Upping the Feat Game

[Segev]

It's been commented many times how feats have a number of problems, not the least of which are often being underwhelming for the number of prerequisites and lack of synergy. Complaints about "dead" feats or "feat taxes" to get to good ones also arise. I thought I'd try to tackle some of these problems by rethinking feat power level and design, and also by using feats to try to cover some gaps in common archetypes of play which could span multiple class types (exactly the kind of thing feats should do, since they're a universal resource).

Probably unsurprisingly, there is a fair bit of attention given to Fighters in this, but it is not exclusively about them and is not expected to "fix" the Fighter. Nevertheless, because the design goals include covering gaps in capability, suggestions for areas and archetypes and issues which certain classes or concepts may face which remain unaddressed are as welcome as balance considerations. Perhaps most germane to this board's interests is that last bit: what other gaps in capability are currently present in non-T1 classes which might be addressable with the right feats? Not, "how do you make any class able to do everything," but, "how do you make any class able, with the right build, to solve enough problems not to be useless next to any other class?"


Edit: Helps if I actually include the feats (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWI2n1Xg1okUhHNABnXN0yShhgRmRYp4vaUq2SI1Hp4/edit?usp=sharing) on which I would like comment. Feel free to comment there, if you like; it's a google doc. My apologies to those without access to google docs. I might drop another post with some of the feats, particularly any that come under serious discussion, here, later. But it's 16 pages, so I feel a bit bad c/ping into the boards directly.

[lytokk]

One feat (or set of feats) I think should exist is the ability to deflect or even reflect spells. Arguably, this would have to be a mid-high level feat chain/set. Giving this to fighters or monks could enable some balancing in classes. But I've never been able to figure out appropriate pre-reqs for this, beyond the feats coming online at about levels 9 and 12 or 15, respectively. This doesn't do anything against all of the higher level spells, but it does do something.

I've never really dealt with a high level high power tier 1, so I'm not 100% sure of all the capabilities other than "everything"

[Jeff the Green]

Let's look at the Lists of Necessary Magic Items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items), specifically, the ones that usually are better handled by spells:

Flight
Mind blank
Fear immunity
True seeing
Miss chances
Immunity to death effects
Freedom of movement
Dispel magic and counters
Special senses

Of those most could quite plausibly be made available through feats. Some already are.

Also, you can make a Google Doc viewable as HTML by publishing it—I think it's just under File.

[heavyfuel]

Let's look at the Lists of Necessary Magic Items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items), specifically, the ones that usually are better handled by spells:

Flight
Mind blank
Fear immunity
True seeing
Miss chances
Immunity to death effects
Freedom of movement
Dispel magic and counters
Special senses

Of those most could quite plausibly be made available through feats. Some already are.

Also, you can make a Google Doc viewable as HTML by publishing it—I think it's just under File.

All of these would make pretty good Exalted Feats. Might even make VoP a good feat

[Segev]

Also, you can make a Google Doc viewable as HTML by publishing it—I think it's just under File.

Ah! So you can! (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWI2n1Xg1okUhHNABnXN0yShhgRmRYp4vaUq2SI1Hp4/pub) Thanks!

[Segev]

Let's look at the Lists of Necessary Magic Items (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?187851-3-5-Lists-of-Necessary-Magic-Items), specifically, the ones that usually are better handled by spells:A good idea. I have hit some of them in the document, but this gives me some ideas on what more to work on. Listed below are some of how I think I've addressed the underlined ones:


Flight
The various feats that improve mounts can enable a flying mount to be a viable answer
Flash Step, Ranged Counterattack, Void Wind Strike, and Zone of Control can increase your ability to get to fliers, as well, at least if you just want to attack them.
Mind blank
Not directly addressed, but the various save feats can help here. I'll give this (and the fear immunity one) more thought.
Fear immunity
True seeing
Miss chances
Improved Blind Fighting addresses this directly by reducing that chance based on your weapon's enhancement bonus and your levels in Fighter.
Immunity to death effects
Freedom of movement
Dispel magic and counters
Save feats, again. Also Crush Magic, designed initially with stopping a wizard with Freedom of Movement from no-selling a dedicated grapple-monster.
Special senses
Blind Master is the best candidate here, but Scopaethesia (the sense that you're being watched) is an interesting one, in my opinion.

Of those most could quite plausibly be made available through feats. Some already are.In all, thanks for the list. It gives me some stuff on which to expand.

[Segev]

One feat (or set of feats) I think should exist is the ability to deflect or even reflect spells. Arguably, this would have to be a mid-high level feat chain/set. Giving this to fighters or monks could enable some balancing in classes. But I've never been able to figure out appropriate pre-reqs for this, beyond the feats coming online at about levels 9 and 12 or 15, respectively. This doesn't do anything against all of the higher level spells, but it does do something.

I've never really dealt with a high level high power tier 1, so I'm not 100% sure of all the capabilities other than "everything"
Deflecting is little different, mechanically, from improving saves or adding SR, but reflecting is an interesting thought.

Of course, "deflecting" could be mechanically flavored by allowing an attack roll instead of a save... I'll think on this.

[Gwendol]

One feat (or set of feats) I think should exist is the ability to deflect or even reflect spells. Arguably, this would have to be a mid-high level feat chain/set. Giving this to fighters or monks could enable some balancing in classes. But I've never been able to figure out appropriate pre-reqs for this, beyond the feats coming online at about levels 9 and 12 or 15, respectively. This doesn't do anything against all of the higher level spells, but it does do something.

I've never really dealt with a high level high power tier 1, so I'm not 100% sure of all the capabilities other than "everything"

Spellcraft, much like it is for the Mage Slayer line (this feat could be part of it).

[lytokk]

Spellcraft, much like it is for the Mage Slayer line (this feat could be part of it).

My goal with the feat would have been to make it so that a creature with no spellcasting potential can take the feats. Though I can't think of a single skill on the fighter or monks skill list that is going to work. Maybe concentration, but that's a stretch.

In addition to the reflecting, a method of rechanelling and touch spell into your next attack. Useable 1+con modifier times per day, takes 1 point of damage per caster level of the spell.

I guess my thoughts about balancing the classes has less to do with bringing the power level of the T5's up instead giving them direct counters to spells most likely to ruin their day.

[Red Fel]

Of course, "deflecting" could be mechanically flavored by allowing an attack roll instead of a save... I'll think on this.

That's actually how Wall of Blades (Iron Heart counter) handles it. The language of the maneuver allows you to use an attack roll in place of your AC to deflect a ranged attack... Which includes rays. (Which creates the awesome image of parrying lasers with your sword.) So you can use that as a reference/precedent.

[Segev]

I guess my thoughts about balancing the classes has less to do with bringing the power level of the T5's up instead giving them direct counters to spells most likely to ruin their day.That certainly helps; there's plenty in fiction about the mage-types who seem unstoppable just running into the non-mage who can tank through it, throw it back at them, cut it apart, or otherwise no-sell their magic. And that makes them a threat, and lets them play on that scale even if they can't do a number of things that mages CAN.


That's actually how Wall of Blades (Iron Heart counter) handles it. The language of the maneuver allows you to use an attack roll in place of your AC to deflect a ranged attack... Which includes rays. (Which creates the awesome image of parrying lasers with your sword.) So you can use that as a reference/precedent.Hm, interesting.

One of the challenges of building these kinds of things is to avoid making a feat that is just "X spell, but at will" or "Y maneuver, but without being expended." That latter in particular, because it makes "So why take Martial Study?" a question.

[lytokk]

Like I said in my post, give it a limited number per day based on stats, or a detrimental effect. For the touch spell counter, you're basically channeling it back through your body to send it back to the guy that hit you with it. Its going to hurt since you aren't adept at magic at all. HP is the fighters only resource after all.

*edit* epic level version of the feat, full attacking with it, as opposed to a single attack roll, though you take twice the damage.

[Red Fel]

One of the challenges of building these kinds of things is to avoid making a feat that is just "X spell, but at will" or "Y maneuver, but without being expended." That latter in particular, because it makes "So why take Martial Study?" a question.

Well, limitations are an option. For example, you could make two different versions: Block Spell and Parry Spell, one requiring that you be holding a shield and the other requiring that you be wielding a weapon (or using IUS). You could have it not work against touch spells, or against area spells. You could limit its uses per turn.

Consider the fact that Wall of Blades works against any ranged attack, not just spells, and with any weapon wielded; this would only function against a particular type of spell, or with a particular implement. Also, note that Martial Study does more than just give the PC access to a 1/encounter maneuver; it also grants a permanent class skill. A "Deflect Spells" feat would not provide the class skill, just the 1/round protective function.

[Segev]

Just added this one to the Magic Manipulation section in response to the thoughts on redirecting spells with hp as a cost:


Touch Spell Conduit [Combat]
Touch spells can pass through you to targets of your choice.
Prerequisite: Great Fortitude or Base Fortitude Save +3, LIghtning Reflexes or Base Reflex Save +3, and Iron Will or Base Will Save +3
Beneft: When you are affected by a touch spell, you may take a number of hit points of damage equal to the level of the spell to delay its effects until the end of your next turn. If you do, you may channel the touch spell through any successful melee attack you make before the end of your next turn, dealing damage as normal as well as making the target of your attack the target of the touch spell, as if the caster had touched them instead of you. If you do not channel the spell in this fashion before the end of your next turn, it affects you normally at that time. If you have Point Blank Shot, you can channel it through a ranged attack which benefits from that feat.

[lytokk]

Just added this one to the Magic Manipulation section in response to the thoughts on redirecting spells with hp as a cost:


Touch Spell Conduit [Combat]
Touch spells can pass through you to targets of your choice.
Prerequisite: Great Fortitude or Base Fortitude Save +3, LIghtning Reflexes or Base Reflex Save +3, and Iron Will or Base Will Save +3
Beneft: When you are affected by a touch spell, you may take a number of hit points of damage equal to the level of the spell to delay its effects until the end of your next turn. If you do, you may channel the touch spell through any successful melee attack you make before the end of your next turn, dealing damage as normal as well as making the target of your attack the target of the touch spell, as if the caster had touched them instead of you. If you do not channel the spell in this fashion before the end of your next turn, it affects you normally at that time. If you have Point Blank Shot, you can channel it through a ranged attack which benefits from that feat.

The bit about being affected by a touch spell, does that mean you have to fail your save? Or is the simple fact of having it cast on you affect you?

So it'll still deal the damage to you, but also to the person you hit on the attack? That seems a little bleaker that I had planned, based on the fact that a fighter may not qualify for it until level 9. Monk on the other hand level 3. Nice for monks, reward all those save progressions.

[Segev]

The bit about being affected by a touch spell, does that mean you have to fail your save? Or is the simple fact of having it cast on you affect you?

So it'll still deal the damage to you, but also to the person you hit on the attack? That seems a little bleaker that I had planned, based on the fact that a fighter may not qualify for it until level 9. Monk on the other hand level 3. Nice for monks, reward all those save progressions.

The intent is that, if you pass it on, all you took was the (spell level) hp of damage.

I think this is achieved in the wording by first delaying the effect until the end of your next turn, and then specifying that if you don't pass it on by the end of your next turn, you are affected.

[Stella]

I guess my thoughts about balancing the classes has less to do with bringing the power level of the T5's up instead giving them direct counters to spells most likely to ruin their day.

This might work, but it would have to consider the fact that T1 casters have a lot of spells per day (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0935.html). Any anti-magic Feat which is meaningful will need to have a similar non-limitation on uses per day.

The problem I see with most attempts to fix/balance the classes in D&D 3.5 is that most people seem to take the approach of adding things to the lower Tier classes, while what is really needed is to severely curtail the power of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes. And reducing the power of the T1/2 classes seems to be some kind of religious issue which not many people are willing to even consider entertaining. Which means that they will always fail to obtain class balance, even if they manage to tweak the T4 and T5 classes up to somewhere around T3 or 4. There is simply too great a power gap between Tier 1 and Tier 3, and it only grows by leaps and bounds as the comparison becomes T1 vs. T4 or T1 vs. T5.

[Jigawatts]

I'll be honest, I really love the way 5E did feats. Far less numerous, but pretty much every one of them is worthwhile and useful (though I dont like that it is feat or ability score increase, I would rather each one have its own progression). If Pathfinder ever does a 2E, I hope they adopt this design philosophy.

[ILM]

Wild idea: 3 or 4- long feat chain that culminates into granting AC as SR. Thoughts?

[Segev]

Wild idea: 3 or 4- long feat chain that culminates into granting AC as SR. Thoughts?

The "Armor Feats" section of the document I linked includes the following two feats:

Improved Armor Proficiency [Combat]
You wear your armor so well that it turns aside part of even the truest of blows.
Prerequisite: Proficient with any sort of armor.
Benefit: When wearing light armor with which you are proficient, you gain DR 1/piercing or slashing. When wearing medium armor with which you are proficient, you gain DR 1/bludgeoning. When wearing heavy armor with which you are proficient, you gain DR 1/adamantine, or, if you already have DR pierced by adamantine, you increase that DR by 1.

Greater Armor Proficiency [Combat]
Your skill with your armor is such that it shelters you from more than weapon damage.
Prerequisite: Improved Armor Proficiency
Benefit: When wearing armor with which you are proficient, you may add its armor bonus (but not its enhancement bonus to armor) to your damage reduction, spell resistance, and energy resistance. This adds to each of these qualities, but will not grant them on its own. If you have Endurance, this feat adds your natural armor bonus to AC to the listed effects, as well.

(For example, a werebear fighter in +1 full plate would have DR 18/silver and 9/adamantine, as the armor bonus of +8 adds to both his lycanthrope DR of 10/silver and his Improved Armor Proficiency-granted heavy-armor-based DR of 1/adamantine. Without some other source of SR or energy resistance, this feat will not add anything to those values. However, if he were to be granted Fire Resistance 5 from some other source, this feat would increase that by 8, thanks to his plate mail, to a total of fire resistance 13. Note that the +1 enhancement bonus from the full plate does not add to any of these values. If the werebear had the Endurance feat, he could also add his natural armor bonus to these values.)

[Segev]

The problem I see with most attempts to fix/balance the classes in D&D 3.5 is that most people seem to take the approach of adding things to the lower Tier classes, while what is really needed is to severely curtail the power of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes. And reducing the power of the T1/2 classes seems to be some kind of religious issue which not many people are willing to even consider entertaining.The reason for this is twofold:

1) The game is modular enough that you can always add new rules to it. Whether it's new feats, new spells, new magic items, new classes, or even whole new subsystems, you can write more and not require digging into the guts of the game with which everybody's familiar. To remove things would require actively changing existing rules, which is always met with resistance because it creates conflicts that mean what people are operating from using old material is actively wrong.

If you build a Core-only wizard, and I build a Warblade, I in no way invalidate any rules you know. Any new rules are added to what's already there, and I just have to show you what they are and how they interact. It doesn't really change your build. If the DM introduces umpteen new features in the form of feats, maneuvers, and skill tricks to "fix class balance," nothing you, the core-only Wizard, have built needs to change. You might have new options, just like everyone else, but you don't have to go in and say, "Well, now what I built my character to do no longer works, because my mechanics no longer do what they say they do in the rules I started with."

This is why things like the Polymorph "fix" didn't work; while adding the new spells was fine, saying "this line of old spells should be banned" means new players suddenly can't start with just the core rule and expand from there. They need the core rules and the list of nerfs and changes to them, and their characters built on the assumptions in the core rules are not merely possibly weaker than they could be, they're flat-out WRONG.

2) People - and players of this game are people - don't like having things taken away from them. It is always easier to give something to one person than it is to take it from another. You will find more acceptance when you offer new options to people than when you tell them, "buy this book and your options are reduced! The game's better, we swear, even though the character you wanted to play is no longer allowed!" Even "use this free supplement/fan-made work and your options are reduced!" tends to get a sour response. It's not that it's a religious thing, but that it's human nature. Nobody likes being told, "You're doing too well, so we're taking away your stuff." On the other hand, most people are just fine with being told, "We notice that you seem to be lacking in sufficient options. Here are some more and better tools to do what you set out to do."


Which means that they will always fail to obtain class balance, even if they manage to tweak the T4 and T5 classes up to somewhere around T3 or 4. There is simply too great a power gap between Tier 1 and Tier 3, and it only grows by leaps and bounds as the comparison becomes T1 vs. T4 or T1 vs. T5.
This doesn't follow. What if the goal is to "tweak" the lower-tier classes up into the T2/T1 range? I won't say that's my goal, here; mine is more to provide the lower-tier classes with answers to the problems that usually require a T1 (or specialized T2) to handle. "Balance" is less important than "ability to play on the same team without seeming like a tag-along or burden."

Regardless of whether a non-caster can do "everything" in a way that makes him T1 or T2, he should always be able to contribute something that answers the question, "Why are you on this team?" This is especially challenging when you recall that T1s can conjure and summon up minions to do the original, simple jobs of the more combative types, and can often bypass skill checks entirely. Why do they need a party of other heroes when they have magical servants to do those jobs for them?

The other thing that I strive to do is to provide answers to the "arena battle" problems, not because I think combat between characters determines which class is better, but because the nature of T1 vs. T3- power levels is such that, if any class needs to be able to shut the other one down completely in a "fair fight" (defined as being able to use all of your abilities, but not able to break the rules of the game), it needs to be the T3. A sort of rock-paper-scissors thing: you go to Conan to take out the evil wizard, even though the wizard "can do anything," so Conan had darned well better be able to (eventually) march up to the wizard and put an end to his evil.

So my goal here is less to make "balance" in the sense that all classes are equal, and more to provide answers to the questions of, "what do you bring to the table that couldn't be done better by subsets of the powers of another class?" and, "how do you hold your own against enemy threats that have the powers of the 'better' classes than yours?"

In part, I answer the first one by giving abilities to be better than minions when it comes to having buff spells cast on you or using magical weapons; the feats in question make you a better investment of those resources than some bound Outsider. The other half is simply providing answers to the weaknesses that are usually covered by spells. Flight can be approximated with powerful and fast enough jumps, or by riding a flying mount. A flying mount, however, is often quite frail at high level, so I added some feats to bulk it out and let you use your own (doubtless impressive) Ride skill to make them more durable. I also threw in some things to make dual-wielding a little better.

I answer the second, at least partially, by giving ways for non-casters to use their mundane abilities to be tougher for magic to take out, and ways for them to directly answer the "I win" tricks of casters. The Anti-Mage Combat Feats section has a feat for dispelling buffs through grappling, for dealing damage to casters who are operating remotely, and even for following creatures which flee using magical means that normally cannot be followed.

[Chronos]

Quoth Segev:

One of the challenges of building these kinds of things is to avoid making a feat that is just "X spell, but at will" or "Y maneuver, but without being expended." That latter in particular, because it makes "So why take Martial Study?" a question.
I wouldn't worry about that any more than I would worry about Improved Toughness leading to "So why take Toughness?". Martial Study just isn't a very good feat. In almost any situation where a fighter would benefit from taking Martial Study, he'd benefit significantly more from ditching one of his fighter levels and replacing it with a level of a ToB class: You get a half-dozen maneuvers and a stance instead of just one, plus a recovery method, plus a smattering of other class features. And because of the fighter feat progression, you could actually get away with ditching two fighter levels, to get all that plus one other level of something else, with whatever that gives you.

Yes, Martial Study is a better feat than many other fighter feats. But that doesn't mean that it's good; it just means that all those other feats are bad, too.

[Curmudgeon]

All of these would make pretty good Exalted Feats. Might even make VoP a good feat
Exalted is definitely the wrong approach because that's explicitly restricted by alignment, while none of these characteristics is tied to any alignment.

[Segev]

I wouldn't worry about that any more than I would worry about Improved Toughness leading to "So why take Toughness?". Martial Study just isn't a very good feat.I don't entirely agree. Improved Toughness, yes, is a replacement for the abysmal Toughness, but I think Martial Study has its place.


In almost any situation where a fighter would benefit from taking Martial Study, he'd benefit significantly more from ditching one of his fighter levels and replacing it with a level of a ToB class: You get a half-dozen maneuvers and a stance instead of just one, plus a recovery method, plus a smattering of other class features.This is the crux of my disagreement with you: yes, a fighter could dip a Martial Adept level instead of taking Martial Study with his fighter bonus feat, but Rangers, Paladins, even Barbarians and other classes might not want to dip out. Martial Study is honestly a better general-feat-slot feat than fighter bonus feat. Snag one martial maneuver without sacrificing your progression in your chosen class.


And because of the fighter feat progression, you could actually get away with ditching two fighter levels, to get all that plus one other level of something else, with whatever that gives you.I don't follow. Ditching two Fighter levels delays your next bonus feat by an additional level over ditching just one. Or is this on a theoretical already-level-20 build, where it doesn't matter whether you get a feat at level 13 or level 14 because you already have it? Or am I missing something?


Yes, Martial Study is a better feat than many other fighter feats. But that doesn't mean that it's good; it just means that all those other feats are bad, too.It's actually pretty good; the problem is that it's better for spellcasters and their allies (thanks to Heroics) and for Chameleons (yay floating feat!) than it is for Fighters. It being a Fighter-allowed feat is cute, but that only makes it open for Heroics; you're right, a Fighter who wants the maneuver will get a lot more out of a dip into another class for it. That doesn't make it a bad feat, just not one that helps Fighters much.

I think this is more along the lines of what a Fighter would need:

Martial Disciple [Combat]
You are a disciple of one of the 9 Martial Disciplines.
Prerequisite: Base Attack Bonus +1, Martial Lore 1 Rank
Benefit: Select one of the 9 Martial Disciplines. Your initiator level for Maneuvers of that Discipline is equal to your character level. You gain proficiency in the style weapons associated with that Discipline.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times. Each time, you choose a new Discipline.

Discipline In All Things [Combat]
Your training as a fighter combines with your martial discipline to teach you new maneuvers.
Prerequisite: Martial Disciple
Benefit: Choose a Discipline for which you have Martial Disciple. You gain one Maneuver from that Discipline for every combat feat you have. Every time you take a combat feat granted by class or level, you gain one Maneuver for which you meet the prerequisites from a Discipline for which you have Martial Disciple. If you ever lose a combat feat for any reason, you also lose a Maneuver.
Special: Each time you gain a level of Fighter which grants a bonus feat, you may exchange one Maneuver that you know for another from the same Discipline, as long as you meet the new one's prerequisites. If the Maneuver being replaced was granted by gaining a combat feat, this new Maneuver is still associated with the same feat for purposes of determining whether it is lost should that feat be lost.

While it's fairly easy for anybody who wants it to get into these, it will benefit the Fighter (and maybe the Psychic Warrior) most of all because of the sheer number of Combat feats he gets. It's still not a full martial initiator progression, but it's a free maneuver every time he gets a combat feat, which is at least every other level. Could be more, if he spends normal feats on combat feats.

[Stella]

This doesn't follow. What if the goal is to "tweak" the lower-tier classes up into the T2/T1 range? I won't say that's my goal, here; mine is more to provide the lower-tier classes with answers to the problems that usually require a T1 (or specialized T2) to handle. "Balance" is less important than "ability to play on the same team without seeming like a tag-along or burden."
It does follow, unless you "tweak" the Fighter and other low tier classes to the point where they stop resembling their fantasy archetypes and start resembling the T1/2 classes you're trying to make them viable in play with. Another problem is that D&D Wizards don't even resemble the fantasy archetype they were derived from. Vancian Wizards could hold maybe 4 spells in memory at a time*, which a D&D 3.5 specialist Wizard can do at 1st level (not even counting cantrips!), and the distance from their fantasy fiction origin only gets greater from there.


Regardless of whether a non-caster can do "everything" in a way that makes him T1 or T2, he should always be able to contribute something that answers the question, "Why are you on this team?" This is especially challenging when you recall that T1s can conjure and summon up minions to do the original, simple jobs of the more combative types, and can often bypass skill checks entirely. Why do they need a party of other heroes when they have magical servants to do those jobs for them?
You seem to have answered your own question. As it stands, the answer to the question "Why are you on this team?" is "Because I'm the game representative of a human being whom the other human beings may not want to tell that they chose a class which simply can not contribute meaningfully."

"Tweak" the Fighter up to T3 and that question and answer doesn't really change, it simply becomes slightly more difficult to point out.

You make a valid point about it being human nature for people to not want to have things taken away from them, but that has nothing to do with good game design. The simple fact of the matter is that the T1/2 classes have the capability to break the game. The T3+ classes do not. And so from a design perspective this is the correct place to focus the changes needed to balance the classes.


The Anti-Mage Combat Feats section has a feat for dispelling buffs through grappling, for dealing damage to casters who are operating remotely, and even for following creatures which flee using magical means that normally cannot be followed.And if you take this argument into any discussion of the differences in power between a Wizard (or any other T1/2 class) and a Fighter, you'll quickly see that the Wizard (or whatever) kills the Fighter while reclining upon cushions in her own personal demi-plane. Or whatever. The Fighter never gets to close to melee range in order to use that Feat or any other, simply because the T1 classes break the game to the point where the poor Fighter never had a chance, even if she expressly designed her build to supposedly be effective against casters.



* Yes, I know that the perhaps 4 spells a Vancian Wizard could hold in memory at a time were all terrifically potent. Time Stop and similar effects, as opposed to the 1st level spell list. But that's still a 4 spell limitation, while a D&D 3.5 Wizards who can cast Time Stop has an enormous array of spells/day at her disposal.

[Curbstomp]

If not already mentioned Complete Warrior has a 5 level prestige class that is easy to gain access to that does exactly what you are looking for in the original posts. It has a picture of a half-orc redirecting a spell with his sword. I can't recall the name of the class offhand.

[Chronos]

Quoth Segev:

This is the crux of my disagreement with you: yes, a fighter could dip a Martial Adept level instead of taking Martial Study with his fighter bonus feat, but Rangers, Paladins, even Barbarians and other classes might not want to dip out. Martial Study is honestly a better general-feat-slot feat than fighter bonus feat. Snag one martial maneuver without sacrificing your progression in your chosen class.
True, my argument was specific to the fighter, and it's not necessarily a no-brainer for another class to dip instead of taking the feat. But then, feats are also more valuable for rangers, paladins, and barbarians than for fighters, and so must meet a higher threshold before being worthwhile. A fighter will be interested in a feat if it's one of the 19 best feats for what he's looking to do. A barbarian will only be interested in it if it's one of the 8 best feats for what he does. Plus, consider that most paladin, ranger, or barbarian builds will want to dip fighter anyway, at which point the comparison becomes directly relevant again. Now, there's still a niche for Martial Study, so it's not a terrible never-take-this feat like Toughness (which I used as an extreme example for comparison), but I stand by what I said that it's not a very good feat.


I don't follow. Ditching two Fighter levels delays your next bonus feat by an additional level over ditching just one. Or is this on a theoretical already-level-20 build, where it doesn't matter whether you get a feat at level 13 or level 14 because you already have it? Or am I missing something?
Let's say that a fighter has decided that they want to learn a maneuver when they get to 8th level, Feat1 when they get to 9th level (using their normal character feat), and Feat2 when they get to 10th level. He could do this by taking Martial Study as his level 8 bonus feat, and then take Feat1 with his character feat, and Feat2 with his level 10 fighter bonus feat. Or, he could dip Warblade 1 at character level 8 and get his maneuver, dip (say) Barbarian 1 at character level 9 and get Feat1, and then go back to Fighter and get Feat2 with his level 8 fighter bonus feat. He's getting his maneuver, Feat1, and Feat2 (and all subsequent feats) at exactly the same times he would via the Martial Study route, plus he's gaining the rest of the benefits of Warblade 1 (mostly, a bunch more maneuvers), plus he's also gaining the benefits of Barbarian 1. Or, alternately, he could not just not delay subsequent feats, but get them all even sooner.

[Segev]

It does follow, unless you "tweak" the Fighter and other low tier classes to the point where they stop resembling their fantasy archetypes and start resembling the T1/2 classes you're trying to make them viable in play with.I've seen it done in fiction, but as it's not really my goal, I don't feel like trying to design for that. I actually agree that it's very delicate to even attempt, and easily steps away from being the archetype desired, which is why it isn't my goal.



You seem to have answered your own question. As it stands, the answer to the question "Why are you on this team?" is "Because I'm the game representative of a human being whom the other human beings may not want to tell that they chose a class which simply can not contribute meaningfully."Now you're begging the question. Of course the OOC reason is because player's characters are automatically party members in nearly every game. The question is an IC one, and deserves an IC answer that makes sense IC.

All that is required to answer it with something other than "you really shouldn't be on the team" is for the character to have something meaningful he contributes better than any other PC can contribute it. This is my goal.

I have, in part, chosen "be a better chassis on which to apply the god-wizard buffs than the wizard himself or his Conjuration-bound pets." It allows the classic archetypal role of being "primary damage dealer and tank" for the fighter-types to be served best by PC fighter-types, making having a fighter-type buddy around - and even buffing him - worthwhile compared to conjuring a fiend or angel and buffing it.


You make a valid point about it being human nature for people to not want to have things taken away from them, but that has nothing to do with good game design.If we were discussing writing a new system from the ground up (or even creating a new edition that could start over without all the core mechanics and myriad options of prior editions), you would have a point. When developing things for existing lines, however, human nature regarding their acceptance of things is an important part of the design process. It doesn't matter how perfect your new rules supplement is if players reject it as "unfun." Regardless of whether you believe it will objectively be more fun, "fun" is in the eye of the beholder. (Warning: this idiom is not literal; Segev Stormlord is not responsible for the consequences of seeking out beholders in search of "fun.") If players on the whole perceive your changes to be less fun than playing without them, your design is poor.


And if you take this argument into any discussion of the differences in power between a Wizard (or any other T1/2 class) and a Fighter, you'll quickly see that the Wizard (or whatever) kills the Fighter while reclining upon cushions in her own personal demi-plane. Or whatever. The Fighter never gets to close to melee range in order to use that Feat or any other, simply because the T1 classes break the game to the point where the poor Fighter never had a chance, even if she expressly designed her build to supposedly be effective against casters.In a vacuum, yes. I contend that it is possible to build up a suite of abilities that counter the wizard's ability to do this, if you really want to. I will reiterate that most games do not have PvP as their primary goal, and so utility of a character is better measured against monsters. This doesn't change that NPC enemies are real and can be full-on PC-level optimized, so the concern is still valid, however.

If you look at the google document I've linked in the OP, there are feats designed to help the non-caster who wants to punish the "remote wizard" archetype.




If not already mentioned Complete Warrior has a 5 level prestige class that is easy to gain access to that does exactly what you are looking for in the original posts. It has a picture of a half-orc redirecting a spell with his sword. I can't recall the name of the class offhand.I'm not sure if I'm the "you" specifically addressed here, but I'll respond as if I am since I am the OP. Apologies if this is an inaccurate assumption.

It was another poster who requested a "deflect magic" ability. However, while I am aware of the PrC, I have generally found the PrC to be underwhelming. Class levels are too valuable to devote 5 of them to this one limited trick, especially when, as Stella noted, the real problems for the mage-hunting types tend not to be the spells that target them, personally, as much as the ability to even get into the same ballpark as the mage to TRY to participate as more than a victim.

So, while feats meant to help against magic are important, so, too, are feats designed to strike at mages who are acting remotely, and to follow mages who have attempted to escape.


Let's say that a fighter has decided that they want to learn a maneuver when they get to 8th level, Feat1 when they get to 9th level (using their normal character feat), and Feat2 when they get to 10th level. He could do this by taking Martial Study as his level 8 bonus feat, and then take Feat1 with his character feat, and Feat2 with his level 10 fighter bonus feat. Or, he could dip Warblade 1 at character level 8 and get his maneuver, dip (say) Barbarian 1 at character level 9 and get Feat1, and then go back to Fighter and get Feat2 with his level 8 fighter bonus feat. He's getting his maneuver, Feat1, and Feat2 (and all subsequent feats) at exactly the same times he would via the Martial Study route, plus he's gaining the rest of the benefits of Warblade 1 (mostly, a bunch more maneuvers), plus he's also gaining the benefits of Barbarian 1. Or, alternately, he could not just not delay subsequent feats, but get them all even sooner.Ahh, I see how you meant it. I was mentally picturing levels being taken in a different order. To write an example would take too long to be of interest, so I will simply thank you for the clarification. I see what you mean, now.

[Psyren]

I don't think feat taxes are inherently bad design. There is something compelling about Magikarp Power (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagikarpPower), i.e. putting in your time with a suboptimal choice/strategy in order to unlock a more powerful/rewarding one down the line. And usually, the taxes themselves aren't even useless, just situational; Point Blank Shot is often reviled as being the gateway to nearly all the other archery feats, but it still at least does something.

[Segev]

I don't think feat taxes are inherently bad design. There is something compelling about Magikarp Power (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagikarpPower), i.e. putting in your time with a suboptimal choice/strategy in order to unlock a more powerful/rewarding one down the line. And usually, the taxes themselves aren't even useless, just situational; Point Blank Shot is often reviled as being the gateway to nearly all the other archery feats, but it still at least does something.

Yes and no. On the one hand, I do appreciate the same motif. In fact, in 2e and earlier editions, wizards often adhered to it pretty strongly. They started very weak and took forever to level up, but eventually were what they are by the endgame in 3e.

On the other, however, feat slots are generally in pretty short supply, and the feats that ARE meant for the Fighter (and thus have more room to have "filler") tend not to be good enough to warrant it.

A big part of the design paradigm I think will help is in making interdependency. Feats that do more the more feats you have. That's why, rather than having the +2-to-a-save feats be prerequisites, the feats in the linked document often have additional effects depending on which (if any) of them you have. Borrowing a page out of several "heritage" feat trees, too, allows Combat feats to reward you for simply having more Combat feats. This allows scaling based on dedication, and once again, the Fighter is (at least tied for) the best at this, since he has all those bonus combat feats to spend.

[Stella]

Now you're begging the question. Of course the OOC reason is because player's characters are automatically party members in nearly every game. The question is an IC one, and deserves an IC answer that makes sense IC.
This is not begging the question, that phrase does not even apply here, you may want to look it up. It is the answer to the question which you asked. There is no reason from either an IC or OOC point of view that a well designed game should punish someone just because they selected the "wrong" class at the start of the game. You cannot tell me that it is simply impossible to design a game where a martial character is the equal of a magic using character. There is no reason at all that a well designed game should make character classes of such a wildly divergent capability that the player community should recognize this by developing a class tier system which consistently places the spell casting classes at the top of the tier system and consistently places the non-spell casting classes at the bottom of the tier system.


All that is required to answer it with something other than "you really shouldn't be on the team" is for the character to have something meaningful he contributes better than any other PC can contribute it. This is my goal.

I have, in part, chosen "be a better chassis on which to apply the god-wizard buffs than the wizard himself or his Conjuration-bound pets." It allows the classic archetypal role of being "primary damage dealer and tank" for the fighter-types to be served best by PC fighter-types, making having a fighter-type buddy around - and even buffing him - worthwhile compared to conjuring a fiend or angel and buffing it.
You are conceding the point. Your solution is to make a character class which is better at receiving the largesse handed down by the Wizard to his underlings than the typical underling. You've still created and accepted an underling class, just one who is slightly more useful to his Wizard overlords. This is not a solution. The solution must be a character class who is not dependent upon the T1 classes in order to be effective. One which is just as viable in a party without a T1 class member as it is in a party with a T1 class member.


If we were discussing writing a new system from the ground up (or even creating a new edition that could start over without all the core mechanics and myriad options of prior editions), you would have a point.
I have a point, you just don't want to admit it because you are clinging to a design theory that T1/2 casters need to be nigh-omnipotent in order to pander to the player base. That's not good game design, although it might be good product placement. But I thought we were talking about good game design...

Once the need for systemic change in order to balance the classes is admitted, which I believe you have done, all that remains is to wash away the unnecessary reluctance towards some forms of change as opposed to others. I'll say it again: The T1/2 classes as they stand can break the game itself. T3/4/5/6 classes cannot. Thus it is a simple matter of intelligent game design to agree that trimming the capabilities of those classes which can break the game is a smart decision, and that adding capabilities to the lower tier classes is also necessary to bring them in line with the common baseline which would make the game viable for every class.

It does not require "writing a new system from the ground up" to curtail the potency of the T1/2 classes, just as it does not require "writing a new system from the ground up" in order to bring the T4/5/6 classes up to a T3 level. Change is change, and only if you illogically insist that one form of change is impossible while others are possible will you fail to be able to accomplish the goal of balancing the classes.

[Segev]

This is not begging the question, that phrase does not even apply here, you may want to look it up.Actually, I used it exactly correctly. You're presuming your conclusion that the reason is OOC only and cannot be answered IC. Since I am discussing means of answering it IC rather than having to answer it OOC, by declaring the OOC answer, you are presuming the IC question invalid based on the fact that you won't answer it.


There is no reason from either an IC or OOC point of view that a well designed game should punish someone just because they selected the "wrong" class at the start of the game.I agree.


You cannot tell me that it is simply impossible to design a game where a martial character is the equal of a magic using character.I never said that. I said that you would have to design a whole different game to make them "equal" in the way you're seeking, which is to reduce the power of the T1 classes. That is not the goal of this thread, because this thread is about 3.5e/PF mechanics and adding things to them to answer the question you refuse to by insisting on begging the question as to whether there can be an IC answer. You presume there isn't, then use that presumption to prove it right based on...your declaration that it's so. Hence, "begging the question."


There is no reason at all that a well designed game should make character classes of such a wildly divergent capability that the player community should recognize this by developing a class tier system which consistently places the spell casting classes at the top of the tier system and consistently places the non-spell casting classes at the bottom of the tier system.There are plenty of reasons; "well-designed" is a very nebulous phrase and can mean different things to different people. 4e was "well-designed" by the standards you outline here, but I found it utterly unfun because it stripped out all the uniqueness between the various classes, rendering them all in the same (martial adept) subsystem.



You are conceding the point.Which point am I conceding? I think I agree with several of your statements above, so there's no concession to be made as I was never arguing against them.


Your solution is to make a character class which is better at receiving the largesse handed down by the Wizard to his underlings than the typical underling.I am also making a character class which is better able to serve his warrior master because his master can use his minion's magics better than that minion could, himself.


You've still created and accepted an underling class, just one who is slightly more useful to his Wizard overlords.Or I've created a class better able to utilize the powers of his wizard minions, a fighter overlord more suited to rule the puny casters.


This is not a solution. The solution must be a character class who is not dependent upon the T1 classes in order to be effective. One which is just as viable in a party without a T1 class member as it is in a party with a T1 class member.D&D is a game of cooperative PCs working together. Synergy between classes should allow them all to be greater than the sum of their parts. If you look at the document with the feats in it, a lot of this "self-sufficiency" is there; there is ALSO effort to make sure that, even when it comes to the "god wizard" who buffs everybody else, the PCs are the better choices to be buffed. This isn't dependency on the wizard's largesse; one could argue the wizard is dependent on the warrior, since anything he would summon on which to hang his buffs will not be as strong, and he can't defend himself against the fighter except by hiding and fearing to even go looking for the fighter by remote proxy and scrying sensor.



I have a point, you just don't want to admit it because you are clinging to a design theory that T1/2 casters need to be nigh-omnipotent in order to pander to the player base. That's not good game design, although it might be good product placement. But I thought we were talking about good game design...I'm sorry you feel that way. PErhaps 3.5e/PF threads aren't for you, if you don't want to discuss designing for that edition of the game? That you resort to insulting language such as accusing me of not wanting to "admit" something and the sneering way you claim I'm "clinging" to a theory you despise and am "pandering..." well, I think you've managed to insult just about everybody who plays 3.5 and likes it for not agreeing that your fun is the only right fun.

I have stated my design goals and purpose. I have agreed that your design goals would require a new system without the baggage of 3.5e's expectations. I can only conclude you want me to concede that 3.5 must be thrown out entirely; I disagree. I think a lot can be done still with it, even to the point of making all the classes have their place in a party such that no other class can replace them with subsets of their class features. Not as well as the classes can do their own roles, anyway. It does require more than just amping up the roles; each class needs to be a threat to the others, too, so that when they ARE stuck alone against enemy NPCs, they are not entirely helpless. But that doesn't require the absolute versatility of T1s or even T2s. It just requires tools to combat the most untouchable tricks of those tiers.


Once the need for systemic change in order to balance the classes is admitted, which I believe you have done, all that remains is to wash away the unnecessary reluctance towards some forms of change as opposed to others.I have agreed - and never denied, so I'm not sure what "admission" is required - that one way to balance things would be to start over and rebuild the system from the ground up. 4e tried it and failed; 5e is trying it again, and it remains to be seen if it will succeed or not. (I haven't seen what spellcasters can do in that system compared to non- yet, so don't know).


I'll say it again: The T1/2 classes as they stand can break the game itself. T3/4/5/6 classes cannot. Thus it is a simple matter of intelligent game design to agree that trimming the capabilities of those classes which can break the game is a smart decision, and that adding capabilities to the lower tier classes is also necessary to bring them in line with the common baseline which would make the game viable for every class."Only those who agree with me are intelligent, so I can dismiss any arguments I don't like as unintelligent."


It does not require "writing a new system from the ground up" to curtail the potency of the T1/2 classes, just as it does not require "writing a new system from the ground up" in order to bring the T4/5/6 classes up to a T3 level. Change is change, and only if you illogically insist that one form of change is impossible while others are possible will you fail to be able to accomplish the goal of balancing the classes.It requires writing a new system from the ground up to curtail the power of existing classes because it requires throwing out the expectations of the edition as it exists. Of course you can try to "trim" with a hacksaw, but it won't take, because players have to play with your rules for your rules to accomplish anything.

New editions and new systems can get away with it because they literally throw out everything and start over. That's what it takes for wide-spread acceptance of the kind of nerfs you want to hand out. That's fine, but as long as you insist on it, you won't get anywhere in "fixing" 3.5e/PF. Your changes won't achieve anything resembling acceptance. Even WotC found out they couldn't make such changes and have them be accepted. Polymorph et al are still in widespread use.

There's nothing wrong with starting over to build from scratch. You're welcome, too, to try to nerf casters all you like in 3.5/PF. That is not my goal here. I will refrain from name-calling, which limits my responses designed to be in the tone of yours. Instead, I will point out that your view is valid but not inherently singularly right. It is, in a way, hide-bound to the orthodoxy that nothing mundane can ever play with mages, to the point that it doesn't matter what is done. Mages are, to you, the winners, and you will frame it (as you have demonstrated) as the wizards ruling all no matter what is going on. I have demonstrated how, with the fighter-types having their own niche and use for wizards, it could be the wizards who are the underlings.

Further, the feats in the linked document answer almost all of the "must-haves" that usually require a T1 ally to allow you to play. I'm working on the rest.

So, please, if you want to discuss this, feel free, but stop insisting that only your paradigm and methods are valid without at least spelling out specifics that you feel need to be addressed and which are not. "Nerf T1/2" is not my starting point, and demonstrating your claim that it is the ONLY way that will work will require more than calling me and everybody who likes 3.5 names for not agreeing with you that it is so.

I have responded to your "wizard overlord" and "slightly better minion" claim. You have not, so far as I can see, made any other substantive ones. If you have, I apologize for missing them and invite you to reiterate them. There is a list of things earlier in this thread which are essential to be self-sufficient; I have addressed most of them to some extent. I invite people to pick apart my efforts to do so. I also invite thoughts on what holes remain, whether from that list or elsewhere. It may turn out that my goals are not possible, but that has not been proven yet. I have provided specifics; specific counterexamples and problems would be appreciated rather than blanket claims of "you can't do it." I have taken pains to specifically look for and address the issues that usually render non-casters impotent and ensure T1s and T2s can always overpower lesser tiers. I'd appreciate feedback on the efforts to do so; holes in them I have failed to see or address, places I've gone too far or not far enough, and even things I have missed completely which need their own solutions.

As designed at the moment, the fighter-type isn't going to create his own demiplane and rule from there by proxy, but he is quite capable of hunting down the wizard to his private demiplane and beating the tar out of him unless the wizard never, ever so much as dares to look for him. (I will work on ways to come for him even then, next, I think.) This is one element of the design paradigm, aside from the "be a better chassis" design and the "make other things you use strong enough to stand with you" one (which mostly is focused on mounts at the moment).

[lytokk]

In regards to upping the usefulness of feats, What about a feat that gives monks the ability to plane shift. I apologize if there is a feat for this already, my knowledge of 3.5 isn't as encyclopedic as others. I can think of a monk doing this via a meditative trance. They're pretty much the only class I can think of that this would work for. 5 minutes of meditation with his group in a circle around him all maintaining focus allows the group to move between the planes. Its not useful in combat, but it does give an option to hunting down the plane hopping wizard.

Maybe ninja, since they have a lot of the same feel, and also have a class ability that lets them go ethereal.

My feelings toward this exercise is that its in response to a post I read in the last week that warblade didn't need to replace the fighter. Instead, it WoTC had put out more useful fighter feats, the fighter wouldn't need to be replaced and instead could coexist with the warblade as a unique class all its own. I think it was in the TOB thread thats still active. I'm interested in this whole thing because I'd like to see mundanes get nice things, without taking away the nice things that make wizards so fun to play.

[Segev]

In regards to upping the usefulness of feats, What about a feat that gives monks the ability to plane shift. I apologize if there is a feat for this already, my knowledge of 3.5 isn't as encyclopedic as others. I can think of a monk doing this via a meditative trance. They're pretty much the only class I can think of that this would work for. 5 minutes of meditation with his group in a circle around him all maintaining focus allows the group to move between the planes. Its not useful in combat, but it does give an option to hunting down the plane hopping wizard.

Maybe ninja, since they have a lot of the same feel, and also have a class ability that lets them go ethereal.A little tricky to design without stepping on existing Monk class ability toes, since they get Empty Body at level 19 (which lets them go ethereal a number of not-necessarily-consecutive rounds per day equal to their monk level), but an interesting proposition.

What follows is not meant to be picking apart the proposal, but rather my own "thinking out loud" combined with an effort to share something of how I'm thinking about this, philosophically. Ideally, it'll help people get into my headspace so at least I'm understandable, even if they don't agree with me.

One question we should ask when designing such a feat is, "what problem are we trying to solve?" Another is, "What is the purpose of this feat?"

I don't have a good answer to the first off the top of my head; the second seems to me to be a combination of just thinking monks being meditative sounds interesting/spirit world travel being in-theme, and "let somebody other than casters access the planes."

While the second is not without merit, I should point out that merely being able to go to other planes under your own power is not crucial to being an effective party member. It doesn't enhance your niche nor establish a new one. A wizard or cleric's Plane Shift will still do it better, as proposed. And, in keeping with this being a cooperative game, in theory the party only needs one person who can do it. This may be an area where the caster's superiority is warranted enough to not try to replicate nor replace it.

The feat that is in the document already which permits some planar travel has to "piggyback" on another creature's effect. While Stella might point to that and say it makes the non-caster dependent, I would counter that its purpose isn't, specifically, planar travel. It can be used for it, but the technique is more there to prevent the casters from using their somewhat-exclusive capabilities to escape without any way for the non-caster to have a chance of pursuing them. The problem it was trying to solve was, "Casters can be untouchable because even if the non-caster STARTS in the same place, he can't get to the caster to do anything." The niche it is meant to create or enhance is "martial killer-of-mages." It's there to make the warrior-types (and, to a lesser extend, the thief-types) a threat to mages who might think themselves untouchable due to their transport spells. (I could, for instance, see a rogue using this not to hunt down the mage, but to sneak into his secured tower in his private demiplane by following him home and sneaking around.)

Insofar as planar travel is essential to the party's success, there are portals all over, and an entire major part of the Planescape setting is Sigil, the City of Doors, which is a nexus point of millions of them. Perhaps a feat to help locate portals and identify where they lead, and hunt down portals that go specific places? This is a "non-magical" approach. Admittedly, it is a heftier investment than a single spell and requires more work and more DM allowance to even find a portal to the right plane. Admittedly, Plane Shift is also a random location on the target plane. But teleportation magic fixes that for the caster, while the non-caster using a portal just showed up in a possibly well-known location and is not able to just bypass defenses and the like the way the caster's Plane Shift did. So I think this alone is worth LESS than a single feat.

I'd almost say the monk, if he got a feat or other power for this, should just get Astral Projection more or less at will. That would seem the way the "visit the spirit world" stuff tends to go. This could get silly powerful, though, given that Astral Projection is typically considered one of the game-breakers anyway. And, at level 17+, a feat to get it is STILL more of an investment than 1 9th level spell known and slot spent to cast it.


My feelings toward this exercise is that its in response to a post I read in the last week that warblade didn't need to replace the fighter. Instead, it WoTC had put out more useful fighter feats, the fighter wouldn't need to be replaced and instead could coexist with the warblade as a unique class all its own. I think it was in the TOB thread thats still active. I'm interested in this whole thing because I'd like to see mundanes get nice things, without taking away the nice things that make wizards so fun to play.
That was, indeed, the inspiration behind me starting work on the document I've linked in the OP. I wanted to see if the claim was right, that you could build beefy and interesting enough feats in sufficient number to close the gaps. Not "make fighter T1," but just to make fighter worth taking for more than a level or two, and to make the "can't adventure on his own at all past a certain point" business become handle-able. This involves expanding and exploiting existing niches, enabling niches that are not actually well-supported (the monk's "anti-mage" niche, for instance), and creating methods to overcome the "mundanes can't even participate because they can't do X" issues.

[lytokk]

What follows is not meant to be picking apart the proposal, but rather my own "thinking out loud" combined with an effort to share something of how I'm thinking about this, philosophically. Ideally, it'll help people get into my headspace so at least I'm understandable, even if they don't agree with me.



I work in the world of collective problemsolving, so we just call this spitballing. Throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks.

It was a thought of mine, since planar travel seems to be very important at the higher level of power and play. Giving a mundane class the ability seemed like a good idea, and I wanted to throw it out there since I may have a different view of classes and abilities than other people being I come from a relatively low power view. (i.e. before coming to the boards I thought all the classes were pretty well balanced, and that fighter was a powerful class, and I haven't been here long enough to get out of that habit, though I do recognize the power discrepancy)

[Segev]

Most of what makes planar travel important in a game-as-it-typically-is-played is that there are enemies on the other planes, so sometimes you have to go there to finish your dungeon crawl. What makes it important in optimization exercises revolves around Astral Projection and Genesis. The first is used less to go to other planes in this case, and more because you project from the Astral onto a plane of your choosing and form a new, temporary body. This body is not yours, and bad effects done to it don't carry over to yours. If it dies, you wake up in your own body, and can cast Astral Projection again. You can Astral Project from the Prime to the same plane, if you like. It thus becomes a "you can't touch me" effect.

In part, I have made an answer to this with Strike the Puppetmaster, because anybody with that feat can make their attacks against this astral body carry over to the physical.

Genesis is important because the caster creates his own private demiplane. Typical optimization exercises have the caster write the laws of physics there to suit him, arm the demiplane and his fortress thereon to the teeth, and then Astral Project from there to the Prime so he can adventure in total safety. He's almost playing a VR videogame.

These are usually considered gamebreaking abilities more than essential ones, because they are part of what make the caster just plain untouchable.


That said, it still seems that a feat to replicate a spell that has no real duration limitation is a bit too much to invest. Especially since the monk has a harder time going quite as broken with it, what with lacking a private demiplane on which to hide his meditating physical form.

But, what if we combined this with protection from death effects? This is going to take some care to design such that it doesn't become "invincibility: the feat," but I'm thinking of calling it something like "Out of Body," and having it be an ability to do some limited astral projection, probably with a limitation that the projected form is incorporeal and cannot use spellcasting abilities or something. (I need to think on it more.)

If you die (possibly only due to death effects, or possibly period), you immediately lose a class level but gain a level in the ghost savage progression (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040117a). Because this gives no HD, if you have no HD when you die and lose a class level due to this, you don't come back; you're just dead.

While (un)dead, you can only advance that savage progression. If you are subjected to a Raise Dead or better effect, you do not suffer further level-loss because your soul is right there, available to hop into your body. Levels gained while a ghost apply their powers to your incorporeal Out Of Body experience, but are not in place otherwise. You may choose to advance ghost savage progression levels while alive, too. If you have all of the ghost savage progression levels, you no longer lose a level for dying.

Probably have Rejuvenation - the ghost power that lets them keep coming back - bring you back at your corpse; if not enough is left to cast Resurrection, you can't Rejuvenate.


This serves as "anti-death-effect" protection and astral projection (and thus plane travel) all in one. I'm not sure about it just yet, but it's an idea.

[lytokk]

Looking at that, it seems to be less like a feat and more like an alternative to death and rolling up a new character while you wait for the old one to be revived. Its interesting. The fighter dies, is on the ethereal plane, following the rest of the party, possibly unbeknownst to the party, taking on encounters soley on the ethereal plane. If this is a known effect of death, then its likely the party will find a method of communication so that the spirit of the fighter can scout.
Also, at this point its up to the DM to throw things at the party that can jump from the material to the ethereal and back so the fighter can contribute to encounters, which would always surprise that creature. Jump to the relative safety of the ethereal only to find the spirit of the fighter waiting there. Maybe more interesting in narrative than actual gameplay, but interesting.
I guess I just don't see it working as a feat. A nice interesting mechanic, but not a feat.

*edit* Also, thank you for the explanation about planar travel as it pertains to optimizing. I got to learn something today.

[Segev]

Also, thank you for the explanation about planar travel as it pertains to optimizing. I got to learn something today.

You're welcome; it's my pleasure.

Pertaining to the rest of your post, implemented as I'm imagining it, it's not "you're stuck on the ethereal, possibly unbeknownst to the party." It's, "Bob died. ...is that his ghost there, trying to stab the goblin that killed him with an incorporeal +1 sword?" "Yeah," says Bob, "you know how I do that out-of-body thing? Seems I'm doing it now. Anybody know how to get my body breathing again so I can get back inside it?"

As a feat, it opens up options for a whole different class progression through the savage progression rules. This is little different than how some PrCs take feats as prerequisites.

It also gives an out-of-body projection ability, whose specific rules will need careful consideration. You probably want this feat's anti-death-effect (well, death-effect-recovery?) ability sometime not too long after level 7, as that's when Death Ward becomes available. But astral projection is a 9th level spell. So... gotta be careful.

[lytokk]

Alright, so, I think I'm getting this, but I need to put this in my terms to make sure I've got it. You take the single feat that allows entry to this "prestige class", with the additional requirement, you have to die. so far so good?

You lose the last level you gained when dying, but immediately get a level in the savage ghost progression. Hopefully the level lost isn't the level you gained the feat at, otherwise there's other problems associated with no longer qualifying for the class since you don't have the feat.

Then you can keep progressing in this class even after you've been brought back to life.

Now I think I get it, and I kinda like it. Its definitely a mundane method of doing the whole astral projection from private demiplane thing, but is inherently more dangerous since you don't go to your own demiplane, but the ethereal plane, and can be permanently destroyed there.

[Segev]

Close. Bear with me and remember that I have yet to figure out how to balance this properly.

Conceptually, you take the feat, and gain the ability to astral project. Essentially, you can step out of your body while meditating, and your spirit can float around and see stuff. Not sure how much stuff it can do. It can probably also go visit other planes. Again, because Astral Projection is a 9th level spell, I'm not sure how much of its "form a new body at your destination" should be allowed.

Now, if you HAVE this feat, and you die, you can choose to lose a class (or RHD) level and immediately gain one level of the ghost savage progression. You're now a ghost. The reason for this is that your out-of-body experiences allow your spirit to pop out of your body without going to the afterlife when you die.

You can improve only as a ghost while you're (un)dead, but being Raised or Resurrected doesn't cost you a level, since you effectively already paid it and your spirit is right here and available.

When you're alive again, your projected out-of-body form is improved by your ghost template levels. But you still have the LA of those levels slowing down your normal level progression. On the up side, you can gain levels normally again rather than being restricted to ghost levels. (Maybe you can also gain ghost levels, too, just for having taken the feat; your out-of-body form benefits from them.)

[lytokk]

Right, I think I get it now.

In regards to gaining flight, another fighter type ability I've seen is the ability to make inhuman jumps. Kain Highwind from FFIV, Samurai Jack in one of the episodes, the incredible hulk, heck even Superman originally didn't fly, just jumped really well. This itself would allow someone to simulate flight, but really can only jump good. But this is in the end a little less mundane and a little more magical, so maybe doesn't fit with the exercise as intended. I can imagine it requiring an str above 22, 10 or so ranks in jump and tumble, and prb leap attack just because. It should also allow you to exceed maximum movement distance at the very least vertically, since the intent is to jump 100 feet in the air and hit the ground with no damage.

[Segev]

Jumping as written in D&D can get pretty darned high. There may be some things to examine in how to maximize that versus how much investment it takes, though. Right now, the feats I've written in the document linked in the OP that deal with travel are more about getting more or faster movement; I've assumed Jump is high enough to get you where you want to be.

The other solution to flying is mounts. This has a few issues, and I've tried to address each of them. I put a bunch of "make my mount more durable" feats in place, not the least of which is one which lets you add more HD to your mount just by being on him. The other major issue besides fragility is size. If you're playing a medium character, riding your large mount into a dungeon is prohibitive. There are a couple of feats for squeezing more effectively designed to help with that.

[Stella]

Actually, I used it [begging the question] exactly correctly.No, you did not. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) is a good description of what that phrase means.


I said that you would have to design a whole different game to make them "equal" in the way you're seeking, which is to reduce the power of the T1 classes.And I maintain that it doesn't require anything like a whole new system to reduce the power of the T1 classes.


There are plenty of reasons; "well-designed" is a very nebulous phrase and can mean different things to different people. 4e was "well-designed" by the standards you outline here, but I found it utterly unfun because it stripped out all the uniqueness between the various classes, rendering them all in the same (martial adept) subsystem.Game balance is a thing which is far more able to be objectively judged than "fun."


D&D is a game of cooperative PCs working together. Synergy between classes should allow them all to be greater than the sum of their parts. If you look at the document with the feats in it, a lot of this "self-sufficiency" is there; there is ALSO effort to make sure that, even when it comes to the "god wizard" who buffs everybody else, the PCs are the better choices to be buffed.I completely agree that synergy between classes should allow them all to be greater than the sum of their parts. The key word here being "should." As it stands, there is just about no use for a fighter in a party. He can be replaced by a T1 caster who will be a better choice of which PC to buff than the fighter, and who will contribute more to the party. In order for synergy to be efficient it needs to flow both ways. A T1 caster can make a fighter a better fighter by buffing them. But unfortunately they are still a fighter and can't do a for the T1 caster, so you've got a T1 caster and a buffed fighter. Two T1 casters can buff each other, which is synergy flowing both ways, and then you've got two buffed T1 casters.


This isn't dependency on the wizard's largesse; one could argue the wizard is dependent on the warrior, since anything he would summon on which to hang his buffs will not be as strong, and he can't defend himself against the fighter except by hiding and fearing to even go looking for the fighter by remote proxy and scrying sensor.
That sentence is a complete jumble of unrelated subjects, and none of it appears to be accurate. First, there are plenty of summons which are far better then a fighter. Second, hanging a buff on another T1 caster is a far better option than hanging them on a fighter. Third, starting out a sentence with the wizard and fighter being cooperative and then suddenly making it a PvP issue is a complete non sequitur. Fourth, no Wizard ever needs to hide from a fighter, they are straight up superior combatants from level 1 and up.


I have agreed that your design goals would require a new system without the baggage of 3.5e's expectations.You didn't agree with me, you specifically disagree with me. I said:

It does not require "writing a new system from the ground up" to curtail the potency of the T1/2 classes, just as it does not require "writing a new system from the ground up" in order to bring the T4/5/6 classes up to a T3 level.
The only "baggage of expectations" is your own curious position that players either want to be more powerful than the people they are playing a cooperative game with, or are content with having the people they are playing a cooperative game with be better than them at anything their own character can do. I haven't found this to be the case, but you may run with a different kind of crowd.


I can only conclude you want me to concede that 3.5 must be thrown out entirely; I disagree.Now this is irony. This is the exact definition of begging the question.

What I have said in fact directly contradicts the conclusion you have decided to beg.


I have agreed - and never denied, so I'm not sure what "admission" is required - that one way to balance things would be to start over and rebuild the system from the ground up.
And again, you have never agreed with me on this, you have only asserted it yourself. What I have said is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming to have agreed with.


It requires writing a new system from the ground up to curtail the power of existing classes because it requires throwing out the expectations of the edition as it exists.This is an assertion I disagree with, and I believe that it is also easily demonstrated to be a false requirement. There are plenty of people who have taken a stab at balancing the classes in the existing 3.5 game. A brief perusal of these forums demonstrates that quite clearly.


Of course you can try to "trim" with a hacksaw, but it won't take, because players have to play with your rules for your rules to accomplish anything.Yet another opinion which is demonstrably in error. Ask around, see how many people play in a strictly RAW game vs. those who play in one which uses house rules to "trim with a hacksaw."


There's nothing wrong with starting over to build from scratch. You're welcome, too, to try to nerf casters all you like in 3.5/PF.
Why are you conflating changing T1/2 casters to be T3 classes as "starting over to build from scratch?" There's plenty of 3.5 core still remaining, and the changes I've suggested aren't even all that difficult to make nor do they involve radical rules changes from the 3.5 core.


I have demonstrated how, with the fighter-types having their own niche and use for wizards, it could be the wizards who are the underlings.This is comical. You have demonstrated nothing of the sort.


So, please, if you want to discuss this, feel free, but stop insisting that only your paradigm and methods are valid without at least spelling out specifics that you feel need to be addressed and which are not.
I'll make you a deal: You stop throwing up straw horses which state my positions in the exact reverse manner, and I'll stop insisting that only my paradigm and methods are valid without at least spelling out specifics that I feel need to be addressed and which are not.

[Segev]

Let me put it this way: This thread is not about cutting down the power of T1/2 classes. As most of what I could respond to would be needlessly argumentative, I will choose to focus on only a couple of points.


I completely agree that synergy between classes should allow them all to be greater than the sum of their parts. The key word here being "should." As it stands, there is just about no use for a fighter in a party.If we agree on "should," then there's no need for the rest of this paragraph. We're not leaving the fighter-types' limits where they are. My goal is explicitly to actually change them so that what should be is closer to being what is.


Two T1 casters can buff each other, which is synergy flowing both ways, and then you've got two buffed T1 casters.As it stands, sure. What if we change it so that the buffed fighter is greater than the buffed caster, and is greater than the caster's buffed summoned minion?



First, there are plenty of summons which are far better then a fighter.Now, yes. What if we change it by making the fighter better?

starting out a sentence with the wizard and fighter being cooperative and then suddenly making it a PvP issue is a complete non sequitur. Fourth, no Wizard ever needs to hide from a fighter, they are straight up superior combatants from level 1 and up.Are you operating from the assumption that I am saying fighters are fine as-is and don't need any help? I'm not. Please stop pretending I am. This would be a "straw man" if you were doing it on purpose; I will assume instead you are simply mistaken about my position.


Anyway, have you even glanced at the feats I opened this thread with (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWI2n1Xg1okUhHNABnXN0yShhgRmRYp4vaUq2SI1Hp4)? If you do, I think what I'm aiming at becomes clearer. In particular, your confusion over why I go from "wizard buffing fighters" to "fighters chasing down wizards" might be alleviated, as these are two distinct things.

[lytokk]

No, you did not. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question"]

...

I completely agree that synergy between classes should allow them all to be greater than the sum of their parts. The key word here being "should." As it stands, there is just about no use for a fighter in a party. He can be replaced by a T1 caster who will be a better choice of which PC to buff than the fighter, and who will contribute more to the party. In order for synergy to be efficient it needs to flow both ways. A T1 caster can make a fighter a better fighter by buffing them. But unfortunately they are still a fighter and can't do a for the T1 caster, so you've got a T1 caster and a buffed fighter. Two T1 casters can buff each other, which is synergy flowing both ways, and then you've got two buffed T1 casters.

...

That sentence is a complete jumble of unrelated subjects, and none of it appears to be accurate. First, there are plenty of summons which are far better then a fighter. Second, hanging a buff on another T1 caster is a far better option than hanging them on a fighter. Third, starting out a sentence with the wizard and fighter being cooperative and then suddenly making it a PvP issue is a complete non sequitur. Fourth, no Wizard ever needs to hide from a fighter, they are straight up superior combatants from level 1 and up.

...


Now, this gave me a thought. What about feats that make fighters better targets of buffs? This time I've been thinking along the lines of making the fighters better at a standalone fight, but what about some teamwork?

example: Any enchantment spell placed upon a fighter by an allied spellcaster instead doubles the effect. Enlarge person brings the fighter up two size categories, Bulls str adds 8 str instead of 4. These are low level buffs, but as I said, I haven't seen many high level casters in play.

Something that makes the fighter a much better target of buffs than a random summon, or a shapechanged wizard.

[aleucard]

Now, this gave me a thought. What about feats that make fighters better targets of buffs? This time I've been thinking along the lines of making the fighters better at a standalone fight, but what about some teamwork?

example: Any enchantment spell placed upon a fighter by an allied spellcaster instead doubles the effect. Enlarge person brings the fighter up two size categories, Bulls str adds 8 str instead of 4. These are low level buffs, but as I said, I haven't seen many high level casters in play.

Something that makes the fighter a much better target of buffs than a random summon, or a shapechanged wizard.

Another option would be to make it so that 1) the things that make magical species stronger than regular animals are incompatible with almost all traditional spell-born buffs (thus neutralizing the issue of summons being better vehicles for buffs) and 2) the performing of such on a caster ***** with their ability to cast in a very hard to circumvent way (a gish may be able to, but probably not as good as a normal martial unless they delve enough to sacrifice at least 1 spell level). Summons should be beaten pretty vigorously with a nerf bat anyway and this just solves the buffing issue alone, but still.

[Stella]

What about feats that make fighters better targets of buffs? This time I've been thinking along the lines of making the fighters better at a standalone fight, but what about some teamwork?

And again, all this might accomplish is to make the fighter a better minion to the T1 caster than another T1 caster or something she can summon.

Should I buff the fighter, or the summoned monster with more useful spell like effects (or even actual spells) than the fighter?

It's a nice thought, but it isn't a solution.

[Snowbluff]

Feat taxes are the worst thing. They are useless by definition.

Feats that play into the class's class features, like the MM requirements on Incantatrix, are not feat taxes. It's the effective way of gating a PrC while using the class's abilities to build on the concept your feat selection has supported.

Feats are pretty damn good in general. You just have to know what to look for. Animal Devotion, for example, is early access to limited flight. Most feat taxes aren't written with the better feats in mind (with some exceptions like subsystem PrCs), which is sad. They simply waste your slots you could be doing something more interesting with.

[aleucard]

And again, all this might accomplish is to make the fighter a better minion to the T1 caster than another T1 caster or something she can summon.

Should I buff the fighter, or the summoned monster with more useful spell like effects (or even actual spells) than the fighter?

It's a nice thought, but it isn't a solution.

The problem is that if you were to give Martials things to let them do a Caster's job, then you start walking a fine line between not doing enough and 4e.

The best option would be to denote exactly what each class should be capable of, and how capable they should be in those actions. Some things should be class-locked, that's one of the main ways class differentiation is done after all. The issue is finding things for the Martials to do that Casters can't do either better outright or good enough that the presence of a Martial PC is optional in a high-op (or even mid-op, depending on how smart the PCs play) general purpose party. Making them better than a Summon in the realm of holding buffs is something relevant, albeit in a very backhanded way I'll admit. It's a start, though.

[Segev]

Now, this gave me a thought. What about feats that make fighters better targets of buffs? This time I've been thinking along the lines of making the fighters better at a standalone fight, but what about some teamwork?

The document linked in the OP includes feats which:

Allow the feat-bearer to increase the duration of beneficial spells by a number of units equal to how many combat feats he has (so Haste would last a few extra rounds, Enlarge Person for extra multiple 10s of minutes)
Make the feat-bearer receive half again the numerical bonuses from spells which grant them (minimum of an extra +1), e.g. a Bull's Strength would give the target a +6 to Str
Allow the feat-bearer to apply metamagic feat effects to spells cast on him

I still do not find the "they're just a better minion" argument persuasive, as one could argue that they are just making better use of their spellcasting minions. Who is the "minion" and who the "master" is dependent on something other than mechanics when you get to synergistic effects.