Has it been done yet? [fixing existing feats & spells rather than classes]

[Seppo87]

It seems that the general consensus is that it would be overwhelming and not worth it, but I think it's an interesting path to explore.

-Has anyone tried to fix the fighter by *only* fixing existing feats to make every single one a decent choice?
-Has the wizard ever been fixed by *only* fixing existing spells to remove autowin buttons and gamebreaking effects?

Other than posting links, I would like to hear your considerations on the matter, if you have any.

[Mcdt2]

They have both been done, yes. Spells more often so, I imagine because it is easier to nerf/buff things than invent new options wholesale. Off the top of my head, there's the Complete Spell Reformation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307778-The-Complete-Spell-Reformation), which I have not gotten a chance to read in its entirety, but it looks good when I skim it over. This project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?194002-3-5-A-Translation-of-Vancian-Spellcasting-to-Psionic-Mechanics) turned spellcasting into a spell points system, functioning as psionics does, and in the process aimed to rebalance the Core spells. I know I have seen others as well, usually as part of an (inevitably abandoned) attempt to remake 3.5 completely.

I haven't seen feats redone that often, but I've seen it. This one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?154811-Feat-synergy) is the only version I have a link to. I use that one personally, mostly for lack of any other options. It started as a fighter fix by way of feats, then expanded into all Core feats, and eventually beyond.

Personally, I'd love to see a feat fix that isn't so complicated as the one I linked (and better organized, for that matter). While I do love complicated rules, I can appreciate simplicity, especially when trying to introduce a new player (always a difficult thing when you use as much homebrew as I do). I don't have any particular thoughts on spell fixing, other than agreeing it's a good idea and I'd love to see attempts at it.

[Seppo87]

I use that one personally, mostly for lack of any other options.

I'd love to see a feat fix that isn't so complicated as the one I linked

I don't have any particular thoughts on spell fixing, other than agreeing it's a good idea and I'd love to see attempts at it.
I feel quite relieved.
For some time now I've been working on this (fighter feats mostly) and at some point I became afraid that someone might have already done it, and that another attempt would be ultimately pointless.
It seems however that there's still room for these things.
Knowing that it could be useful (well, at least for one person for sure :P ) is very important to mantain the motivation level required for this kind of stuff

[Almarck]

In my experience, "Fixes" are one of those things that tend to be subjective. One type of fix that works in the opinion of one person might not work well for another because it undermines something in another's eyes.

An example of such is the multitude of fighter fixes that I've seen over the years. No one group real seems to have established how to really "fix" the fighter in either 3.5 or Pathfinder. In fact, 3.5's pathfinder is a big tweak by putting in unique but universal class features in every level and I still think it needs a little more to make Fighter shine out .

I've seen people try adding maneuver use into the empty levels, others redesigning the class to use "Deeds" a pathfinder specific mechanic for martials, and a whole bunch of other things.

In short: you shouldn't worry about whether someone else has done fixing or tweaking on feats or spells. Someone's already done it for sure, but odds are that the nature of said fixes might or might not be what you want.
Going back to the fighter example, I actually think that making Fighter use deeds or manuvers go against the point of picking fighter in the first place and would rather just raise the base Skillpoints to 4+Int instead of 2+Int. Others think I'm being too lenient and so on.

In either case, I am curious to see what your plans for feat fixing are. Maybe I can lend a hand.

[Seppo87]

By fixing feats I mean, well a lot of things.

Primarily, however, it's about balancing options out.
There are too many trap feats in the books, and a small selection of ridiculously good combinations.
By now charging, AoO/trip and Intimidation are the only viable choices. Furthermore, they tend to be too effective when they work, and too little when they don't.
I want every playstyle to be equally viable. You want a traditional sword & board with simple feats, and still feel relevant? I want you to be able to.

Second goal is elegance.
Feats from various sources tend to be redundant with each other. Compare robilar's gambit, karmic strike, and riposte. I believe a good game designer can make players happy by providing just a single, fun, and well-balanced counter-attack feat.

Third is about personal taste.
I like interactive abilities that open new options and include resource management elements. Kinda like ToB, but only limited by action economy and possibly short rests.

So basically the number of total feats is going to be heavily reduced, but most feats will be bigger

[johnbragg]

I wouldn't call it a wholesale fix, but there are some fighter feats linked in my sig to boost two-weapon and weapon-and-shield fighting. Some people didn't like the "Be Awesome With XYZ" language, but that's obviously up to you.

[Seppo87]

I wouldn't call it a wholesale fix, but there are some fighter feats linked in my sig to boost two-weapon and weapon-and-shield fighting. Some people didn't like the "Be Awesome With XYZ" language, but that's obviously up to you.
I like the "baw twf" idea of allowing combat expertise penalities to only apply to one of two weapons.

[Deepbluediver]

There have been lots of attempts to better balance the classes by tweaking feats and spells. It tends to work better for spells, IMO, because most spellcasting-classes have few class-features and you don't have to worry about non-spellcasting classes getting a hold of them.

For feats, while it's easy to perk up some of the less exciting ones, in general they could never really replicate the kinds of things even non-broken spells can do. Also, many melee-classes don't get that many extra feats, so either it's hard for them to get what they want, or you have to concern yourself with any class picking up these same abilities.
Only the Fighter gets lots of feats, and it's hard to really buff him up unless you create chains that are simply to long for anyone else to take all of them. And there are plenty of melee classes that have worse stats (HD, BAB, proficiencies), so-so abilities, AND fewer feats, such as the monk.

In my opinion, changing just the spells and feats can bring the classes CLOSER together in balance, but you won't get them all to the same tier (or even within 1 or 2 tiers) without reworking the entire magic system and buffing the non-feat-based abilities of melee classes.


Still, I'd be interested in seeing what you are working. Remaking spells and feats is a big part of my own class fix, and I've got a whole list of weapon-style feats layed out specifically for melee classes.

[Seppo87]

I'm not trying to make the Fighter a Tier 2.

I'm trying to make (fighting) feats balanced with each other.

It bothers me how much the power varies. Compare Weapon Focus with Knowledge Devotion. They shouldn't have the same cost (a feat slot, precisely).
So, maybe buffing Weapon Focus to a level where it's a better alternative for stupid characters compared to knowledge devotion is a good idea.
Buffing Weapon Focus to the point it's clearly better than knowledge devotion even for arcane tricksters and duskblades, this I do not want.
I'm not a big fan of huge number inflations anyway.

I like the 5th edition idea of making every feat have a strong identity, while keeping the numbers under control.

PS
I've been browsing the "synergy feats" fix linked by Mcdt2.
The main differences will be simplicity for sure.
And a lower op ceiling.

[Hanuman]

Have you explored 5e?

[Seppo87]

Have you explored 5e?
Yes I did.
I really love how they have a single feat for everything: sentinel makes you a good tank, alertness for being quick and vigilant - it's so clean and functional.

Compare Tavern Brawler with:
-Great Strength
-Improved Unarmed Strike
-Scorpion's Grasp
-Barbarian's AcF for improvised weapons

By contrast, in 3.5, if you want to be able to perform something as conceptually simple as move and attack freely you have to:
-dodge
-mobility
-spring attack
-bounding assault
-rapid blitz
-tempest if you want twf (which involves 3 more feats to twf effectively)
or be a dervish

5 feats for doing ONE thing.
FIVE feats. That's half the whole Fighter class.
Half your entire class for doing ONE thing. I can't stress the concept enough. That's madness.
And what do these feats do? +1 to AC? really?

My goal is to go in 5E direction, with some moderation, while preserving the 3.5/PF identity

How about Spring Attack not having Dodge as a requirement (which makes little sense) and Rapid blitz/bounding assault being a single feat that grants complete freedom when making movement + full attack?
Now that would be a different story.

And if you still want to Dodge, Dodge will be a decent feat on its own. But it won't be fixed by granting like 10+ AC. It probably will include Elusive Target or something like that.

[Deepbluediver]

I'm not trying to make the Fighter a Tier 2.

I'm trying to make (fighting) feats balanced with each other.
Ah well, OK then. When you mention the tiers, spells, and feats all in one sentence, I think most people assume you want to balance the classes with each other.

Reworking the feats so that you can be more free-form and less picky is a good goal. Did you have any particular feats in mind? Or a certain set of actions that you want new feats to allow characters to be able to do?

[Almarck]

A good goal. But if you're going to do this, you probably picked the wrong room tag for this. This isn't a "class" thread, but that's just nit picky.


Regardless, I think for a quick fix, a good thing to do might be to consolidate lots of the feats into a single one, particularly, the ones that involve

So Dodge and Mobility for instance can be folded in together for instance.

All of PF's versions of Power Attack (Dualweilding, Ranged version, normal) can easily be folded in together with the Requirement being 13 STR or DEX.

Vital Strike will include all of its basic upgrades (Improved, Greater) and unlock upgrades based on BAB.

All variations of TWF are unlocked by taking a single feat instead of 3.

You get the gist.

[Seppo87]

Regardless, I think for a quick fix, a good thing to do might be to consolidate lots of the feats into a single one, particularly, the ones that involve
This is where I started from.
Yes, feats will unlock advanced effects based on character's stats, bab and level.

While I could make a dirty quick fix by simply merging chains and similar feats, I somewhat want to make it a bit more organic.

I don't think Dodge and Mobility should be a single feat, for example. They feel different.
Dodge imo is best improved by progressively unlocking Elusive Target maneuvers, since they use the Dodge Target subsystem.
While Mobility should be merged with something about movement, to better represent its name.


Did you have any particular feats in mind?
All existing 3.p feats.
Yes I'm making a list and yes I'm organizing them by function (feats for charging, feats for being quick, tough, action economy etc)
Most feats will be merged with other feats often with a small rewriting/cleanup of the bad parts, so the ending number will be heavily reduced, however not a single option will disappear.

Oh, and, I mentioned spells because I plan to do a similar job there as well, when I'm finished with this.


Or a certain set of actions that you want new feats to allow characters to be able to do?
I'm writing some new feats as well.


Everything is going to take some time, however. Especially numerical balance.
I want all combat styles to be viable.
A charger, a dervish and a sword & board fighter in the same party must all be equally satisfied.

[Hanuman]

This is the "guy at the gym" pitfall for feats and the disparity between muggles and everyone else.

Uh, I think classes do a decent job of fixing this, because the time and energy going into all those feats are really to stop how broken melee can actually be "being able to attack freely" is multiple concepts strung together, and its focus on those concepts which turns a melee combatant into a one trick pony instead of a one trick nuclear bomb.

This is probably my favorite fighter-ish fix, take a look at "feat tiers": http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?192596-The-Warrior-s-Way-Rebalancing-Blade-and-Bow

[Seppo87]

This is the "guy at the gym" pitfall for feats and the disparity between muggles and everyone else.
I have no idea what a "guy at the gym" pitfall is and what do muggles represent in your opinion.


I think classes do a decent job of fixing this, because the time and energy going into all those feats are really to stop how broken melee can actually be "being able to attack freely" is multiple concepts strung together, and its focus on those concepts which turns a melee combatant into a one trick pony instead of a one trick nuclear bomb.
I'm sorry? I don't get your point. It's not a subtle way to say I disagree - I actually don't understand what your argument is.
I'm a foreigner, so probably it's my fault.


This is probably my favorite fighter-ish fix, take a look at "feat tiers": http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?192596-The-Warrior-s-Way-Rebalancing-Blade-and-Bow
I'm going to read this as well. Thank you.

[jedipotter]

-Has anyone tried to fix the fighter by *only* fixing existing feats to make every single one a decent choice?
-Has the wizard ever been fixed by *only* fixing existing spells to remove autowin buttons and gamebreaking effects?


You can find tons of both.

I fixed wizards in my game by first making a bunch of rules for magic. This is something D&D 3.5E really needed. A single magic rule can fix tons of spells. Then you just need to fix only a couple leftover spells.

I only tinkered with fighter feats, my fighter fix is more along the lines of giving the fighter more abilities per level. The only thing I really did with feat is to add a line that says ''fighters get X'', others get Y'' and add more fighter only feats. Weapon Focus is +1 to attack, per class level, for fighters. That makes for a nice, scalable feat.

[Hanuman]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy

Muggles are those who cannot use spell effects, rogues have UMD which is a partial cheat.

[Seppo87]

Uh, okay, so that's the guy at the gym fallacy.

I'm not interested in fixing it at the moment. I believe the Teramach did it already well enough.

I'm more concerned with cohesive design and combat being better for everyone

[Zireael]

A good goal. But if you're going to do this, you probably picked the wrong room tag for this. This isn't a "class" thread, but that's just nit picky.


Regardless, I think for a quick fix, a good thing to do might be to consolidate lots of the feats into a single one, particularly, the ones that involve

So Dodge and Mobility for instance can be folded in together for instance.

All of PF's versions of Power Attack (Dualweilding, Ranged version, normal) can easily be folded in together with the Requirement being 13 STR or DEX.

Vital Strike will include all of its basic upgrades (Improved, Greater) and unlock upgrades based on BAB.

All variations of TWF are unlocked by taking a single feat instead of 3.

You get the gist.

You and I seem to be thinking along the same lines. I've folded two 'meh' feats in several instances for my d20-based roguelike...

[Almarck]

Well yeah. Part of the problem I think we have with feats right now is that we have so many required to create relatively simple archtypes. A good chunk of two weapon fighting consists of just trying qualify to get its higher leveled elements. Same for trying to land one really powerful hit. Ergo we probably should fold over together "essentials" that everyone is going to take if the "require" it.

[Seppo87]

Well yeah. Part of the problem I think we have with feats right now is that we have so many required to create relatively simple archtypes. A good chunk of two weapon fighting consists of just trying qualify to get its higher leveled elements. Same for trying to land one really powerful hit. Ergo we probably should fold over together "essentials" that everyone is going to take if the "require" it.Mostly this is what I'm doing. But I also want to take care of the rebalancing, so that all playstyles become viable and numbers don't skyrocket too much.