Supposedly, you had to use sunder as a fighter if you battled hyrdas. If you don't.. Well. too bad. You just keep chopping heads off instead.

ok I'm curious. what would you sunder? individual claws? teeth? its will to keep fighting (I SUNDER WITH THE POWER OF THERAPY!!)?

but yeah I'm adding combat maneuver feats to my personal list of feats to be default in my games.

Triskavanski

2013-12-23, 01:36 AM

The Body of course.

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-23, 01:38 AM

The Body of course.

wouldn't that be more "sever" than "sunder"? every time I read a description of sunder as a combat maneuver it's the act of destroying a weapon.

Triskavanski

2013-12-23, 01:52 AM

Actually no I was wrong. It was the head.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/hydra

It basically is there to stop the Fast healing. But honestly.. I've never seen a hyrda live long enough for fast healing to even matter.

Scow2

2013-12-23, 02:07 AM

pathfinder, prerequisite there being power attack, logic being "ok you can now hit REALLY REALLY HARD. that gives you enough to slice through, now spend another feat to be able to use that logically" heck power attack on its own really doesn't strike me as feat-worthy since it's essentially just swinging with all your strength.

and I wasn't saying you will hit more than one enemy with every attack you do, I'm saying that if you have multiple enemies and sufficient strength behind the attack you COULD hit more than one. especially in a world where a 10 is average strength and most melee adventurers seem to start closer to 18 and get higher from there..That's not what it means at all. Big Strength is big strength. Feats are specialized training.

Power Attacking isn't just swinging your weapon at your enemy - it requires a specific stance, posture, and body mechanics that offset a lack of strength (Allowing a STR 13 guy to hit harder than a STR 18 guy) or amplify natural power beyond what mere strength can do. Again - it's a stance, weapon grip, and specialized swing type.

Cleave is further training on top of/similar to Power Attack, allowing you to maintain your momentum after digging your blade into and through an enemy, instead of just overkilling the body. It requires mid-swing grip recalibration, moment-of-impact adjustments, angle control to ensure it ends up somewhere useful, footwork to supply a constantly-adjusting stable platform to control and maintain the blade's course and amplify leverage... it's NOT just "I swing my sword really hard".

What you're thinking of is the Warhulk's special herd-hitting attack. But that's not what a STR 14 humanoid is doing.

Frankly... what I don't understand about Cleave is why it doesn't function on a miss against Touch. Stance overcorrection would probably explain it, though.

MonochromeTiger

2013-12-23, 02:17 AM

That's not what it means at all. Big Strength is big strength. Feats are specialized training.

Power Attacking isn't just swinging your weapon at your enemy - it requires a specific stance, posture, and body mechanics that offset a lack of strength (Allowing a STR 13 guy to hit harder than a STR 18 guy) or amplify natural power beyond what mere strength can do. Again - it's a stance, weapon grip, and specialized swing type.

Cleave is further training on top of/similar to Power Attack, allowing you to maintain your momentum after digging your blade into and through an enemy, instead of just overkilling the body. It requires mid-swing grip recalibration, moment-of-impact adjustments, angle control to ensure it ends up somewhere useful, footwork to supply a constantly-adjusting stable platform to control and maintain the blade's course and amplify leverage... it's NOT just "I swing my sword really hard".

What you're thinking of is the Warhulk's special herd-hitting attack. But that's not what a STR 14 humanoid is doing.

Frankly... what I don't understand about Cleave is why it doesn't function on a miss against Touch. Stance overcorrection would probably explain it, though.

well that's the mechanics explained then, personally I prefer my group's more straightforward approach but I guess that's just my preference of flavor over mechanical detail. but honestly either version can explain the lack of function on a miss, fail to get everything and it throws off the attack since you're expecting a few solid hits on the end of your weapon.

Hytheter

2013-12-23, 02:57 AM

Improved Trip/Bullrush/Grapple/Sunder*

You shouldn't have to invest feats in something to have a baseline competence at it. Giving that stuff would at least give fighters more options besides "i full attack" or "i move and attack."

*although sundering is bad and you shouldn't ever do it

I find the pre-requisites particularly annoying, especially Combat Expertise and the Int requirement, since it doesn't really relate to any of the maneuvers. Combat Expertise is a defensive technique, why do I have to be able to do that to knock someones legs out from under them?

Pathfinder made it even worse by reducing the bonus granted and increasing the number of maneuvers. The fact that Drag, Reposition and Bull Rush all require separate feats to work (reposition even has different requirements) despite essentially being the same thing is ridiculous.

Isamu Dyson

2013-12-23, 03:04 AM

Combat Expertise is a defensive technique, why do I have to be able to do that to knock someones legs out from under them?

One explanation could be that you must first know how to expertly defend yourself before you can expertly circumvent the defenses of others.

Triskavanski

2013-12-23, 03:14 AM

well something that really sucks with feats..

In the playtest Swashbuckler can use his cha as Int for purposes of qualify for Combat Expertise. But.. it doesn't include feats that key off CE.

Likewise, Rogues have a talent that gives them improved Steal, but not CE. This means they cannot get Greater Steal without going back and getting the pre-reqs.

Basically there are things that let you bypass the pre-reqs, but don't continue onward to what makes them useful.

Angelalex242

2013-12-23, 03:33 AM

Ya know, if I were to Homebrew a Fighter class, I'd fix it such that they had every combat feat in the PHB, automatically, by level 20. And Weapon Focus, Spec, Improved Crit, and other 'one weapon' feats applied to all weapons they pick up. They've gotta have SOMETHING to make up for no class features. Oh, and 'Exotic Weapon Proficiency everything.'

Just to Browse

2013-12-23, 04:07 AM

This thread has been stickied in my heart.

Zrak

2013-12-23, 04:47 AM

also DO NOT call the range version of power attack Deadly aim bexause how does decreasing your chance to attack succesfuly make your aim deadly?

Aiming for the head? It's a smaller target, but much more deadly to hit.

That said, the feat still shouldn't be referred to as "Deadly Aim" because that implies precision-based damage, which it is not.

Neknoh

2013-12-23, 05:53 AM

On this, I'd rather see some weapons moved from Exotic to Simple, for instance, the Bastard Sword.

Here is a "Bastard Sword" as depicted in the PF core book:
http://www.albion-europe.com/swords/swords-by-productline/nextgeneration/handandahalf/model.aspx?model=104
and here is another one:
http://www.albion-europe.com/swords/swords-by-productline/nextgeneration/handandahalf/model.aspx?model=94

And here are two Longswords:
http://www.albion-europe.com/swords/swords-by-productline/nextgeneration/handandahalf/model.aspx?model=99

http://www.albion-europe.com/swords/swords-by-productline/maestro/model.aspx?model=25

The major difference? Pretty much none.
There are subtle differences in blade geometry that make the "bastard swords" somewhat better thrusters than the longswords, but for all intents and purposes, they are both western european, hand-and-a-half swords from the 15th century and fight the same way. The same techniques, the same style, somewhat different specialization but still a focus on "Halfsword to stab through armour, otherwise just cut people down."

And furthermore, the swords are, primarily, two handed weapons that can be used with one hand if you are strong enough, although their length facillitates twohanding them for "fencing" since it's hard to one hand and manouver in close.

Now, the above, about being hard to manouver in close, actually goes for point blank. It isn't easy per say to draw and fire off an arrow accurately when there are disturbances around, and if somebody is about to whack you over the head with a sword or big claw or tail or teeth, your run off the mill archer will not be able to draw and fire. What we see Legolas do in the Lotr movies are "Point Blank Shots." which are a lot more heroic and fictional than one might think, as such, the feat is actually justified.

Same goes with cleave, because it takes a lot of technique to gather the force of the blow to flow it into another, or to cut diagonally through two people/goblins at once, as such, I am fine, although a bit peeved, with Cleave being a feat.

PersonMan

2013-12-23, 07:03 AM

"Point Blank" is "within 30'", though, not actually point blank. Point blank shooting provokes attacks of opportunity. Shooting something thirty feet away, though?

Neknoh

2013-12-23, 07:12 AM

Thirty feet is about 10m is it not? Or more like 9.
This is standard range for indoor target archery and can most certainly be done in a combat situation, however, to get something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI

I'd still say you might want a feat.

But yes, the larger distance does ease up on it (although 10-15 feet off is really kinda very close.)

EDIT: This is pretty much how I imagine the Point Blank feat atm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xw4B_jcSSM

Slipperychicken

2013-12-23, 11:03 AM

I prefer "Ranged Power Attack" being referred to as "Overdraw".

Or "Power Shot". Nobody had a problem with it when Hank's Energy Bow called it that.

bekeleven

2013-12-23, 11:28 AM

Or "Power Shot". Nobody had a problem with it when Hank's Energy Bow called it that.

Can we use "Called Shot", just so it actually appears somewhere in the rules like everyone already assumes?

Slipperychicken

2013-12-23, 11:32 AM

Can we use "Called Shot", just so it actually appears somewhere in the rules like everyone already assumes?

That would require revamping the combat system to make called shots a thing (and probably body segment damage too).

bekeleven

2013-12-23, 11:40 AM

That would require revamping the combat system to make called shots a thing (and probably body segment damage too).

Not if we.... take power attack... put it on a bow... and call it "called shot".

Slipperychicken

2013-12-23, 11:53 AM

Not if we.... take power attack... put it on a bow... and call it "called shot".

So you're saying the fluff would be that the penalty represents targeting a weaker/smaller point of the opponent's body? Because that's what called shots are.

Trunamer

2013-12-23, 12:38 PM

Certainly not weapon finesse.
Is this sarcasm? I'm honestly not sure.

Heighten Spell Not like casters need the buff, but IMHO every caster should be able to do this without needing to waste a feat. You're already wasting a higher level slot to cast a low level spell, the DC should follow the slot spent.
Yes, thank you. Somebody else gets it!

To me, HS being a feat contributes to the game's feeling of gamey-ness as much as Weapon Finesse being a feat.

Isamu Dyson

2013-12-23, 02:00 PM

Trunamer

2013-12-23, 02:04 PM

Was it ever explained by any of Wizards of the Coast employees that worked on D&D 3.0 (and up) why most Feats do not grant increasingly higher bonuses/abilities as the character that chose them levels up?
Probably because they weren't thinking about how the math works out in play.

Slipperychicken

2013-12-23, 02:07 PM

Probably because they weren't thinking about how the math works out in play.

It's because they playtested lower levels much more than higher levels. It also explains why things like Armor Class doesn't scale, and why the classes are relatively balanced up to level 6, but balance falls apart afterwards.

Talderas

2013-12-23, 02:15 PM

Seerow

2013-12-23, 02:19 PM

It's because they playtested lower levels much more than higher levels. It also explains why things like Armor Class doesn't scale, and why the classes are relatively balanced up to level 6, but balance falls apart afterwards.

Honestly things like AC should scale automatically outside of feats. If that happened, then there is no need for feats that provide a bonus to scale.

If at level 20 you had 40-50 AC without investment, then a feat that gave you a +2 at level 1 is still just as useful at level 20.

Trying to use scaling feats to keep up the RNG is a dumb idea, and it's honestly better that WotC didn't try to go with it. (Of course using magic items that take up huge chunks of your wealth to keep up instead aren't a better idea)

On the other hand, things like damage resistance, fast healing, bonus damage, extra attacks, etc, should definitely scale with level. Because they don't interact with the RNG, and those sorts of numbers really do need to get bigger as you level to stay relevant.

ngilop

2013-12-23, 02:20 PM

Was it ever explained by any of the Wizards of the Coast employees that worked on D&D 3.0 (and up) why most Feats do not grant increasingly higher bonuses/abilities as the character that chose them levels up?

Yeah something about 'system mastery' and they new that the smarter players would play clerics, wizards and druids and use the spells to completely render the other classes pointless, while the dumb players would play the face check fighters and such, they totally planned it that way and.

nah that's the 'official' wording on that but here is my theory

they created 3rd ed and thought it was going to be played the ecaxt same way as 1st/2nd was (even though it was a completely different game) so the druid was just going to use his animal companion as a bag mule, only wildshape to scout up ahead as a mouse/sparrow, they got rid of any spells hindrances and then destroyed the fighter and made what used to be general rules into feats and said 'yeah that's all the fighter gets'

they completely ignored the fact that HP total exploded and while that +2 to damage was pretty good back when a monster had 100 HP at lvl 20
(though weapon specialization also gave you an extra attack) that same +2 damage is pointless now that CR 20 monster have 300+ HP.

basically 3rd ed creator had no idea wtf they were doing except " lets make the rules say theres a spell for that' so up until the end of 3rd ed's life caster got everything but poor mundane got nothing

SassyQuatch

2013-12-23, 03:37 PM

Was it ever explained by any of the Wizards of the Coast employees that worked on D&D 3.0 (and up) why most Feats do not grant increasingly higher bonuses/abilities as the character that chose them levels up?

Have you seen how many feats the fighter gets? Clearly, scaling bonuses would make the fighter OP.

^ And that's probably a lot of what they were thinking.

Angelalex242

2013-12-23, 03:47 PM

SassyQuatch

2013-12-23, 04:38 PM

OP as compared to shapechange, wish, miracle, and so on?

I think not. You can scale every feat in the PHB to be +x per HD, and they still won't hold a candle to a caster. They'll just be mildly less useless.

Well, you should have told them that. They wouldn't have listened, being too busy creating auto-scaling spells that can do more than any feat, but at least you could have tried.

j_spencer93

2013-12-23, 04:42 PM

I allow alot of this to be taught to a player in my campaign because of their stupidity as feats. Most are simple things that should just combat options like you have said.

georgie_leech

2013-12-23, 04:47 PM

Looking at how many basic combat maneuvers require feats, I can't figure out whether it shows a pro-or anti-muscle bias. On the one hand, it makes it so that purely mundane characters have difficulty contributing late game, as feats are almost always worse than spells. On the other, making them into feats says that you need to be something special, that not everyone can learn combat prowess and it takes a great deal of dedicated study to attain basic competence.

j_spencer93

2013-12-23, 04:55 PM

a good way to avoid the feats you think shouldnt be feats is by using the unearthed arcana variant of player's being able to learn simple feats (actually think PHB2 talks about this too). While your wizards are studying more spells you melee combatants are at a dojo or other training facility (depends on campaign) honing their own abilities.
Shortens the gap between caster and melee but not by much