PF critical feats, why are they so underwhelming?

[ngilop]

To me a least.

To me critical feats (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/critical-feats) are lacking for a multitude of reasons

1) first you have to succedd on a hit critical hit to get the feat to work.

2) their effects are really limited, 'now you take 2d6 bleed damage' blagh weaksauce IMO

3) they come online waaay too late to be much relevant to the situation, BAB +13 to make things move at half speed.. really?

4) related to 1, whatever you hit has to be Effected by critical hits....


really, for me, just chopping off 6 to 8 BaB for the feats seem like a pretty decent fix.

what do you think of the critical feats from PF, and what if any ideas do you have to 'fix' them?

[elonin]

The critical feats were lackluster in 3.5 also. I know that doesn't answer the question.

[JusticeZero]

If you cut the prerequisites back substantially, access to them is a nice capstone for an E6 fighter..

[Rubik]

Nearly all the mundane feats in Pathfinder are crap. Really not surprising that these are, too.

[(Un)Inspired]

Paizo explicitly stated, in a nightmare I had, that they wanted fighters and their ilk to be ineffective in pathfinder:


we liked the direction Wizards took mundanes in for 3rd edition by making them boring and we wanted to uphold that tradition by publishing a bunch of feats for them that only a masochist would take.

[ngilop]

Paizo explicitly stated, in a nightmare I had, that they wanted fighters and their ilk to be ineffective in pathfinder:

glad see you not a PF fanboy who thinks that PF is 100% balanced


I actually saw one of those in a PbP here on GiTP saying somehow that PF did a perfect job completle balancing the game and when you bring homebrew into it like my PF marshal conversion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?346471-Marshal-re-tool-for-PF&p=17420874) is breaks the game


I just stared at the screen and thought 'how...?"

[deuxhero]

Blighted Critical line isn't terrible for a Magus, but it isn't even one of them post errata.

[inertia709]

Blighted Critical line isn't terrible for a Magus, but it isn't even one of them post errata.

Can you give me a link to this errata? I can't find it.

If you're basing this on feat's absence from the d20pfsrd.com feat tables, it seems that they simply forgot to add it and never addressed the problem (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/d20pfsrdcom-collaborators/gX0PRJWejV4).

[deuxhero]

The one at the bottom of the linked page (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9o88). It technically still is one of them (you can't use it alongside one of the others) but it lacks the requirement.

This means the magi can grab the line starting at level 5, not 15 (!)

[inertia709]

The one at the bottom of the linked page (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9o88). It technically still is one of them (you can't use it alongside one of the others) but it lacks the requirement.

This means the magi can grab the line starting at level 5, not 15 (!)

Ah okay, I thought you meant that they removed the feat from the game, especially when I couldn't find it in the combat feat table on d20pfsrd.com.

My interpretation of "critical feat" was a feat that has "critical" in its name, although the link in the OP indicates that that isn't the official interpretation. It's good to hear that they actually improved a half-decent feat (i.e. made the magus actually capable of taking it at a reasonable level) instead of nerfing/removing it. It'd be nice if a spellbreaker fighter could take the feats though...

[deuxhero]

That sub-line only work when you critical with a spell though, so it would be useless for them. Only works for Magus because he's all about making spells critical

[elonin]

I haven't heard anyone say that PF is 100% balanced. There are many people who say that it is better than 3.5. Feats don't really lead to the unbalance between melee and casters, though feats widen the gulf by making casting more effective.

[Psyren]

You can get most of these for free just by using the crit deck or Called Shots. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/called-shots) For the latter, they're also easier to get since you're just beating {higher AC} rather than having to actually roll X on your die.

Not every option published for the game is meant for your table specifically.

[icefractal]

Pathfinder feats, in general, could be described as "a few gems among a sea of chaff". I'd say that the majority of them are actually quite underwhelming - only the fact that there are a huge number makes enough decent ones available.

AFAICT, the design methodology is:
1) Think of a concept.
2) Apply some mechanics that could represent that concept. Don't select them with an eye toward what mechanics would be useful or balanced, just pick the first viable thing that comes to mind.
3) To prevent it being broken, make it kind of weak.
4) Occasionally, fail to notice that something is actually really good instead of weak. Or is literally useless.
5) Ship it.

[Rubik]

Pathfinder feats, in general, could be described as "a few gems among a sea of chaff". I'd say that the majority of them are actually quite underwhelming - only the fact that there are a huge number makes enough decent ones available.

AFAICT, the design methodology is:
1) Think of a concept.
2) Apply some mechanics that could represent that concept. Don't select them with an eye toward what mechanics would be useful or balanced, just pick the first viable thing that comes to mind.
3) To prevent it being broken, make it kind of weak.
4) Occasionally, fail to notice that something is actually really good instead of weak. Or is literally useless.
5) Ship it.3a) Completely ignore #3 for magical feats, instead balancing them with the magical feats from 3.0/3.5.

[icefractal]

I think it's more that #4 is a lot stronger for magic feats, as a result of seriously underestimating how useful certain things relating to magic are. But there's certainly no shortage of crappy magic feats. Metamagic may have solid stuff like Persistent Spell, but it also has loads of mediocre elemental ones, for example.

[The Random NPC]

I haven't heard anyone say that PF is 100% balanced. There are many people who say that it is better than 3.5. Feats don't really lead to the unbalance between melee and casters, though feats widen the gulf by making casting more effective.

I had a friend that literally made the argument that all of the unbalanced stuff comes from 3.5, and that the GM can fix it so it isn't really unbalanced.

[137beth]

I don't think the critical feats are underwhelming...
...after I implemented house rules which make crit-fishing much easier, lowered the BAB requirements, combined the weaker feats, and replaced immunity to criticals with critical resistance (an effective scaling AC bonus that only applies against determining if an attack is a critical) for a lot of creature types.
As written, they are underwhelming because the folks at Paizo always make martial feats weak.


Pathfinder feats, in general, could be described as "a few gems among a sea of chaff". I'd say that the majority of them are actually quite underwhelming - only the fact that there are a huge number makes enough decent ones available.

AFAICT, the design methodology is:
1) Think of a concept.
2) Apply some mechanics that could represent that concept. Don't select them with an eye toward what mechanics would be useful or balanced, just pick the first viable thing that comes to mind.
3) To prevent it being broken, make it kind of weak.
4) Occasionally, fail to notice that something is actually really good instead of weak. Or is literally useless.
5) Ship it.
You forgot
6: if anyone points out any flaws in steps 1-5, say that that person is an optimizing munchkin whiner, and tell them that they can fix it so it isn't broken.

I had a friend that literally made the argument that all of the unbalanced stuff comes from 3.5, and that the GM can fix it so it isn't really unbalanced.
James Jacobs has made that argument when people criticize aspects of adventure paths/modules. Of course, the target audience of modules are GMs who are either new to the game or lack the time to write campaigns themselves, so telling them to do something that they already paid money for someone else to do because they couldn't do it themselves doesn't seem particularly helpful...

[elonin]

It depends on how you think of Pathfinder. If you view it as an errata of 3.5 then the problems came from 3.5. There are some problems that came from pathfinder itself even though it is considered to be the better balanced system.

[Rubik]

It depends on how you think of Pathfinder. If you view it as an errata of 3.5 then the problems came from 3.5. There are some problems that came from pathfinder itself even though it is considered to be the better balanced system.Hence the echoing, rallying cry, "Nerf the monks!"

[elonin]

Monks couldn't be worse than the 3.5 edition. I had in mind the CMD system. Due to this grappling and other nonstandard maneuvers are impractical for pc's in pathfinder.

[(Un)Inspired]

Monks couldn't be worse than the 3.5 edition. I had in mind the CMD system. Due to this grappling and other nonstandard maneuvers are impractical for pc's in pathfinder.

Dont forget that all the Improved maneuver feats are all worse by a significant margin in pathfinder than in 3.5. Smaller static pluses and less impressive extra goodies. Improved trip got hit the hardest.

Don't get me wrong, I think pathfinder is wonderful. They're keeping the world interested in the spirit of 3.5 and I like what they did with the skill system. It's just that I don't like their design philosophy about dead levels and it lacks many of the character options I love from 3.5

They can be combined quite beautifully at times however.

[elonin]

Are dead levels more prevalent in pathfinder? Also, one of the things that are unequal between casters and melee classes is that full casters don't really face dead levels. At least not as far as spell progression.

[Psyren]

Are dead levels more prevalent in pathfinder? Also, one of the things that are unequal between casters and melee classes is that full casters don't really face dead levels. At least not as far as spell progression.

There are almost no dead levels in Pathfinder. In general, the mundane classes (as well as many of the spellcasters) have been given some class-related list of feat-like benefits to choose from as they gain levels, typically in between the levels where they get feats. For example, Rogues get Rogue Talents, Barbarians get Rage Powers, Magi get Magus Arcana, Sorcerers get Bloodline powers etc.

A side effect of this has been that every major splat book (e.g. APG, UM) has made classes released before it more powerful by introducing more of these each time. There are a lot of weaker options to wade through certainly (just as with the feats themselves), but finding gold amidst the dross can actually be fun in its own right.

[Iwasforger03]

Thanks to Archetypes, even poor maligned fighter has gotten a couple of awesome options to play with, though as noted, in terms of feats to power, it's still far behind.

[Spuddles]

but finding gold amidst the dross can actually be fun in its own right.

I think that´s PF´s secret business model. As much as CharOP loves to whine about bad design, it sure does love tomes and esoteric rules.

[ngilop]

I think that in the general big picture of things the fighter was hit so hard to almost be beat to death.

Every non d10+ HD clases got bumped up some, strike 1 against the poor fighter, and barbarian as well

everyclass but the fighter got cool new little doo dads to work with, strike 2 against the fighter ( barbarian got rage powahs!)

paizo was like ' fighter need big number', while not even trying to touch on what the real problem was, strike 3 againts the fighter

any half decent martial feat from 3.5 got split into 2 or 3 and made really crappy( see improved trip, power attack, etc), strike 4 against the fighter

the fact that 75% of the fighter archetype are weak sauce and was not either a) given to the fighter to start off with or b) made into feats makes no sense to me, strike 5 against the fighter

PF is actually the only D&D 3rd/d20 based game where i see absolutely no use for there even being a fighter. in 3.5 the fighter has his little niche, and in games like iron heroes and such he shines very well, but in PF whyw ould anybody NOT take barbarian, oh they wanna be laywful? blargh not like most people really play the alignments that is wrote upon their character sheet.

what Paizo did to the fighter is inexuscable, they had years nay DECADES to see what 3rd ed did with the fighter and ways to fix it, i mean hells, they could have at least stole the ritual warrior combat rites and gave it to the fighter (think weak ToB maneuvers thatc ould be used once per day). How could you actually KNOW what all was wrong with the fighter and still completely ignore that?

at least WoTC had an ecxuse
'hey we just invented 3rd ed, so like yeah we had no idea that we totally overvalued heavy armor bonus feats and a full BAB' even if they gave fighters the middle finger in subsequent books.

I feel that paizo are just as big if not bigger fans of 'yaay casters/mundane cannot have nice things' than WoTC are, ive heard that they made archery better, but ive yet to experience it.

[(Un)Inspired]

Are dead levels more prevalent in pathfinder? Also, one of the things that are unequal between casters and melee classes is that full casters don't really face dead levels. At least not as far as spell progression.

They're much less prevalent. The problem is that many of them are filled with semi-useless minutia. The kind of stuff that requires more bookeeping without being useful to the character in an attempt to create the illusion that each new level in each class is a bold and beautiful step forward.

[Talya]

I think that in the general big picture of things the fighter was hit so hard to almost be beat to death.

Every non d10+ HD clases got bumped up some, strike 1 against the poor fighter, and barbarian as well

everyclass but the fighter got cool new little doo dads to work with, strike 2 against the fighter ( barbarian got rage powahs!)


That's not entirely fair.

Armor Training (and to a lesser extent, Weapon Training) is awesome.

It's not as much as some others, but fighter did get some great things.

Fighter suffered most in PF because of a dearth of great feats. 3.5 has some great feat options; things like Robillar's Gambit, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, and many others...when bonus feats are your main class feature, that's important. My favorite Pathfinder feat is Cornugon Smash. It's not spectacular, but it's good. It gives you a new option rather than a static bonus...and that option is a free rider on Power Attack, which you're going to use anyway. Lastly, it discourages dumping charisma, and anything that does that is good.

To the OP: Critical Feats suck because "melee can't have nice things."

[137beth]

Monks couldn't be worse than the 3.5 edition. I had in mind the CMD system. Due to this grappling and other nonstandard maneuvers are impractical for pc's in pathfinder.

Pathfinder monks are much worse that 3.5 monks under the latest errata.
Ya know, the errata where they changed the name of the monk class to 'unarmed swordsage'. That's still better than the pathfinder monk:smalltongue: