Feats that should just be abilities you start with

[Thealtruistorc]

The title says it all. There are plenty of abilities titled feats that pretty much anybody taking up a life of adventuring should already be capable of, or who are just unbalanced and unfun to have to take. Namely:
Improved Unarmed Strike (Anybody who grew up in a world like D&D should be capable of throwing a decent punch)
Improved Shield Bash (anyone who has ever held a shield should know how to shove it in people's faces without dropping guard)
Precise Shot (Anyone who is using a bow in combat should be aware of how to get around melee)
Two-Weapon Fighting (A bit of a stretch, but if you are proficient with a shield you should know how to fight properly with it)
Weapon Finesse (Basically just a feat tax for agile characters)
Chokehold (Ultimate Combat) (What do you mean I couldn't already do this to people?)

I'm sure there are plenty of others out there. Feel free to fire them off.

[Troacctid]

The three that I give everyone for free are Able Learner, Precise Shot, and Weapon Finesse.

[Extra Anchovies]

Improved Unarmed Strike
Improved Shield Bash
Power Attack
Deadly Aim
Piranha Strike
Weapon Finesse (along with dex instead of str to damage with finesse weapons)
Quick Draw
Combat Expertise and Greater Combat Expertise
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot

[INoKnowNames]

Have you met someone who actually knows how to throw a punch in real life? A lot of people pretend that they can, but it's actually a lot harder than you think unless your foe is just as inexperienced. I wouldn't start every character with Improved Unarmed Strike.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but most shields are usually quite heavy, or at least awkward to handle, at least at first. Even if you're super strong, you may not have the training to use it properly. Improved Shield Bash also seems inappropriate.

In fact, looking at most of what was suggested (up to Extra Anchovies' first post; others may have appeared), I've only seen one that I would grant automatically, and more as a feature of being proficient with the weapon: If someone is proficient with a dagger, then being able to use it properly and swiftly should require a great deal of finesse already. Weapon Finesse should be a built in part of the system, though if one isn't proficient with a weapon that would be finessable, then they wouldn't be able to access it anyway.

Quite frankly, it really depends on who you are referring to and what you mean. Because if I may be frank, this seems like a means to try to make "mundanes" better by waving away some of their feat taxes. And while I'm all for that, that still isn't enough to fix their problems, nor does it better simulate the natural abilities of "pretty much anybody taking up a life of adventuring should already be capable of".

After all, how different are those people to us? Life is but one great adventure, is it not? Some of us just get more levels and play time out of it. :smallwink:

[ngilop]

For me its the base abilities from previous editions turned Feats in 3rd that are the biggest offenders


So
Power attack (or Power Shot I guess the ranged version would be called)
Combat Expertise
Spring Attack/ Shot on the Run
Run

and Weapon Finesse should just be something one can do with certain weapons

as should Quick Draw at a certain BaB.

[Extra Anchovies]

Have you met someone who actually knows how to throw a punch in real life? A lot of people pretend that they can, but it's actually a lot harder than you think unless your foe is just as inexperienced. I wouldn't start every character with Improved Unarmed Strike.

Why not? How many heroic fantasy characters do you know who are useless in a fight when disarmed? Conan can punch people. Elric can punch people. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser can both punch people. Sinbad can punch people. John Carter can punch people. I'm pretty sure everyone in the Black Company can punch people. None of them are dedicated unarmed combatants.

Being powerful and effective even when disarmed is a common enough trope in fantasy fiction that it's stupid to make it a costly option for characters in games meant to emulate said fiction.

And yes, forcing them to spend one feat is a costly option, especially since we're playing a game where focusing on one thing is orders of magnitude stronger than dipping into a bunch of things.


And correct me if I'm wrong, but most shields are usually quite heavy, or at least awkward to handle, at least at first. Even if you're super strong, you may not have the training to use it properly. Improved Shield Bash also seems inappropriate.

Who is this "you" who might not be able to use a shield properly? A character in a heroic fantasy story? I'm sorry, can't hear you over the fact that this is heroic fantasy, not real life.


Quite frankly, it really depends on who you are referring to and what you mean. Because if I may be frank, this seems like a means to try to make "mundanes" better by waving away some of their feat taxes. And while I'm all for that, that still isn't enough to fix their problems, nor does it better simulate the natural abilities of "pretty much anybody taking up a life of adventuring should already be capable of".

The point isn't to fix their problems. It's to get all the boring, necessary feats out of the way so they can take interesting stuff, like Improved Trip, or Two-Weapon Fighting, or Snap Shot. These are purely quality-of-life improvements for martial classing other than the fighter who have actual class features instead of bonus feats.


After all, how different are those people to us? Life is but one great adventure, is it not? Some of us just get more levels and play time out of it. :smallwink:

So your argument boils down to "I can't throw a punch or use a shield, so characters in heroic fantasy shouldn't be able to"? That's pretty basic guy-at-the-gym reasoning right there.

[Ferronach]

I like to give my players toughness to start with because lets face it, PC's are supposed to be tougher and hardier than regular NPC people.

I usually give Die Hard to my bruisers too because it seems like something that they should "have" based on their training and lifestyle.

[Hrugner]

I wouldn't do improved unarmed strike. I would let anything that lets you treat your unarmed strikes as armed also effectively grant the feat though.
improved shield bash isn't required for shield bashing, it's required for hitting someone with a shield at full strength while still keeping it infront of you
precise shot, no, and remember to add in the soft cover AC bonus for shooting through friendly melee
two weapon fighting as it appears in d&d doesn't have a real world analogue, so handing it out for free seems silly.

I agree with weapon finesse though and maybe the power attack like feats being automatic for full bab classes.

I do think combat maneuvers that require feats to even attempt should all have the same basic no-feat rules of other combat maneuvers.

[erok0809]

I think guy-at-the-gym logic is a little more applicable here than in other places, unless you want only PC's to get these abilities because they're special, and they already have stuff like that. If I were going to make any of these feats an ability inherent to characters, I would allow power attack and weapon finesse, that's it, and I would let every person do them, from the lowest 1st-level commoner to the epic spellcaster who doesn't need it. I don't like the inconsistency of having the PC's be even more special than the commoners with waiving feats; they're already special by virtue of being higher level adventurers with PC classes.

[ShaneMRoth]

At first, I was skeptical of the entire premise.

Then I got to thinking about it.

This is an entirely valid approach... provided it was universal.

Pick Feats that every PC should have... and then make sure that every Playable Humanoid NPC has it also. Every damn body. Including 1st level Commoners.

This would make for a campaign with a highly cinematic anime style.

It would also account for how Humans were able to sustain civilization in a literally demon-haunted world.

[Psyren]

I disagree with IUS; remember, IUS doesn't just represent being able to throw a punch, it represents an unarmed combatant being able to fight one with a weapon with no disadvantages. That definitely requires special training. And Precise Shot is the ability to shoot around an ally to hit an adjacent enemy, which also requires

I agree with the others and would add a couple:

Awesome Blow is something you should just be able to do if you're strong and large enough, though personally I would allow even particularly strong medium characters (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html) to do it. Likewise for Snatch, a big monster shouldn't need a feat to pick small things up - rather anyone fighting unarmed or with a grabbing appendage should get this option vs. any opponent two size categories smaller or lower.

[Extra Anchovies]

I think guy-at-the-gym logic is a little more applicable here than in other places, unless you want only PC's to get these abilities because they're special, and they already have stuff like that.

Why shouldn't the PCs be special and have stuff the average peasant (even the average experienced peasant) doesn't have? They're the Big Damn HeroesTM. Guy-at-the-gym logic should never be applicable in a heroic fantasy game, at least not to heroes and villains. The whole point of the genre is that some people can go way, way beyond the guy at the gym without even breaking a sweat.


I don't like the inconsistency of having the PC's be even more special than the commoners with waiving feats; they're already special by virtue of being higher level adventurers with PC classes.

If you don't want to give a bunch of feats to every NPC, you could spread them out a bit. Give Weapon Finesse at level 1, Combat Expertise, Precise Shot, and Power Attack (plus its equivalents) at BAB +1, and IUS, ISB, and Quick Draw at BAB +3. Or levels 1/3/5, or whatever.

[P.F.]

Weapon Finesse. This thread is about Weapon Finesse, right? Also Power Attack, because winding up and trying to hit really hard by using a blow that is less controlled and easier to avoid isn't something I had to spend years perfecting; we've all been able to do that since we fought with sticks in the yard at age 6. Now being able to power attack WITHOUT subtracting from your to-hit (or on a more favorable basis than 1:1) would be a feat.

[Pex]

Any feat, except Improved Initiative, that you notice everyone always takes. Every warrior taking Power Attack? That's one. Every archer taking Precise Shot? That's another.

[OldTrees1]

I don't think we should give wizards a bunch of extra goodies. So why not tie this default martial prowess to martial prowess? Give everyone X "not worth a feat slot" feats per BAB. Even if you go up to X=5 I don't think you will run out of weak martial feats. Best of all this clears away the prereqs on the decent martial feats.

[slade88green]

Improved Unarmed Strike (Anybody who grew up in a world like D&D should be capable of throwing a decent punch)

There is a difference between being able to punch and being able to punch well. Most people cant punch all that well, some rare few can. Some are trained to punch well.

Improved Shield Bash (anyone who has ever held a shield should know how to shove it in people's faces without dropping guard)

I completely disagree. Having fought in armor, a shield can be a difficult item to wield. One little movement the wrong way and it creates an opening for your opponent to stike.


Precise Shot (Anyone who is using a bow in combat should be aware of how to get around melee)

I have to disagree n this one as well as I have shot a crossbow in combat at people fighting. Sometimes people move a bit wrong and you shoot the wrong person, your shot is deflected off, or swords/shields get in the way. Shooting into combat is tougher then you might think.

Two-Weapon Fighting (A bit of a stretch, but if you are proficient with a shield you should know how to fight properly with it)

Once again I disagree. using a shield and fighting with two weapons seems like it would be similar. It is not. The point of a shield is to be a barrier between you and your opponents attacks. Switch to another weapon and most people, unless they are used to wielding it, will use it like a shield (except its much smaller). They will forget to attack with it, or when they do, they swing at the wrong time and end up swinging the weapons like they are trying to land an airplane. Swinging both weapons at once, as you can imagine is a horrid way to fight and leaves you wide open to attacks.

Weapon Finesse (Basically just a feat tax for agile characters)

I very much agree with this one and allow dexterous characters this feat at no charge.

Chokehold (Ultimate Combat) (What do you mean I couldn't already do this to people?)

Anyone can choke someone, few can do it effectively. How do most people choke? with their hands. If they are using their hands, they are not maintaining a grapple. Also the choke is ineffective and can easily be swept off. A well applied choke is very hard to get out of, maintains a grapple as its not with your hands, and is very effective.

[frost890]

Something's I can agree with like shield bash and weapon feness. It was a part of learning the weapon basics. But if you have trained with any weapons or martial arts it is a bit harder to do things like power attack and TWF. I also do the sca fighting and one of the biggest problems people have is actually hitting hard. People when they start picking up weapons do not have the proper body mechanics down to truly hit hard.

[Troacctid]

Precise Shot shouldn't be free because it's a basic part of archery, it should be free because the -4 penalty for shooting into melee is a stupid rule that shouldn't be in the game. If an ally is blocking your shot, you're already at -4 to hit from soft cover. Adding in another -4 penalty on top of that is totally unnecessary, especially considering how many finicky bonuses and penalties you're already supposed to keep track of.

[Renen]

Improved Unarmed Strike (Anybody who grew up in a world like D&D should be capable of throwing a decent punch)

There is a difference between being able to punch and being able to punch well. Most people cant punch all that well, some rare few can. Some are trained to punch well.

Improved Shield Bash (anyone who has ever held a shield should know how to shove it in people's faces without dropping guard)

I completely disagree. Having fought in armor, a shield can be a difficult item to wield. One little movement the wrong way and it creates an opening for your opponent to stike.


Precise Shot (Anyone who is using a bow in combat should be aware of how to get around melee)

I have to disagree n this one as well as I have shot a crossbow in combat at people fighting. Sometimes people move a bit wrong and you shoot the wrong person, your shot is deflected off, or swords/shields get in the way. Shooting into combat is tougher then you might think.

Two-Weapon Fighting (A bit of a stretch, but if you are proficient with a shield you should know how to fight properly with it)

Once again I disagree. using a shield and fighting with two weapons seems like it would be similar. It is not. The point of a shield is to be a barrier between you and your opponents attacks. Switch to another weapon and most people, unless they are used to wielding it, will use it like a shield (except its much smaller). They will forget to attack with it, or when they do, they swing at the wrong time and end up swinging the weapons like they are trying to land an airplane. Swinging both weapons at once, as you can imagine is a horrid way to fight and leaves you wide open to attacks.

Weapon Finesse (Basically just a feat tax for agile characters)

I very much agree with this one and allow dexterous characters this feat at no charge.

Chokehold (Ultimate Combat) (What do you mean I couldn't already do this to people?)

Anyone can choke someone, few can do it effectively. How do most people choke? with their hands. If they are using their hands, they are not maintaining a grapple. Also the choke is ineffective and can easily be swept off. A well applied choke is very hard to get out of, maintains a grapple as its not with your hands, and is very effective.

Don't forget this is heroic fantasy. I'm not questioning it when my character in dark souls does a cartwheel with a great shield and greatsword in each hand. Similarly I think in D&D you can expect mundane to be able to punch well, and slam someone with a shield.

[Curmudgeon]

Weapon Finesse should just be a property of appropriate weapons, not a feat.

Mostly the obligatory feats depend on the character. A Fighter with a 2-handable weapon is going to have Power Attack. A Rogue is going to have Darkstalker if they can spare a feat slot for it. A Druid is going to have Natural Spell.

[Der_DWSage]

Chokehold (Ultimate Combat) (What do you mean I couldn't already do this to people?)

Anyone can choke someone, few can do it effectively. How do most people choke? with their hands. If they are using their hands, they are not maintaining a grapple. Also the choke is ineffective and can easily be swept off. A well applied choke is very hard to get out of, maintains a grapple as its not with your hands, and is very effective.

I'm gonna firmly disagree with this one, and it's actually because of the Guy At The Gym fallacy. I know very little martial arts, but I know how to grapple with someone and choke them out to the point of unconsciousness in twelve seconds. I was also able to teach my little brother this method within of ten minutes, and he could still replicate it a week later.

If a 1st level Warrior and a 1st level Commoner can do it, Joe Fighter should definitely be able to.

(Also, choking with your hands is the most inefficient way of doing it. You choke with your arms-specifically, a bicep applied to the carotid artery.)

[Story]

Investigate from ECS. You need a feat to examine crime scenes for clues? Seriously? This really should have just been an expanded usage of skills, not a feat.

Also, Research from ECS. I'm pretty sure that this is something you can already do without the feat anyway. At least, the Stronghold Builder's Guide doesn't mention any feat being required in the part about libraries.

Heck, ECS has a lot of them. Knight Training? Monastic Training? Multiclass restrictions should never have existed in the first place.


I don't think we should give wizards a bunch of extra goodies. So why not tie this default martial prowess to martial prowess? Give everyone X "not worth a feat slot" feats per BAB. Even if you go up to X=5 I don't think you will run out of weak martial feats. Best of all this clears away the prereqs on the decent martial feats.

I'd give everyone Eschew Material Components, but that's because Spell Component Pouches are silly and the actual components are a bad joke that you're better off ignoring.

[torrasque666]

I'd give everyone Eschew Material Components, but that's because Spell Component Pouches are silly and the actual components are a bad joke that you're better off ignoring.
Some make sense though, like the focus needed for Plane Shift. And before anyone says "Well they never listed a price!" do you really think they'd list a price for every listed plane they had come up with in that one spell description?

[erok0809]

Some make sense though, like the focus needed for Plane Shift. And before anyone says "Well they never listed a price!" do you really think they'd list a price for every listed plane they had come up with in that one spell description?

Just fyi, a focus is distinct from a material component, as it isn't consumed during the casting. So Eschew Materials doesn't remove the need to have a focus for Plane Shift or other spells requiring a focus component.

On topic, I also forgot to mention in my previous post that I give spellcasters Eschew Materials in my games.

[Krazzman]

I like this idea but I just roll certain feats together into one.

For example Choke hold -> rolled together with Imp Grapple.

Weapon Finesse gives dex to damage with appropiate weapons. Original Finesse is for free.

The basics for Deadly Aim and Power attack that is free for everyone is something that I do like Mutants and Masterminds. -2/+2 is free (-2/+4 for PA with a twohanded weapon).

About IUS and Shieldbash and such. Bound to profiency wouldn't be so bad. IUS makes punching effectively an exotic weapon. I would rule it at least as a simple nonlethal weapon.

I wouldn't give ITWF out for free. I would give one handed weapons a shield rating though that comes into play IF you wield 2 weapons. ITWF then functions as Improved Shieldbash and has to be made better anyway. (My current state for it is ITWF for each strike with your main hand strike with your offhand(-2 on all attacks). GreaterTWF full str on off hand and +1d10 extra damage if two corresponding (main and off hand) connect. Exceptional TWF still no real clue what I should do here)

[Thurbane]

Reckless Offense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#recklessOffense), which is kinda just reverse fighting defensively.

[Kurald Galain]

Have you met someone who actually knows how to throw a punch in real life? A lot of people pretend that they can, but it's actually a lot harder than you think unless your foe is just as inexperienced. I wouldn't start every character with Improved Unarmed Strike.
Yeah, this.

However, I do agree that certain martial classes such as the Fighter should get this feat for free.



And correct me if I'm wrong, but most shields are usually quite heavy, or at least awkward to handle, at least at first. Even if you're super strong, you may not have the training to use it properly. Improved Shield Bash also seems inappropriate.
Also, thrusting a shield directly at your enemy may be straightforward, but not terribly effective if only because of air resistance.

My vote goes to Short Haft; holding a polearm so that you can hit people close to you is a basic part of polearm proficiency.

[Chronos]

Quoth ngilop:

For me its the base abilities from previous editions turned Feats in 3rd that are the biggest offenders


So
Power attack (or Power Shot I guess the ranged version would be called)
Combat Expertise
Spring Attack/ Shot on the Run
Run

and Weapon Finesse should just be something one can do with certain weapons

as should Quick Draw at a certain BaB.
I'm not sure how I should read this post, since Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Weapon Finesse were not things that you could do at all in 2nd edition, with or without special training, and running is something that everyone can do in 3rd edition, and the Run feat just makes you better at it.

[ekarney]

Have you met someone who actually knows how to throw a punch in real life? A lot of people pretend that they can, but it's actually a lot harder than you think unless your foe is just as inexperienced. I wouldn't start every character with Improved Unarmed Strike.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but most shields are usually quite heavy, or at least awkward to handle, at least at first. Even if you're super strong, you may not have the training to use it properly. Improved Shield Bash also seems inappropriate.

After all, how different are those people to us? Life is but one great adventure, is it not? Some of us just get more levels and play time out of it. :smallwink:

That's a nice quote!

I'd say give improved unarmed to full BAB martial classes and monks (Who should be full BAB but that's a different topic) Fighter by extension of their general practise from weapon drilling, and experience scrapping in the training yard, Barbarians, because it comes less from technique and more from their pure tenacity and viciousness, as someone who's done Tae Kwon Do for 16 years, and I can tell you, it's quite hard to defend against someone whos rabid and throwing punches left right and centre, so I can understand full BAB classes getting unarmed strike.

You're totally spot on with shields though, I did Historical Reenactment for about a year or two, and whilst I can't speak about personally using heater shields I can tell you about Kite shields and bucklers, Kite shields are ridiculously thick and heavy, bashing with them isn't simply swinging your left arm out, you have to really dedicate your whole body into it, and drive into someone, your shield arm probably does the least work.
Using a Buckler requires an extremely active defence due to its small size, yo don't just meet blows with it, you parry them, using the opponents energy to redirect it their swing, as such using a buckler as an offensive weapon, meaning if it's in the opponent's face, it can't be near their weapon, and trying to parry with your own weapon would be quite the task, not impossible, but you'd certainly need a lot of training for it. As for heater shields, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, since the only knowledge I have about them is from talking to people, however, a gauntlet and a sword combined probably has about 4kg of weight on your wrist/hand, heater shields were a later medieval invention and were made from steel, they had to be thick and strong enough to stop a blow from a mace or an axe, so I'm guessing they'd weight in at around 5kg by themselves (That's an estimate, I've never used a heater shield), combined with air resistance, I imagine it was quite the task.
Before someone brings up the Romans and their habits of shield bashing, they had both specialised grips on their shields and training, the grips were punching grips, so they had no straps for supporting it with the forearm, and the handle in the boss was horizontal instead of vertical, meaning very swiftly they could thrust their arm straight forward, as opposed to having to do a style of backhand sweep, they also had less to worry about defence wise, as either side of them they had legionnaires who'd been trained in the exact same fighting style, meaning that it was a very cohesive fighting style.

Two weapon fighting? Don't get me started, being able to bash with a shield does not give you the skills to effectively attack with a weapon in each hand, those massive penalties are there for a reason it's a complicated thing to really get the hang of.

[Keltest]

It seems to me that a lot of this is coming down to "proficiency feats don't actually represent any sort of knowledge of how to fight with a weapon."

Weapon Finesse for example. What are you doing with that rapier if your dexterity isn't coming into play, and how can you claim to be proficient with it?

[Hal0Badger]

Even though I would agree feat system is poorly designed for martial mundane classes compared to casting, I would not give Improved Unarmed Strike as free feat.

IUS is not just about throwing a good punch, it is about fighting against an opponent who is "armed" with a sword or similar weapon.

YES, Conan will punch people and probably knock them out due to his strength. But, I assure you, he will go and look for a weapon when is confronted by 4-5 men, holding weapons in their hands.

Batman however, will not look for weapons. He will kick their asses.

Difference is, one is trained with a weapon, other one is trained in martial arts as well.

For a heroic campaign setting, PC are already above 90% of the people, due to their high stats and classes (most of the NPC's have NPC classes). With some adventuring, they will even become sub-bar humans. A level 6 fighter can easily take out 10 town-guards (mostly level 1 warriors, lead by a level 2 warrior), or can make a jump above 7.5 ft from ground. Emphasis on "from ground", he will not reach the top of a 7.5 ft platform, he can literally jump on it with taking 10.

Some feats though, could be removed and made by weapon or character specific, like Weapon Finesse. Or, feats like Power attack could be open to anyone else, and improved via feats, similar mechanic like Trip-Improved Trip.

[ThermalSlapShot]

The title says it all. There are plenty of abilities titled feats that pretty much anybody taking up a life of adventuring should already be capable of, or who are just unbalanced and unfun to have to take. Namely:
Improved Unarmed Strike (Anybody who grew up in a world like D&D should be capable of throwing a decent punch)
Improved Shield Bash (anyone who has ever held a shield should know how to shove it in people's faces without dropping guard)
Precise Shot (Anyone who is using a bow in combat should be aware of how to get around melee)
Two-Weapon Fighting (A bit of a stretch, but if you are proficient with a shield you should know how to fight properly with it)
Weapon Finesse (Basically just a feat tax for agile characters)
Chokehold (Ultimate Combat) (What do you mean I couldn't already do this to people?)

I'm sure there are plenty of others out there. Feel free to fire them off.

Essentially things that 4e and 5e gave for free are things I gave for free in 3.5 before 4e came out.

Finesse is a weapon property.

Unarmed Strikes are a simple light finesse weapon.

Two weapon fighting isn't a Feat chain.

No chance of hitting allies with ranged weapons but they can grant enemies a +2 AC as a type of partial cover.

Spring Attack. This has been something that is awesome in my old 3e games that I made a base rule. In 5e you essentially get this for free and it is awesome. Makes combat more fluid.

All skills can be used trained or untrained. You can always attempt something. Falling forward is a core DM ideology I have always supported.

Ablot of maneuvers can be used as part of an attack if you have the right weapon. A trip weapon allows you to attack and then trip (swift action), however if you don't have a trip weapon then it just works as normal and replaces the attack.

There are a few others but those are the big ones.

[INoKnowNames]

Well, I was quoted once or twice, and a few times people disagreed, but then I saw that many of my counter points were already made, so that's a little less that I have to say! :smallbiggrin:

The main issue I have with this idea is two fold: First, in my flawed opinion, by giving these to everyone, it makes them a little more generic in and of themselves, and makes it harder for anyone who is to be especially known for them to really prove it.

Second, not every character should have these abilities built in. Unintentional wording on the op's part (which is part of the reason why I commented in the first place) means that you'd be giving Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers and Druids these abilities as well, if they are genuinely just abilities that "pretty much anybody taking up a life of adventuring should already be capable of".

So a blanket "give everyone these feats", which by lack of context this allows, would actually strength a few classes that don't need it, while in a fashion making some of the classes that do even more bland. And I doubt anyone thinks Vaarsuvius or Gandalf should be punching out dragons, at the very least without having used magic on themselves, and even then that'd be kinda pushing it.

I don't disagree with part of the idea behind this: improving things by getting rid of "you must dedicate half yourself just to be barely decent at what you want to do". Building in some of these isn't a bad idea, provided there are ways to regulate who gets passive access.

If someone wanted to improve the game and make more interesting characters that are heroic, feats don't seem the way to go. The classes themselves should be more interesting. Feats should be able to customize a character, and if all feats taken are geared toward a singular purpose, maybe even change the definition of the class. But the class itself needs excellent fundamentals first, at least in my opinion.

I also like the idea of making feats have bonus effects once people have enough of a stat (be it Bab or attribute), as well as rolling together redundant feats. As well as just improving them in general. Point Blank Shot should get to the point where people can make attacks of opportunity within a slowly increasing range if they're good enough to do so. As you improve your unarmed strikes, you gain the skill and ability to do newer and better things with it. Two Weapon Fighting is an obvious one, though having an improved and greater version with different good abilities would also be nice; maybe the first improved lets you keep yourself from being flanked to a degree, and the greater allows you to make multiple attacks without needing a full attack, and grants you more when you do.

Then again, this is what I think a level 21 Fighter vs level 21 Monk + Epic Animated Construct fight should look like (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mALkd3DG6HA), so my thinking is probably very flawed. Bit of a warning for some mild language and violence. Probably important to mention.


It seems to me that a lot of this is coming down to "proficiency feats don't actually represent any sort of knowledge of how to fight with a weapon."

Weapon Finesse for example. What are you doing with that rapier if your dexterity isn't coming into play, and how can you claim to be proficient with it?

I think this man's got the right idea!

[Segev]

For a while now, I've been contemplating "proficiency" being something that is used to actually make weapons each more different from each other. That is, every weapon has at least one special ability, possibly more, which are unlocked by being proficient with them. Remove the "non-proficiency" penalty, and make proficiency its own reward. Fold "weapon finesse" in as (one of) the proficeincy perk(s) for the finessable weapons.

You can expand further on this by giving weapons further special abilities unlocked by Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and the Greater versions of the same. This would also make higher levels of Fighter more valuable; not only would only fighters (and warblades) be able to get the Greater Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization techniques, but there'd be all the more incentive to pick up several since different weapons have different special perks.

Work some "utility" special perks into them, and you could start to have the kind of ever-expanding list of special abilities that make Wizards with their spells so potent apply to Fighters and others who are big on weapon use. Magic Weapon tags could also have additional powers unlocked by sufficient proficiency/focus/specialization.

A lot of the "style" feats could be redone as special techniques one gets for proficiency or focus in the weapons involved, as well. Even "precise shot" and "point blank shot" could become proficiency or focus perks. For some weapons (mostly the double weapons), "two weapon fighting" could be a proficiency perk.

[Telonius]

I'll throw in my hat with "Finesse as a weapon property." I'd go further and say that Power Attack is a weapon property as well.

Eschew Materials should be one. Non-expensive material components are (sometimes literally) a joke; keeping track of them doesn't add anything to the experience.

Quick Draw. It's a feat tax for anyone who wants to play a weapon-thrower.

Track. Absurd that you need a feat to figure out that huge pawprints in a line probably indicate that a bear went that way. It should be handled by Survival checks, possibly in the same way that Trapfinding works (Ranger and Druid might get Track as a class feature to let them track things whose DCs are 20 and above).

[OldTrees1]

The main issue I have with this idea is two fold: First, in my flawed opinion, by giving these to everyone, it makes them a little more generic in and of themselves, and makes it harder for anyone who is to be especially known for them to really prove it.
Kinda true, but they would have more feat slots available to spend on feats that are actually worth a feat slot. Sure we might need to invent more worthy feats to satisfy these new feat slots but once we have then it will actually be easier for those known for a style to prove their skill.


Second, not every character should have these abilities built in. Unintentional wording on the op's part (which is part of the reason why I commented in the first place) means that you'd be giving Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers and Druids these abilities as well, if they are genuinely just abilities that "pretty much anybody taking up a life of adventuring should already be capable of".

So a blanket "give everyone these feats", which by lack of context this allows, would actually strength a few classes that don't need it, while in a fashion making some of the classes that do even more bland. And I doubt anyone thinks Vaarsuvius or Gandalf should be punching out dragons, at the very least without having used magic on themselves, and even then that'd be kinda pushing it.
I agree in full.



Then again, this is what I think a level 21 Fighter vs level 21 Monk + Epic Animated Construct fight should look like (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mALkd3DG6HA), so my thinking is probably very flawed. Bit of a warning for some mild language and violence. Probably important to mention.
I didn't watch the entire video but it seems to be much lower than 21st level but a good example of that kind of combat.

[Snowbluff]

Calling Raiden a fighter is disrespect to Raiden.



Improved Unarmed Strike (Anybody who grew up in a world like D&D should be capable of throwing a decent punch)

It should be able to do lethal, but at the same time it should still provoke an AoO.

Swords have reach, after all.

[INoKnowNames]

For a while now, I've been contemplating "proficiency" being something that is used to actually make weapons each more different from each other. That is, every weapon has at least one special ability, possibly more, which are unlocked by being proficient with them. Remove the "non-proficiency" penalty, and make proficiency its own reward. Fold "weapon finesse" in as (one of) the proficeincy perk(s) for the finessable weapons.

You can expand further on this by giving weapons further special abilities unlocked by Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and the Greater versions of the same. This would also make higher levels of Fighter more valuable; not only would only fighters (and warblades) be able to get the Greater Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization techniques, but there'd be all the more incentive to pick up several since different weapons have different special perks.

Work some "utility" special perks into them, and you could start to have the kind of ever-expanding list of special abilities that make Wizards with their spells so potent apply to Fighters and others who are big on weapon use. Magic Weapon tags could also have additional powers unlocked by sufficient proficiency/focus/specialization.

A lot of the "style" feats could be redone as special techniques one gets for proficiency or focus in the weapons involved, as well. Even "precise shot" and "point blank shot" could become proficiency or focus perks. For some weapons (mostly the double weapons), "two weapon fighting" could be a proficiency perk.

I am quoting this because I'm remembering to save it. This needs to be homebrewed immediately. I hadn't even thought about the Weapon Focus angle, and that would be amazing.


Kinda true, but they would have more feat slots available to spend on feats that are actually worth a feat slot. Sure we might need to invent more worthy feats to satisfy these new feat slots but once we have then it will actually be easier for those known for a style to prove their skill.

I swear a while back, I saw someone make a thread asking if a level 20 fighter with 20 regular feats and 20 fighter feats could fight an equal level Wizard, with the result being inconclusive at best, and laughable at worse.

I more than agree that the system has too many wasted feats, but that's it's own problem in and of itself.

Edit: Actually, I kinda see what you're saying here. But I'm still thinking it'd be better to make each feat worth it, rather than just easier to access. But that's just me.


I didn't watch the entire video but it seems to be much lower than 21st level but a good example of that kind of combat.

If you haven't watched until the 11:20 mark, you haven't watched enough. :smallamused:


Calling Raiden a fighter is disrespect to Raiden.

Oh, Snowbluff-sama, you misunderstand! :smalleek:

I'm not saying that Raiden is a Fighter, and that Armstrong is a Monk. :smallcool:

I'm saying that I like my fighters like Raiden, and my Monks like Armstrong. :smallbiggrin:

[Extra Anchovies]

I'm not saying that Raiden is a Fighter, and that Armstrong is a Monk. :smallcool:

I'm saying that I like my fighters like Raiden, and my Monks like Armstrong. :smallbiggrin:

You're silly. Raiden's obviously a wizard. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ETpLsbjg8I) Seriously, that's where the idea for that particular character came from. Film is Big Trouble in Little China, which you should watch if you haven't already, and should re-watch if you have.

ETA: ...and I just realized you're talking about the other Raiden (http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Raiden). Are their names at least pronounced differently?

[INoKnowNames]

You're silly. Raiden's obviously a wizard. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ETpLsbjg8I) Seriously, that's where the idea for that particular character came from. Film is Big Trouble in Little China, which you should watch if you haven't already, and should re-watch if you have.

ETA: ...and I just realized you're talking about the other Raiden (http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Raiden). Are their names at least pronounced differently?

I'm under the assumption that they are. The Raiden you are referring to first actually sounds like Ray, while the one I'm referring to, I usually pronounce as Rye. If that makes sense. I thought it made sense in my head...

[Jormengand]

Combat Reflexes
Eschew Materials
Heighten Spell (Truenamers get it, why shouldn't you?)
Improved Counterspell
Improved Shield Bash
Natural Spell
Point-blank Shot
Power Attack
Quick Draw
Track
Two-Weapon Fighting and the others the moment you meet the BAB requirement.
Weapon Finesse

[AmberVael]

I think its silly that people are saying giving out IUS doesn't make sense. Even your typical pasty faced hiding-behind-the-fighter strength 8 wizard is capable of using anything from daggers to crossbows to staves in combat without difficulty- why exactly should punches be singled out, exactly? Is it really so much simpler to use a puny dagger properly against the guy armed with a greatsword than it is a punch? And even if it is, shouldn't at least a fighter who can wield basically every weapon on the planet without difficulty be able to throw a decent punch? Why is my default fighter amazing with scythes and throwing darts, but not capable of a fighting someone well with her fists?

[Necroticplague]

On IUS: Keep in mind that it still leaves a punch that compares unfavorably to a dagger, so it's not exactly 'suddenly, everyone is a brawler' if everyone gets it for free. It still remains a backup weapon for when you've run out of everything, because literally any weapon is still better.

[INoKnowNames]

I think its silly that people are saying giving out IUS doesn't make sense. Even your typical pasty faced hiding-behind-the-fighter strength 8 wizard is capable of using anything from daggers to crossbows to staves in combat without difficulty- why exactly should punches be singled out, exactly? Is it really so much simpler to use a puny dagger properly against the guy armed with a greatsword than it is a punch? And even if it is, shouldn't at least a fighter who can wield basically every weapon on the planet without difficulty be able to throw a decent punch? Why is my default fighter amazing with scythes and throwing darts, but not capable of a fighting someone well with her fists?

Actually, I'd take away a Wizard's base weapon proficiencies myself. Though there are some people who could much easier stab me in the gut than they could punch me (and I've got the scars to prove it)...

And actually, basic level unarmed combat against someone wielding a weapon is rather difficult, since unless you're really good at it, you're very likely to get a finger cut off or smashed. Probably would be easier for someone who has never fought with their hands before to even try to find a piece of trash or something to defend themselves than to take a wild swing and get shanked for it.

To be honest, I think it's the one talked about because it was the first example mentioned. Or at least I suspect as such.


On IUS: Keep in mind that it still leaves a punch that compares unfavorably to a dagger, so it's not exactly 'suddenly, everyone is a brawler' if everyone gets it for free. It still remains a backup weapon for when you've run out of everything, because literally any weapon is still better.

I wonder how many heroes would be able to win a fight after having been disarmed by an armed opponent, and how many are forced to back down or come up with a different strategy at that point...

[Segev]

Sifus I've worked with have emphasized that, if you're going into a fight with somebody wielding a knife, your first choice should always to be to run. No matter how good a martial artist you are, if you're going into a knife fight, expect to get cut up. While it's possible to totally disarm somebody without taking a scratch, never think you're that good. A lucky strike, an amateur not knowing that doing so will leave him wide open, or an unfortunate misreading of your opponent is all it takes to get knicked or gashed.

Your best bet is to hope you can confine the wounds to your arms.

Thus: run, if you can. You don't want to get cut.



All of this to say that a wizard proficient with a dagger is a serious threat to an unarmed individual, and a significantly more serious threat than even a martial-arts trained wizard without that dagger (assuming the wizard is being stupid and not, you know, spellcasting you into oblivion).

[AmberVael]

Sifus I've worked with have emphasized that, if you're going into a fight with somebody wielding a knife, your first choice should always to be to run. No matter how good a martial artist you are, if you're going into a knife fight, expect to get cut up.

Have they also emphasized that if you take a knife to a sword fight, you'll get your head cut off? Because that seems like a similar and legitimate problem too, but no one is putting that into D&D rules.

[Segev]

Have they also emphasized that if you take a knife to a sword fight, you'll get your head cut off? Because that seems like a similar and legitimate problem too, but no one is putting that into D&D rules.

Yes and no. The difference here is that having a sword in a knife fight doesn't mean you aren't going to get cut, whereas having a knife in a fistfight does (assuming you don't get disarmed and have it used against you). The sword has reach, and obviously the non-sword-wielder needs to be reconciled to the fact that he's probably going to get cut. But the sword-user also needs to expect to be cut.

The whole thing about AoOs is because you leave yourself open. Leaving yourself open doesn't mean you close your eyes and hum loudly with your fingers in your ears so you don't know the attack is coming. It means that you have left your opponent a means of doing damage to you without risk of retaliatory damage (or at least, without risk of damage they wouldn't take anyway, regardless of trying to hurt you).

Swinging with a dagger still means the swordsman has to defend himself to avoid SERIOUS harm. He has to flinch away, parry, etc., and can't just arbitrarily swing back at you while you're focused on the attack. (Palladium actually allows him to do this with its counterattack rules; D&D doesn't have that without certain feats.) Punch the swordsman without the proper training, however, and he can simply swing at you while yo'ure focused on it. You're not doing more damage to him than you would if he didn't let down his own guard to focus on the counterstrike. That's what's represented by the AoO.

It's not perfectly realistic, but it is reasonably simulationist. The dagger is truly more dangerous than the punch, even if their respective HP damage doesn't reflect it. Recall that HP damage is often using up some reserve of dodginess or luck rather than honest physical harm. Trying to take that AoO against a dagger is more akin to risking a coup de grace than a "regular" attack. So there is no AoO granted; there's no opportunity. (D&D does not provide much in the way of mechanics to model being willing to ignore that and strike recklessly; this could be considered a flaw.)

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'd say the abilities that allow you to move around bonuses are good for variety early in the game: Combat Expertise, Power Attack, that sort of thing. Other feats that shouldn't exist at all are Serenity (WIS-based Divine Grace - paladins should just have a choice of WIS or CHA, prepared or spontaneous) and Weapon Finesse. There are also some mandatory feats for certain classes, like Curmudgeon mentioned; Natural Spell is the most obvious one. Yes, you're buffing a tier 1 by giving it out for free, but even tier 1s deserve reasonable feat choices.

[Necroticplague]

Or if we want to bring realism into DnD, the greatsword should be able to be used as a piercing weapon, because half-swording is an incredibly common thing to do with them (so the point where some only had the very end of the blade sharpened so it was safe to put your hand along most of the blade).

[Psyren]

You're silly. Raiden's obviously a wizard. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ETpLsbjg8I) Seriously, that's where the idea for that particular character came from. Film is Big Trouble in Little China, which you should watch if you haven't already, and should re-watch if you have.

ETA: ...and I just realized you're talking about the other Raiden (http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Raiden). Are their names at least pronounced differently?

It's supposed to be "Rye" (rhymes with "eye") in all cases, as Rai means "thunder" in Japanese. (Hence, "Raichu." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoy5dp6yNZ0)) The Mortal Kombat folks have merely been getting it wrong for years.

[Extra Anchovies]

All this stuff about not granting feats because it's unrealistic to be automatically trained in some thing or another is kind of irrelevant. The point of granting free feats isn't for realism reasons, it's to remove all the bull**** penalties and taxes that d20 is full of, and that happen to only affect martial characters because spellcasters are T1 without any feats at all. Who the hell is excited about taking Point Blank Shot, or even Precise Shot? Nobody, that's who. The goal here is to take those dumbass feats that are mandatory for noncasters to even function and hand them out for free so characters can make meaningful, interesting choices with their feat selections.

It's not about being realistic. It's about making this game fun.

And if you don't think that is a good reason, I don't know what to say to you.

[INoKnowNames]

It's supposed to be "Rye" (rhymes with "eye") in all cases, as Rai means "thunder" in Japanese. (Hence, "Raichu." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoy5dp6yNZ0)) The Mortal Kombat folks have merely been getting it wrong for years.

I knew the first part, but I did not know the second part (that Mortal Kombat had been screwing me up). CURSE YOU, ED BOON!


All this stuff about not granting feats because it's unrealistic to be automatically trained in some thing or another is kind of irrelevant. The point of granting free feats isn't for realism reasons, it's to remove all the bull**** penalties and taxes that d20 is full of, and that happen to only affect martial characters because spellcasters are T1 without any feats at all. Who the hell is excited about taking Point Blank Shot, or even Precise Shot? Nobody, that's who. The goal here is to take those dumbass feats that are mandatory for noncasters to even function and hand them out for free so characters can make meaningful, interesting choices with their feat selections.

It's not about being realistic. It's about making this game fun.

And if you don't think that is a good reason, I don't know what to say to you.

Except for about 5 words, that wasn't what was mentioned in the op post, which was the main reason I posted at all. Though I still think a better solution is to condense the 500+ different fighter feats into a more reasonable set that actually provide bonuses worth taking and that make you good at what you do, thus actually making people excited for taking them, I have no problem with condenscing or removing feat taxes for the sake of balance.

"For the sake of balance" and "because anyone who even remotely adventures should be able to do this", however, are two different things that don't always overlap perfectly.

[Extra Anchovies]

Except for about 5 words, that wasn't what was mentioned in the op post, which was the main reason I posted at all. Though I still think a better solution is to condense the 500+ different fighter feats into a more reasonable set that actually provide bonuses worth taking and that make you good at what you do, thus actually making people excited for taking them, I have no problem with condenscing or removing feat taxes for the sake of balance.

"For the sake of balance" and "because anyone who even remotely adventures should be able to do this", however, are two different things that don't always overlap perfectly.

One of the two reasons OP states for granting free feats is that some feats "are just unbalanced and unfun to have to take". It may be only five words (actually nine), but it's half the point of their post.

[OldTrees1]

Edit: Actually, I kinda see what you're saying here. But I'm still thinking it'd be better to make each feat worth it, rather than just easier to access. But that's just me.
I don't think you quite got what I was saying but your edit was a closer attempt.

We both think that feats should be worth it. There are a variety of ways to do so. Either you take the existing weak feats and add feat worthy effects to them. Or you give warriors those weak feats for free and create new feats with feat worthy effects. Personally I see no notable difference between those two methods. Personally I, like you, also err on the side of adding to existing feats.

Likewise there are some feat worthy feats out there but they have some non feat worthy feats as prerequisites. Improving those non feat worthy feats or granting those non feat worthy feats for free are two methods for making the existing feat worthy feats easier to access (however that would not avoid the necessity for new content as far as feat worthy effects go).



If you haven't watched until the 11:20 mark, you haven't watched enough. :smallamused:

Ah. I skipped around a bit but that part did seem high level. Strangely the later person vs person part of the fight seemed lower level(say mid level or so).

[Psyren]

All this stuff about not granting feats because it's unrealistic to be automatically trained in some thing or another is kind of irrelevant. The point of granting free feats isn't for realism reasons, it's to remove all the bull**** penalties and taxes that d20 is full of, and that happen to only affect martial characters because spellcasters are T1 without any feats at all. Who the hell is excited about taking Point Blank Shot, or even Precise Shot? Nobody, that's who. The goal here is to take those dumbass feats that are mandatory for noncasters to even function and hand them out for free so characters can make meaningful, interesting choices with their feat selections.

It's not about being realistic. It's about making this game fun.

And if you don't think that is a good reason, I don't know what to say to you.

"Fun" is a variable that exists on multiple sides though, not just one. It can be just as fun for a player when an enemy NPC or monster lacks these feats and misses because of it, or even strikes one of their own allies, turning the tide of an otherwise swingy battle in the PCs' favor. There is also the fun for the DM, when a PC lacks these feats and is put in a position of having to try something risky without them - ratcheting up the tension and increasing the stakes of the fight. It also increases the world immersion when, say, an archery Ranger gets several archery-related feats for free while, say, a Rogue does not - it represents just that little bit of extra training that fundamentally goes into being a Ranger without affecting that balance between the two.

In short, looking at the game from only the position of the PCs, and trying to make every situation as optimal as possible for them, loses a little something of what this game is about.

Note that I feel this way about spellcasting too, so it's not hate for martials or anything like that. Spellcasting in 3.P is a little too safe and automatic. My only stance is that teamwork should be encouraged as much as possible because that has positive effects on the whole party's fun - so any limits put into place on spellcasters should probably not apply to healing and buffs, and for that matter have more limited application to battlefield/soft control. Most of the time though I find that directly offensive magic and self-buffing is easy enough to discourage without resorting to houserules, just by for example using more monsters capable of dispelling or otherwise negating it.

[Snowbluff]

Or if we want to bring realism into DnD, the greatsword should be able to be used as a piercing weapon, because half-swording is an incredibly common thing to do with them (so the point where some only had the very end of the blade sharpened so it was safe to put your hand along most of the blade).
Greatswords, particularly the "zweihander" type used in DnD, have a long ricasso with its own handguard. The actual blade of the sword is kept sharp (but not very sharp).

You're silly. Raiden's obviously a wizard. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ETpLsbjg8I) Seriously, that's where the idea for that particular character came from. Film is Big Trouble in Little China, which you should watch if you haven't already, and should re-watch if you have.

ETA: ...and I just realized you're talking about the other Raiden (http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Raiden). Are their names at least pronounced differently? Hahahahah!

That's not Raiden anyway. Well, not the Raiden from MK. :smalltongue:


Snowbluff-sama:smalleek:
That is the proper way to address me, yes.


I'm not saying that Raiden is a Fighter, and that Armstrong is a Monk. :smallcool:

I'm saying that I like my fighters like Raiden, and my Monks like Armstrong. :smallbiggrin:
Oh okay.

Personally, I'd build Raiden as a Duskblade/Renegade Mastermaker, or fudge it as a warforge swordsage. You'd need a lot of ranks in acrobatics and stupidly good str, though. :smalltongue:

[AmberVael]

I think even if you argue that it shouldn't be accessible to everyone, IUS as it stands is not a great design. I think what I would propose for it is to effectively just be martial proficiency with unarmed strike- that is, if you're proficiency with martial weapons, you get IUS. I feel like its just as reasonable for a fighter to automatically know how attack properly with a punch as it is for them to know how to properly throw a throwing axe.

[Brookshw]

All this stuff about not granting feats because it's unrealistic to be automatically trained in some thing or another is kind of irrelevant. The point of granting free feats isn't for realism reasons, it's to remove all the bull**** penalties and taxes that d20 is full of, and that happen to only affect martial characters because spellcasters are T1 without any feats at all. Who the hell is excited about taking Point Blank Shot, or even Precise Shot? Nobody, that's who. The goal here is to take those dumbass feats that are mandatory for noncasters to even function and hand them out for free so characters can make meaningful, interesting choices with their feat selections.

It's not about being realistic. It's about making this game fun.

And if you don't think that is a good reason, I don't know what to say to you.

My inner grognard is confused by this. Feats were a fun thing they added to 3.0 that created a greater distinction between fighter A having an axe while fighter B having a sword. It was an extra arena to generate unique-ish elements between characters. Complaining that some bonus isn't enough and should have been baked in sits ill with me, even being able to take toughness 5x was a very nice and exciting step forward in the design of d&d.

now get off my lawn!

[PsyBomb]

For me, the list is very simple and direct, stemming from personal experience with a couple dozen weapons.

Weapon Finesse (no disagreement here in the thread)
Power Attack and similar (same)
Point-Blank Shot (NOT precise, that takes both skill and self-confidence that many professionals lack)
The feats that replicate basic functions (like Research)

[Segev]

The feats that replicate basic functions (like Research)

These, I think, could still be something you need some investment in, but tie it to skills and skill ranks. Whether it's just something having that skill can do, or you want to invent a new system (I have one I am calling "masteries" inspired by the way powers work in Munchkin Bites and Super Munchkin) to have special abilities that make different people's specialties in skills reflect different styles of play and abilities, they are too specialized and too narrow for feats, but work nicely for something that people are going to pick up the skills for anyway.

[INoKnowNames]

One of the two reasons OP states for granting free feats is that some feats "are just unbalanced and unfun to have to take". It may be only five words (actually nine), but it's half the point of their post.

If that was all that was in his post, then I'd agree. But then he goes on to make several comments that actually prove my last point. Let's compare some of his list to a pretty standard and commonly known party, the Order of the Stick:

Improved Unarmed Strike? I don't see, say, Celia or Vaarsuvius throwing a decent punch.

Improved Shield Bash and Two Weapon Fighting: Durkon doesn't seem to be getting any extra attacks when he gets all up in melee, despite the fact that, as mentioned in the op "if you are proficient with a shield you should know how to fight properly with it", so you'd think he'd be making more use of his ancestral tools.

Weapon Finesse: Belkar doesn't seem like he relies on Finesse to me. Ranger and all that.

Chokehold I can't speak on, because I don't know that feat off of the top of my head. Probably a grappling thing, though.

Most of his post seemed more on what he felt was something people should be able to do, or at least more so that than "this is a definitive feat tax", admittedly with the exception of Weapon Finesse, which is explicitly called out as such.

Let me reiterate: Removing useless feat taxes? Not a bad idea, so long as they're baked in properly to the characters to whom gaining the bonuses makes sense. But saying that every single adventurer should be able to passively do all of this is where I disagree.


I don't think you quite got what I was saying but your edit was a closer attempt.

We both think that feats should be worth it. There are a variety of ways to do so. Either you take the existing weak feats and add feat worthy effects to them. Or you give warriors those weak feats for free and create new feats with feat worthy effects. Personally I see no notable difference between those two methods. Personally I, like you, also err on the side of adding to existing feats.

Likewise there are some feat worthy feats out there but they have some non feat worthy feats as prerequisites. Improving those non feat worthy feats or granting those non feat worthy feats for free are two methods for making the existing feat worthy feats easier to access (however that would not avoid the necessity for new content as far as feat worthy effects go).

I underlined the main point here that I'm responding too, and the difference between me agreeing with you and finding discrepancies in a few others' remarks. Make sure that only those who would realistically gain access to them in the system, and I'm entirely onboard with starting off with some of the early level feats. Some characters genuinely aren't the type to be able to do everything, so some tricks shouldn't be added to their trictionary is my only point. They have different tricks to enjoy.

Improving feats by removing the chaff or merging it into the wheat though, either way yeah I'm all for it.


Ah. I skipped around a bit but that part did seem high level. Strangely the later person vs person part of the fight seemed lower level(say mid level or so).

Then you missed the part where the Monk stops playing around with his Ki Powers and starts punching Volcanoes and then starts throwing buildings, after the Fighter gets access to a better longsword. Check at 29:50. :smallamused:


I think even if you argue that it shouldn't be accessible to everyone, IUS as it stands is not a great design. I think what I would propose for it is to effectively just be martial proficiency with unarmed strike- that is, if you're proficiency with martial weapons, you get IUS. I feel like its just as reasonable for a fighter to automatically know how attack properly with a punch as it is for them to know how to properly throw a throwing axe.

Yeah, I can buy that. Really, it's that being proficient with a weapon is either so easy to get or means so little that there's basically no point to it. Making that actually mean something, and then letting feats from there actually make your skill with the weapon stand out world wide or larger, I would like very much.


Personally, I'd build Raiden as a Duskblade/Renegade Mastermaker, or fudge it as a warforge swordsage. You'd need a lot of ranks in acrobatics and stupidly good str, though. :smalltongue:

Oh please, Snowbluffsama, please do not tempt me. I have so little time as it is; I can't start being distracted with trying to build Mr. Lightning Bolt. :smalleek:

[Deadline]

Let's see:

Dodge
Power Attack
Short Haft
Two-Weapon Defense
The Improved and above versions of Two-Weapon Fighting (you should only have to spend the one feat to get the whole chain's benefits).

Agile Shield Fighter should not be automatic, but way easier to qualify for.

An AoO shouldn't stop a grapple attempt (although this may be in place for balance reasons).

I disagree with Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Shield Bash. Any character can punch someone, not everyone can use their bare hands to fight a guy with a sword and not get stabbed repeatedly (I do agree with the idea of making it a feature of having the martial proficiency with it though, I'm having a hard time picturing any trained fighter not knowing how to be dangerous with just his fists). And in the same vein, anyone can already bash someone with a shield (it's super easy to do), but doing so and keeping your balance and shield free to defend yourself might require special training. Same thing with Two-Weapon fighting. Anyone can do it, but taking the feat means specialized training that lets you do it better.

I'd also like to see the quarterstaff be a much more dangerous weapon, but that's more of a personal preference thing.

[Snowbluff]

Oh please, Snowbluffsama, please do not tempt me. I have so little time as it is; I can't start being distracted with trying to build Mr. Lightning Bolt. :smalleek:
You can take a feat to bind Lighting Gauntlets, or the one that gives warforged the ability to add lightning damage their attacks called Shocking Fist... or both.

Let's see:

Dodge Fighting Defensively is already an option.


Short Haft
Oh yes.


I'd also like to see the quarterstaff be a much more dangerous weapon, but that's more of a personal preference thing.
Yeah, I can't see it being anything better than a bludgeoning polearm. Halberds are where it's at. :smalltongue:

[OldTrees1]

My inner grognard is confused by this. Feats were a fun thing they added to 3.0 that created a greater distinction between fighter A having an axe while fighter B having a sword. It was an extra arena to generate unique-ish elements between characters. Complaining that some bonus isn't enough and should have been baked in sits ill with me, even being able to take toughness 5x was a very nice and exciting step forward in the design of d&d.

now get off my lawn!

Feats(even skill focus[speak languages]) were a very nice and exciting step forward in the design of d&d. However discussion forums like this one tend to have an evolving sense of game design. So the forum is now using 15 years of improvement on game design to evaluate the step forward made back in 2000 AD. We have had time to observe, evaluate, experiment, and innovate with the mechanical concept of a feat. Likewise we have had time to observe, evaluate, experiment, and innovate with 3rd editions martial combat mechanics. This leads to evolving conclusions on what the ideal division would be between martial combat mechanics and martial combat feats.

But your inner grognard is useful for remembering the importance of that step forward those 15 years ago. We should not take that innovation for granted.

[Bucky]

An AoO shouldn't stop a grapple attempt (although this may be in place for balance reasons).


Sunder and Disarm shouldn't need a feat to avoid provoking an AoO.

[OldTrees1]

I underlined the main point here that I'm responding too, and the difference between me agreeing with you and finding discrepancies in a few others' remarks. Make sure that only those who would realistically gain access to them in the system, and I'm entirely onboard with starting off with some of the early level feats. Some characters genuinely aren't the type to be able to do everything, so some tricks shouldn't be added to their trictionary is my only point. They have different tricks to enjoy.

Improving feats by removing the chaff or merging it into the wheat though, either way yeah I'm all for it.
Yeah. That is a good position. I agree with you in full. Especially the part I underlined.


Then you missed the part where the Monk stops playing around with his Ki Powers and starts punching Volcanoes and then starts throwing buildings, after the Fighter gets access to a better longsword. Check at 29:50. :smallamused:
Ok, I need to actually watch this start to finish now. I keep missing so much by clicking around. :smallamused:

[Arbane]

Then again, this is what I think a level 21 Fighter vs level 21 Monk + Epic Animated Construct fight should look like (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mALkd3DG6HA), so my thinking is probably very flawed. Bit of a warning for some mild language and violence. Probably important to mention.

I'm pretty sure you can't do anything nearly that flashy in D&D without spells spells spells spells.


All this stuff about not granting feats because it's unrealistic to be automatically trained in some thing or another is kind of irrelevant. The point of granting free feats isn't for realism reasons, it's to remove all the bull**** penalties and taxes that d20 is full of, and that happen to only affect martial characters because spellcasters are T1 without any feats at all. Who the hell is excited about taking Point Blank Shot, or even Precise Shot? Nobody, that's who. The goal here is to take those dumbass feats that are mandatory for noncasters to even function and hand them out for free so characters can make meaningful, interesting choices with their feat selections.

It's not about being realistic. It's about making this game fun.

And if you don't think that is a good reason, I don't know what to say to you.

Makes perfect sense to me. D&D3's design seems to have been unfortunately big on the unspoken but always present idea that if you want to do anything more interesting in a fight than stab the other guy in the hitpoints, you'd better cast a spell, own a magic item, have a feat, or be prepared to suck an attack of opportunity. This strikes me as bad design.

[Flickerdart]

Improved Unarmed Strike? I don't see, say, Celia or Vaarsuvius throwing a decent punch.
That's not the metric you should be using.

Not even considering all the combat maneuvers that have "improved X" feats, there are loads of things that everyone can do by the base rules, but certain characters won't. Anyone can Demoralize, but Vaarsuvius would not do a good job at it. Anyone can use a splash weapon, even though Vaarsuvius wouldn't be good at using them with his piddly wizard BAB and lousy dexterity.

[Kurald Galain]

Not even considering all the combat maneuvers that have "improved X" feats, there are loads of things that everyone can do by the base rules, but certain characters won't. Anyone can Demoralize, but Vaarsuvius would not do a good job at it. Anyone can use a splash weapon, even though Vaarsuvius wouldn't be good at using them with his piddly wizard BAB and lousy dexterity.
Yes. And by the rules, everybody can throw a punch. But people without IUS would not do a good job at it. I don't see the problem.


why exactly should punches be singled out, exactly? Is it really so much simpler to use a puny dagger properly against the guy armed with a greatsword than it is a punch?
Yes. Oh so very much.


It's not about being realistic. It's about making this game fun.
If the market has shown us anything the past six years, it's that most players prefer realism to balance. Yes, many people actually find verisimilitude fun, and care not one whit about balance in a cooperative storytelling game - forum overanalysis notwithstanding.

[Segev]

If the market has shown us anything the past six years, it's that most players prefer realism to balance. Yes, many people actually find verisimilitude fun, and care not one whit about balance in a cooperative storytelling game - forum overanalysis notwithstanding.

I would argue that people do care about balance, just not to the exclusion of (nor even at the expense of) their sense of immersion.

Also, I would further argue that it wasn't so much verisimilitude (or lack thereof) that turned people off to 4e, but rather that it just didn't capture the "D&D feel" of prior editions. (Personally, I just couldn't get into it when everything played like a Martial Adept. I like Martial Adepts, but if I want to play a cleric I don't want to really be playing a Crusader.)

[Extra Anchovies]

If the market has shown us anything the past six years, it's that most players prefer realism to balance. Yes, many people actually find verisimilitude fun, and care not one whit about balance in a cooperative storytelling game - forum overanalysis notwithstanding.

Realism vs. balance has nothing to do with this discussion. This isn't an attempt to balance d20. You can't balance d20. It's an attempt to make d20 more interesting and enjoyable by allowing players to make interesting and meaningful - and thus also fun - choices about their feats.

And where are you getting this information from? You seem very sure of its veracity. Can you cite reliable statistics showing that most (i.e. more than half of) players do actually prefer realism to balance? Or are you just pulling that statement out of thin air or some other disreputable place?

ETA: Segev's post has clued me in to the fact that you were referring to 4e. Next time actually make that clear instead of dancing around the issue and pretending that you're still saying something that's relevant to a discussion of Dungeons and Dragons, third edition.

[Hal0Badger]

IUS is not about "throwing a decent punch". It is about knowing a martial art, rather it be boxing, kung-fu or something else, to be able to use against armed opponents. Everyone with a high str score, like +5 or +6, throws a god damn good punch already, can easily knock a npc (commoner, farmer, merchant maybe even a town guard) in 2-3 hits. Training in holding a weapon should differ from this.

This being sad, I do not disagree that feat system deserves more love, especially on the feats like Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization (like, Weapon Spe. allows you to apply your str modifier one more to your damage, thus making it x2 for one handed, x2.5 for two handed). Blunt +1 gets old even before you level up to 2nd level. Feats like Weapon Finesse, as members mentioned above, should be weapon specific or character specific (like choosing you would rather apply your str bonus or dex bonus at the creation). Power attack should be made available to all without a feat, maybe up to a degree, and further feats should improve on that. We need more tactical feats like Shock Trooper (where 75% of the players forget the first 2 ability, but has very nice uses nevertheless) or Elusive Target, which gives a lot more option than a Dodge.

Maybe most importantly, Feats should not be balanced via preq. feats (Whirlwind Attack, 2TW feat chain, Style feats). Road to feats should actually be fun and rewarding. A spellcaster only needs to level up rather than investing in unnecessary and not-funny feats, unlike a mundane melee.

[Jay R]

The title says it all. There are plenty of abilities titled feats that pretty much anybody taking up a life of adventuring should already be capable of, or who are just unbalanced and unfun to have to take. Namely:
Improved Unarmed Strike (Anybody who grew up in a world like D&D should be capable of throwing a decent punch)

They can. But it does nonlethal damage and provokes an Attack of Opportunity. By contrast, somebody trained in boxing or karate can do lethal damage with their fists, and can close safely, avoiding being attacked.


Improved Shield Bash (anyone who has ever held a shield should know how to shove it in people's faces without dropping guard)

Nobody can shove it in people's faces without moving it away from their legs and head. This Feat is the training to pick the moment perfectly so that you're not open when he can throw the shot. I promise you I've faced people in the SCA whose shield rushes left them completely open.


Precise Shot (Anyone who is using a bow in combat should be aware of how to get around melee)

Trying to attack one of two moving, jostling people without risking hitting the other is not easy. If anything, I would make this a skill only available at higher levels.


Two-Weapon Fighting (A bit of a stretch, but if you are proficient with a shield you should know how to fight properly with it)

No. Many people can use shields well, but aren't good at blocking with a sword or attacking with their left (or off) hand.


Weapon Finesse (Basically just a feat tax for agile characters)

I could maybe agree with you here, but if I did, I'd also make it impossible to use a STR bonus with a rapier at all. Then I'd have to go down and decide which weapons could use one or the other, and whether the STR bonus for a mace is worth more than for a sword, etc. I'm not opening that can of worms.

Besides, this "feat tax" is balanced by the equivalent one of Power Attack for strong characters. Drop Weapon Finesse and Power Attack, and give all melee fighters one less feat, and you would change nothing.


Chokehold (Ultimate Combat) (What do you mean I couldn't already do this to people?)

No, you can't do it really well. Most people can't.

[Extra Anchovies]

IUS is not about "throwing a decent punch". It is about knowing a martial art, rather it be boxing, kung-fu or something else, to be able to use against armed opponents. Everyone with a high str score, like +5 or +6, throws a god damn good punch already, can easily knock a npc (commoner, farmer, merchant maybe even a town guard) in 2-3 hits. Training in holding a weapon should differ from this.

Again. It's not about realism. It's about making an enjoyable game. Improved Unarmed Strike is a worse feat than even Exotic Weapon Proficiency is (see below). When a feat is that bad, nobody's taking it because they want to, they're taking it because they have to (e.g. as a prerequisite for something else).

EWP can give you the Elven Lightblade, a 1d6 18-20/x2 weapon. Improved Unarmed Strike gives you a 1d4, 20/x2 weapon that can't be enchanted. So Elven Lightblade, which is one of the worst possible choices for EWP, is far and away better than an unarmed strike, and yet both cost one feat to use.

[Bucky]

Again. It's not about realism. It's about making an enjoyable game. Improved Unarmed Strike is a worse feat than even Exotic Weapon Proficiency is (see below). When a feat is that bad, nobody's taking it because they want to, they're taking it because they have to (e.g. as a prerequisite for something else).

Unarmed Strike has the benefit of being impossible to disarm, sunder, confiscate or otherwise remove from one's possession, and it can be 'drawn' as a free action. This is a niche no exotic weapon fills.

Not taking a penalty for nonlethal strikes is just a bonus.

[Molosse]

The only two I can think of would be Combat Expertise and Power Attack.

Combat Expertise is simply an individual concentrating upon defense at the expense of accuracy.
Power Attack is simply an individual attacking more wildly without attempting to aim.

In addition both of them have attached feat chains important to Martials that could serve to be shortened somewhat.

[Brookshw]

And where are you getting this information from? You seem very sure of its veracity. Can you cite reliable statistics showing that most (i.e. more than half of) players do actually prefer realism to balance? Or are you just pulling that statement out of thin air or some other disreputable place?

You do realize, I hope, that this is not a reasonable request, right? Unless you have reliable unbiased statistical evidence that supports "Who the hell is excited about taking Point Blank Shot, or even Precise Shot? Nobody, that's who.". Pretty sure I've seen a few players be glad for the small things plenty of times. There's a wide margin of games to be enjoyed, low op, low magic, high op, high magic, e6, various styles of house rules, and on and on and on, I'm pretty sure realism can be counted on among those margins. It's actually been incorporated in many game design basics as something to address, for example Funamentals of Game Design by Dr. Ernest Adams spends quite a bit of time analyzing how to consider incorporating Realism into a game from the initial design phases in order to have an end product that meets expectations. Figuring out what elements of realism to maintain and which to eliminate for the sake of mechanical complications is pretty important. Do you enjoy 1st person shooters? Notice that many of them actually try to mimic the firing speeds etc of the rl weapons they duplicate? That's not an accident, that's the result of a lot of thought that went into how they want the game to play and how the audience will react to it.

Edit: Back to the OP, I could do with Power attack being baked in easily. Probably shock trooper as well now that I think about it. Also as people have said, weapon finesse makes great sense as being a weapon property.

[Deadline]

Fighting Defensively is already an option.

True, completely forgot about that. Dodge seems to be about focusing your defense toward a specific target though, which seems odd to have as a feat.

Oh, and I agree on Sunder and Disarm Bucky.

Also, put me in the Weapon Finesse shouldn't be a feat camp.

[Hal0Badger]

Again. It's not about realism. It's about making an enjoyable game. Improved Unarmed Strike is a worse feat than even Exotic Weapon Proficiency is (see below). When a feat is that bad, nobody's taking it because they want to, they're taking it because they have to (e.g. as a prerequisite for something else).

EWP can give you the Elven Lightblade, a 1d6 18-20/x2 weapon. Improved Unarmed Strike gives you a 1d4, 20/x2 weapon that can't be enchanted. So Elven Lightblade, which is one of the worst possible choices for EWP, is far and away better than an unarmed strike, and yet both cost one feat to use.

Making it free for everybody does not fix it though.
IMO, unarmed strikes without IUS, works good both in mechanical and realism sense, you can land a blow, yet cannot protect yourself good, so open to attacks. If your ac is high (due to your reflexes or armor), your chances of being hit is low, but it is there. In my eyes, it certainly defines the line between a character who can throw a good punch in a fight and another one who is trained in some-sort of unarmed combat techniques.

What can be done is, buffing IUS a little, maybe making its damage dice higher (d6?), or combining it with Superior Unarmed strike, allowing a better damage dice based on your level. I like the IUS even now, it allows my melee characters to enter bar-fights more easily, because of the extra AoO you get.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that most of the feast are burden, and it is a huge burden on mundane classes, but giving this feats free solves almost nothing.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Unarmed Strike has the benefit of being impossible to disarm, sunder, confiscate or otherwise remove from one's possession, and it can be 'drawn' as a free action. This is a niche no exotic weapon fills.

Fighting unarmed isn't something you should ever be choosing to do over other options, its a back up weapon.

The issue is that the concept of unarmed strike specialists makes no sense and assumes that most trained warriors for some reason neglect grappling, which isn't realistic at all.

Improved Shield Bash, Bull Rush, etc: These are specialist feats, being a specialist should never be 'free'. The problem is that these specialisations aren't actually interesting.

Ignore rule feats like Precise shot, eschew materials, most of the above, etc. Making these free is basically identical to gutting the combat system of annoying rules, since all these feats do is let you ignore fiddle things. If these feats are really that much of a no brainer you either hate the third edition rules or should just ban them and force people to actually play the game rather than give them away for free.

Two Weapon Fighting: Is a character trait, so it shouldn't be default on everyone. Shouldn't be ridiculously long tree though.

Two Weapon Defence: In D&D, the normal use of two weapons is a specialisation of top of a specialisations.

Combat Expertise: In D&D, no one gets better at defending themselves normally. If you want to give this away for free, scrap it and play a variant that gives characters proper defences instead.

Power Attack: This feat makes no sense. Sure it sounds logical, but if you think about it its gamist to the extreme. Surely using your skill to do a low accuracy but high damage attack is a called shot rather than a power attack? Like Combat Expertise its part of third edition not having any default translation of skill to anything other than hit chances.

[TheIronGolem]

Fighting unarmed isn't something you should ever be choosing to do over other options, its a back up weapon.

The issue is that the concept of unarmed strike specialists makes no sense and assumes that most trained warriors for some reason neglect grappling, which isn't realistic at all.


Unarmed strike specialists make perfect sense. It's a high-fantasy game; I should be able to punch enemy swordsmen to death if I want to. The fact that this almost never works in real life is of no consequence.

That said, I'm against the idea of making IUS free. It should require a feat to be effective, but the flip side is that the feat should make it effective.



Power Attack: This feat makes no sense. Sure it sounds logical, but if you think about it its gamist to the extreme. Surely using your skill to do a low accuracy but high damage attack is a called shot rather than a power attack? Like Combat Expertise its part of third edition not having any default translation of skill to anything other than hit chances.

I don't like Power Attack/Combat Expertise being feats, but they should be options. That they are "gamist" is not a reason not to have them. And yes, "called shot" is one of several perfectly good ways to represent a Power Attack.

[marphod]

I'll throw my hat in:

There are plenty (PLENTY) of bad feats in existence. They run from overpowered or poorly thought through (DMM) to idiotically weak (Dodge) to overly specific (combat casting) to things characters should be able to do already (Two Weapon Fighting).

I take it as an axiom in game design that you should never make a character pay a tax to get the abilities inherent to their design. Never make a character take a near-useless feat (Spell Focus(Conjuration), Dodge) in order to take a better one. Don't make a character have a skillset required by a PrC that never gets modified by the PrC. Etc.

Weapon Finesse is an obvious feat-tax and should be a property of the weapon in question, rather than a feat. In most cases, I believe Piercing Melee Weapons should be dex-based for attack rolls and Slashing/Bludgeoning Melee Weapons should be str-based for attack rolls. I'd also be tempted to make Light Melee Weapons do Dex-based damage by default and (All 2 Handed Melee Weapons) and (One Handed Slashing and/or Bludgeoning Weapons) do Str-Based damage by default. One handed Piercing would be character's choice. (Parens for delineating the groupings)

Similarly the TWF tree should be a basic combat option. I'd probably make it something like To use TWF, take a -1 to all to-hit rolls. For each additional iterative, off-hand attack you wish to make, take -1 penalty to the character's effective BAB for the round' So, TWF at first for everyone, ITWF at +7 BAB, GTWF at +13 BAB, and a fourth iterative attack at +19 BAB.

Two Weapon Defense should be a property of your offhand weapon (Parrying dagger, Sai, weapons with basket hilts, large guards, or sword catchers, etc: yes. Others: No) and improve with the number of iterative attacks you make. (+1 for the weapon, +1 for every iterative attack you make).

The Weapon Focus should be a property of your BAB and enhanced by levels in martial classes. (Everyone gets it for one weapon at +2 BAB; every time their BAB increases they can change the weapon; Fighters periodically get bonus focuses and Weapon Spec at level 4, with GWF and GWS scheduled for later in their career and apply to all their Weapon Focuses; other martials may get additional Weapon Focuses and possibkly GWF/S, but at a slower schedule.)

Shield Bash should be a property of the Shield Proficiency; at worse, Shield Bash with bucklers should be part of Light Shield Proficiency, with Light Shields as part of Heavy, and Heavy with Tower, but that seems artificially restricting access It isn't like Shield Bash is particularly unbalancing as it is; and if you find that to be true, make Bashing weaker and add feats to make it more effective.

Natural Spell should just be part of Wildshape; how many wildshape-based Druids do you know who don't take it, (other than the occasional example to prove it is possible)? Heighten Spell should just be part of spellcasting (Memorized Burning Hands as a 3rd level slot? Congrats, +2 to its DC.) ETc.

I'm also a fan of killing almost all material components. Let casters use them as flavor if they like, or possibly a flaw, but if the only way you can find to balance a spell is an inexpensive material component, there's a problem with your magic system. If the only way to balance is an expensive material component is required, there's something unbalanced with the spell. Eschew Material Components is just a tax. Foci and XP costs make a little more sense; a fighter wants a weapon, a rogue wants a set of thieves tools, and a spell slinger wants their foci. Some things they can do without, but some things just require the right tool. And XP costs are a way to allow powerful magics in your campaign, and allow there to be a real, significant, long-term cost. (XP as a river breaks this, though).

If you're going to require something like Dodge as a gateway feat (uggggh), it has got to be worthwhile. Let it make one AoO provoking action not provoke from the Dodge Target, once per round. Make it an AC bonus against all known opponents. Take a look at Defensive Move from Arcana Evolved/Arcana Unearthed.


Should IUS be a bonus feat? Probably not. I agree in with the camp that says IUS is more than how to hit someone, but also how to survive in a (metaphorical) gunfight when you've only brought a knife. On the other hand, I think that if someone is taking the -4 to hit to make their Unarmed Strikes do Lethal damage, they shouldn't be counted as unarmed when making an attack.

As for making Improved Trip free with a trip weapon, or Improved Disarm with a disarming weapon, I think it isn't appropriate for the ability to only be part of the proficiency -- that isn't simply knowing how to be effective with the weapon in question, it is an advanced technique. Therefore, it should be part of the Weapon Focus ability for appropriate weapons.

(I also think that the Flurry rules should be merged with things like Snap Kick, Tail Spikes, and anything else that gives an extra attack with a -2 penalty to attacks for the round. And the Two Weapon Fighting and Multifighting rules need to be merged into a single coherent whole. That monk should be eliminated, not only due to cultural confusion and what is presumably unintentional racism, but because it really should just be a fighter or rogue build with particular focus, and the only way to practically balance the tier system is to radically change the spell level for most spells -- many first and second level spells need to be dropped a level, and most 3rd or higher level spells need to have at least one spell level added. Fireball as a 4th or 5th level spell makes it similar, but still better, than what a minimally optimized fighter can do at the same level; on the other hand, I'm not sure how making Magic Missile usable a few times every encounter is particularly broken, compared to other low-level characters. But this is a sidebar that's gone way off topic)

[Abithrios]

Regarding the reason Vaarsuvius never punches anyone:

3.5:


Weapon and Armor Proficiency

Wizards are proficient with the club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff, but not with any type of armor or shield. Armor of any type interferes with a wizard’s movements, which can cause her spells with somatic components to fail.



Pathfinder:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Wizards are proficient with the club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff, but not with any type of armor or shield. Armor interferes with a wizard's movements, which can cause his spells with somatic components to fail.

Wizards are not proficient with unarmed strikes.

[Keltest]

Regarding the reason Vaarsuvius never punches anyone:

3.5:


Pathfinder:


Wizards are not proficient with unarmed strikes.

That's rather circular logic there. Trying to argue that many adventurers do not know how to throw a punch because theyre not proficient with it, and therefore they should not gain proficiency feats...

I question that argument.

[ThermalSlapShot]

That's rather circular logic there. Trying to argue that many adventurers do not know how to throw a punch because theyre not proficient with it, and therefore they should not gain proficiency feats...

I question that argument.

I'm sure hit die also is a factor in why wizards don't punch things.

[Keltest]

I'm sure hit die also is a factor in why wizards don't punch things.

That may have something to do with it, aye.

On the other hand, it may be because if they get calluses on their delicate wizardly hands, they wont be able to form their fancy hand gestures correctly. After all, a leather vest can somehow stop them.

[Necroticplague]

Yes. And by the rules, everybody can throw a punch. But people without IUS would not do a good job at it. I don't see the problem.

Even with IUS, you aren't suddenly really good at punching. Even if you have IUS, your punch does less damage than using a dagger. You still need some source of unarmed progressiong if you want to do more damage than any random dude with a dagger. Giving IUS for free just frees up an annoying feat tax.

Also, anybody else find it kinda weird so many grappling feats require high DEX, to support a fighting style that leaves you flat-footed?

[marphod]

That may have something to do with it, aye.

On the other hand, it may be because if they get calluses on their delicate wizardly hands, they wont be able to form their fancy hand gestures correctly. After all, a leather vest can somehow stop them.

(Regardless of their strength, dexterity, training ... )

This thread isn't going to convince anyone one way or another.

I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who tried to express a sincere belief that the lack of proficiency (if it exists) is RAI. No matter how pedantic they may be, there is simply no evidence that this was the explicit intent by anyone on the design team. It is a disputatious and facetious argument.

To wit, the evidence of the design intention is multitudinous, from the historical precedence of the Monk class in 1st edition, the versions in pathfinder and Trailblazer, the versions from 4th and 5th edition, flavor text in the various books discussing monks, the description of monks in the various novels and computer games, statements by various members of the development team, and almost every monk sample character.

For instance, from the flavor text before the class statistics in the PHB:

[Monks] train themselves to be versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons or armors. ...
Characteristics: The key feature of the monk is her ability to fight unarmed and unarmored. Thanks to her rigorous training, she can strike as hard as if she were armed and strike faster than a warrior with a sword.
and in the class features description:

Unarmed Strike:Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed.

For reference, the definition of proficiency from the various weapon feats is "understand how to use the weapon in combat". (q.v. Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Martial Weapon Proficiency, Simple Weapon Proficiency).


But this argument is more-or-less pointless. Given that the various developers who worked on 3.5 are not able to speak officially for WotC, and WotC isn't making any more official statements about the no-longer-supported 3.5, there is no way to get an official statement on this. There is no way to definitively prove the developers' intent, only a overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

[SinsI]

I think that a lot of those feats should not be free, but the cost should be not as high as a Feat. I.e. they should cost something like a skill point (thus becoming Skill Tricks) or even be straight Skill checks.

Maybe give those feats for free only if you have the necessary stat/skill/bab/proficiency prerequisites?

[ThermalSlapShot]

I think that a lot of those feats should not be free, but the cost should be not as high as a Feat. I.e. they should cost something like a skill point (thus becoming Skill Tricks) or even be straight Skill checks.

You are talking about a completely different type of system.

It could work in 3e, and does with skill tricks, but if you go this far you might as well make a d20 system that works directly off skill points for like everything.

*shrug*

edited

Not that a skill system would be a bad thing, I actually like the idea of a completely skill based d20 system.

Melee Weapon Attack
Melee Weapon Maneuver (Trip)

Etc...

[SinsI]

Chokehold is just one move in a martial art. Making it a full-blown feat is an incredible waste, as it is too little to be a feat. But giving it for free is no good either.

How about creating a new feat, i.e. Judo, that would enable you to use Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Chokehold, etc.?

[Story]

Track. Absurd that you need a feat to figure out that huge pawprints in a line probably indicate that a bear went that way. It should be handled by Survival checks, possibly in the same way that Trapfinding works (Ranger and Druid might get Track as a class feature to let them track things whose DCs are 20 and above).

That's exactly how it works already except that the DC limit is 10 instead of 20.


While anyone can use Survival to find tracks (regardless of the DC), or to follow tracks when the DC for the task is 10 or lower, only a ranger (or a character with the Track feat) can use Survival to follow tracks when the task has a higher DC.

[marphod]

You are talking about a completely different type of system.


I'm working on something like it, although I keep getting distracted.

That said, it isn't without precedent. Pathfinder has Traits and 3.5 has Skill tricks, and there are corresponding Extra Traits and Extra Skill Tricks feats.

Weapons of Legacy also has a similar concept for selecting legacy powers (get 3 weaker abilities, or a moderate ability and a weaker ability, or a strong ability every 3 levels).


One of DnD/pf weaknesses stems from the lack of granularity in player ability choices.
Magic items have a very fine granularity -- it isn't always done correctly, but there theoretically is a system to price magic items so that there is a partial ordering corresponding to price. Character abilities come in a very gross cost separation system; either you spend a feat on something, or a class level on a bucket of things (with some flexibility from Alternate Class Features and Archetypes), but there is no way to buy things a la carte. Which is good for simplifying character creation and advancement, but means there are large development spaces that are not practically available.

[Necroticplague]

Chokehold is just one move in a martial art. Making it a full-blown feat is an incredible waste, as it is too little to be a feat. But giving it for free is no good either.

How about creating a new feat, i.e. Judo, that would enable you to use Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Chokehold, etc.?

Honestly, I think that's probably how most martial feats should be handled. Just make it so that instead of a whole chain, you have one feat that scales with BaB. That way, a fighter could be a master of many different styles, instead of just one or two.

[OldTrees1]

Honestly, I think that's probably how most martial feats should be handled. Just make it so that instead of a whole chain, you have one feat that scales with BaB. That way, a fighter could be a master of many different styles, instead of just one or two.

Frequently those scaling feats(assuming you are just using existing chains) would not be worth a feat slot. For example the TWF chain is not worth a feat slot by itself. While this is better than the status quo and might be a good initial step, it still is not ideal.

[Thealtruistorc]

Frequently those scaling feats(assuming you are just using existing chains) would not be worth a feat slot. For example the TWF chain is not worth a feat slot by itself. While this is better than the status quo and might be a good initial step, it still is not ideal.

What if double slice and thrashing dragon style are added as well?

I imagine a long chain for vital strike to make it viable, and several chains would likely incorporate seize the opportunity.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I'm working on something like it, although I keep getting distracted.

That said, it isn't without precedent. Pathfinder has Traits and 3.5 has Skill tricks, and there are corresponding Extra Traits and Extra Skill Tricks feats.

I've looked into making the same sort of system. That might be too much work though, I think you could just make a class that gave skill points and new skills and set it up through that...

Actually... I might do something like that.

[OldTrees1]

What if double slice and thrashing dragon style are added as well?

I imagine a long chain for vital strike to make it viable, and several chains would likely incorporate seize the opportunity.

I am a bit unfamiliar with Pathfinder. I found double slice(full Str to offhand damage) but I did not find a thrashing dragon feat(although I did find a discipline).

Double Slice would not be sufficient. ITWF is a better feat IMO and it is not worth a feat slot. Adding a discipline could be worth a feat slot depending on the implementation and would not be made OP if you got the TWF chain as a bonus.

[Jay R]

Track. Absurd that you need a feat to figure out that huge pawprints in a line probably indicate that a bear went that way. It should be handled by Survival checks, possibly in the same way that Trapfinding works (Ranger and Druid might get Track as a class feature to let them track things whose DCs are 20 and above).

How much time have you spent in the wilderness tracking animals? It's not as easy as you seem to think.

If the tracks are as clear as huge pawprints in a line, then anybody should be able to follow them, under the current rules. But much more often, tracking involves just occasional minor depressions, or disturbed dust, or even knowing where to look to see a disturbed leaf or branc, or even to notice the available routes. On game trails, there are lots of tracks, and the difficulty is figuring out if any of them are recent. Sunday I saw some very obvious boar tracks through the mud. But I couldn't tell how recent they were, how many boars came through together most recently, or which way the went once they left the mud.

In any event, this isn't a D&D invention. Tracking is in fact a specialized ability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_%28hunting%29), at which some people are much better than others.


I'll throw in my hat with "Finesse as a weapon property."

Finesse is a weapon property. It says right there that you can only do it with light weapons. You still have to learn the technique.

But I agree that the Feat is broken. It's an attempt to fix the nonsense that STR bonus is just as good for any weapon, which made darts the best weapon for a high-STR character in 2E.


I'd go further and say that Power Attack is a weapon property as well.

It's true that you can't do it with all weapons, but it takes training to do it well, even with a greatsword or longsword. Getting more power out of the weapon isn't simply using more force; it's a different technique. At 5'7" tall and nearly 60 years old, I can hit harder with a greatsword than untrained people much younger and stronger, because I've learned and practiced the technique.

It's more than just this, but the first piece of it is to pull back hard on the pommel with the left hand when pushing forward near the quillons with the right, so the fulcrum is at the quillons.

I would have no problem with declaring Weapon Finesse and Power Attack to be free, and taking one feat away from melee fighters. Since everybody takes one or the other of them, that would have no actual effect.

Making those feats free without changing the number of Feats available is equivalent to giving melee fighters one bonus feat. If that's your goal, do it honestly by just giving the bonus feat.

[LoyalPaladin]

The three that I give everyone for free are Able Learner, Precise Shot, and Weapon Finesse.
I give my players Able Learner.


Have you met someone who actually knows how to throw a punch in real life? A lot of people pretend that they can, but it's actually a lot harder than you think unless your foe is just as inexperienced.
I agree with this. "Back in the day", when I was in martial arts, I was really surprised by how many people couldn't throw a decent punch.

[Flickerdart]

How much time have you spent in the wilderness tracking animals? It's not as easy as you seem to think.
Honestly, I wouldn't base whether or not something should be available to anyone on whether or not it's easy to do. Tracking takes skill, yes - but that skill is Survival, and saying "oh hey, you need this feat too" is a pointless tax. It's also an ability that just moves the plot forward, so it's a pointless tax that doesn't even do anything for you.

[Segev]

I agree with this. "Back in the day", when I was in martial arts, I was really surprised by how many people couldn't throw a decent punch.

To some extent, this is a function of something that the military has to work hard to train out of modern humans. (I can't speak for humans from other, non-modern, non-westernized cultures.) We don't like hurting each other.

This may sound silly to some, given how often we hear of cruelty and how much violent action films are popular, but it's true. When it comes to actually, personally dealing damage to another human being, most of us flinch and hold back.

I know I, myself, can throw a pretty decent punch...at a punching bag or a block of wood (though the latter I have to be confident is meant to break, lest I hold back out of fear of hurting myself). But at a person, I do what a lot of people do: I fail to follow through.

Lack of follow-through is also just a product of one other thing that's counter to how our bodies have trained themselves for most of our lives: moving right to and stopping at the target. When we pick things up and manipulate them, we need to precisely position our hands to neither over- nor under-shoot. Punching, on the other hand, requires follow-through. So we have to overcome our association of the target as the "target," and instead train ourselves to overshoot that target. Something that goes counter to all of our tool-use training that we've done for years.

[Terazul]

Yeaaaah. Solved this through a combination of making a bunch of things baseline (Able Learner, Power Attack/Deadly Aim, Precise Shot, Finessable Weapon property, Combat maneuvers don't provoke by default), and making proficiencies into a point based system and adding other things into that (Two Weapon Fighting and Unarmed as categories, spend more points on your known weapon categories to get effective Weapon Focus/Specialization).

Yeah, a bunch of this stuff is not things an average person can expect to do. PCs are not average people, and literally all of those feats are used as prerequisites for more interesting things. I disagree with the argument I saw above of it devaluing individuals who specialize in those sorts of things; even with everyone getting them, characters who want to be really good at those things will continue to take the feats/abilities that do so, and those who have no interest in them won't bother. For example, in my games you don't need Improved Trip to not provoke for a Trip attempt, so you could try one in a pinch. Taking the feat does get you a +4 and the free attack, so someone who wants to specialize in knock/lockdown will still go that route. If anything it lets characters get into their specializations sooner while allowing other characters to occasionally succeed outside of their niches. Giving out feats like this doesn't make the Broadsword!guy as good as the Daggerthrower!lass when it comes to tossing things, it just means when he goes to throw a chair or something he's not completely screwed for missing out on like 3 ranged feats in his build. Same with free Able Learner, in that characters who really want to be good at it will pick it up as a class skill, though I haven't really seen any objections to that.

Oh, and Improved Unarmed Strike (stealing mostly from Seerow's feat overhaul (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?336953-Fighting-with-Style-%28Revamped-New-Feats%29)) gives Monk progression, at BAB+3 you can treat them as Masterwork, and you can treat them as a 1-handed or 2-handed weapon interchangably. Seriously, it is the prime example of a Feat Tax just to look cool, will be ludicrously more expensive to improve, and the type of individual who is going to invest further in it wanted to punch stuff anyway. Just make it worthwhile already.

[INoKnowNames]

My goodness, this thread is so interesting! I really get those cat meme pictures now...


You can take a feat to bind Lighting Gauntlets, or the one that gives warforged the ability to add lightning damage their attacks called Shocking Fist... or both.

You are a horrible, evil temptress.


Yeah. That is a good position. I agree with you in full. Especially the part I underlined.

Ok, I need to actually watch this start to finish now. I keep missing so much by clicking around. :smallamused:

I feel like we could be friends, which makes me wonder if you finally finished watching the entire thing.


I'm pretty sure you can't do anything nearly that flashy in D&D without spells spells spells spells.

I know that. It's not how a Level 21 Fighter and Monk would behave in the system as is; it's how I wish they could behave.


Makes perfect sense to me. D&D3's design seems to have been unfortunately big on the unspoken but always present idea that if you want to do anything more interesting in a fight than stab the other guy in the hitpoints, you'd better cast a spell, own a magic item, have a feat, or be prepared to suck an attack of opportunity. This strikes me as bad design.

If it weren't for the fact that it would basically require a system overhall to fix it. I like the idea of martial characters giving the laws of physics the bird occasionally. I wonder if the massive dichotomy between mundane and magic has been in place like this all this time...

I like my D&D world where warriors at about 5th level would be able to take on Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan, and that by 20th level the God of War wouldn't mind practicing against them. At the very least, they should be able to take on any even level encounter if it came down to brute force, unless said encounter had a specific counter to their preferred strategy. I like the idea of someone skilled enough to be able to jump at least hills and walls, and preferrably over buildings and mountains. That someone with such good senses can defeat magic just with their super human focus. That someone can climb sheer walls and cellings, and swim the depths of the oceans.

Screw the fact that if any of this can be done, it has to be done with magic.


That's not the metric you should be using.


Regarding the reason Vaarsuvius never punches anyone:
Wizards are not proficient with unarmed strikes.

It's posts like these that make me wish I was around yesterday with internet, so that I could still clearly recall my point. It wasn't weither or not certain character may or may not be willing to do these things, but whether or not it matters for certain characters to be able to do these things. Though we've since moved on from that point, I was more or less noting a preference for RAI over RAW and trying to make that distinction a bit clearer.


I think that a lot of those feats should not be free, but the cost should be not as high as a Feat. I.e. they should cost something like a skill point (thus becoming Skill Tricks) or even be straight Skill checks.

Maybe give those feats for free only if you have the necessary stat/skill/bab/proficiency prerequisites?

I like the idea of each weapon having 4 tiers of speciality, with different abilities based on how one might with them unlocked via the BAB of the user. Some feats that blatantly don't need to be feats could be accessed that way. Others that are stronger but still not enough could indeed be grouped together to be made worth it. I'm not sure I like the idea of skills if only because not counting attributes, Martial Characters are dumb as rocks, being most likely to have the least skill points. (Wizards, too, but since their best stat is Intelligence...) Maybe increase the skill points for them a bit more, and then I'd be interested.

[DMVerdandi]

Agree with a lot of suggestions in the thread.

Ideally, for me, I think that there should have been a difference in the way that feats are purchased. Feat trees being something you bought into I think is a bit silly, as well as having pre-requisites. NOPE. The only pre-requisites should be if it were say, a metamagic feat, or it changed a class ability, outside of that, no stat prerequisites.

I would have enjoyed if Fighter bonus feats each had one primary function, and then gained more as one leveled up. Scaling feats.
So, for example, Improved unarmed attack.

You purchase it, and that is the only unarmed attack feat you purchase. It gives you the level 1 benefit.
Then, at level four, it gives you supreme unarmed attack as a secondary benefit. Then at level 8, you get versatile unarmed attack.

Also, groups like two weapon fighting, and archery
You buy them, and they level up with you. Improved archery nets you the majority of critical archery skills, and as you level up, you don't purchase new feats for archery, as you are naturally getting better at doing what you do as you use that time to increase your level.

Now, Funky sorts of feats that deviate from the path of the general understanding [secret skills/styles,etc] would require you to purchase another feat, so, like, stunning fist.
Not something that naturally would stem from improved unarmed strike, so you have to purchase it separately, BUT, as you increase in level, you might get more uses of stunning fist per day, stronger effects, etc.



Now, having 8 feats on average means if you purchased all fighter feats, you know eight different ways of fighting that get stronger as you get stronger, instead of them all being taxes until you get weapon supremacy (boo).

It would also mean fighters who get even more Fighter Bonus feats than everyone, ACTUALLY fight the best, as they aren't spending so many on actually trying to master a style. Each feat leads to mastery of a style.

[INoKnowNames]

DMV, if you don't mind me asking, what would you do for a Fighter who wanted to put every single feat into one combat style? If someone wanted to be the absolute best mother-fighter in the world with a Longsword held in 2 Hands?

I ask this because while I feel your idea has merit, maybe it goes too far potentially? At least it's a good direction.

[Brookshw]

As this seems a reasonable place to ask, how do people feel about the base classes in modern. Well, not them specifically, but the way they did class trees that overlap with bonus feats.

[Flickerdart]

DMV, if you don't mind me asking, what would you do for a Fighter who wanted to put every single feat into one combat style? If someone wanted to be the absolute best mother-fighter in the world with a Longsword held in 2 Hands?

I ask this because while I feel your idea has merit, maybe it goes too far potentially? At least it's a good direction.
Currently, the system doesn't support this, except insofar as Weapon Focus/Spec is a thing. Just because the fighter can waste feats on them doesn't actually make him a longsword specialist in any meaningful way.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Currently, the system doesn't support this, except insofar as Weapon Focus/Spec is a thing. Just because the fighter can waste feats on them doesn't actually make him a longsword specialist in any meaningful way.

Weapon Supremacy gives you unique options with your weapon, something I would expect of a weapon master. It prerequisites are a different problem. There are also slashing flurry and the others ones that give additional options. Not amazing but it lets someone standard as a weapon master beyond minutely improved chances to hit and a slight increase to damage.

[DMVerdandi]

DMV, if you don't mind me asking, what would you do for a Fighter who wanted to put every single feat into one combat style? If someone wanted to be the absolute best mother-fighter in the world with a Longsword held in 2 Hands?

I ask this because while I feel your idea has merit, maybe it goes too far potentially? At least it's a good direction.


Currently, the system doesn't support this, except insofar as Weapon Focus/Spec is a thing. Just because the fighter can waste feats on them doesn't actually make him a longsword specialist in any meaningful way.

Flickerdart has a point. Even if one was to burn all of their feats into singular focus on one specific thing in 3.5, It is a marginal bonus at best. The current feats just aren't that good.

What I would do, If I had the Dev hat on is again have those general proficiency feats that allow one to focus specifically on the intended school of weaponry and wielding style, and then have other feats that grant options that aren't specific to weapons, but all the same will grant scaling bonuses.


For example, If you did want to have this longsword fighter, have him invest in something like a zweihander feat, then take like combat expertise, run, cleave, toughness, dodge, improved bullrush, improved trip, etc. All of those types of feats would grow with him, and make him better at using the two handed sword, without necessarily saying something like he is also picking up an archery feat and is also an archer.


On the other hand, someone who didn't want to necessarily be a master in a singular weapons group could grab more style feats, and still gain a bunch of different usable abilities from each one, yet not have to burn 3-6 feats just to be relevant in one weapon style, and could take the others as general style feats that are applicable to all styles.

[OldTrees1]

I feel like we could be friends, which makes me wonder if you finally finished watching the entire thing.

I finished watching it. But for the most part only the numbers/stats/tempo reached high level IMO. The actual techniques seemed like mid level techniques(jump, knockback, fast healing, really throw anything) benefiting from high level stats. It is certainly a good start when thinking about high level martial characters but I think high level martial deserves even more nice things. :)

[Flickerdart]

Weapon Supremacy gives you unique options with your weapon, something I would expect of a weapon master. It prerequisites are a different problem. There are also slashing flurry and the others ones that give additional options. Not amazing but it lets someone standard as a weapon master beyond minutely improved chances to hit and a slight increase to damage.
Weapon Supremacy gives you three flat numerical bonuses (yawn), and an "ability" that's been obsolete for about five levels because everyone has FoM (and doesn't actually let you do anything you couldn't, only do a thing you could already do in a different situation). The "take 10 on attack rolls" thing is also pretty much just a numerical bonus. Slashing Flurry gives you an extra attack, which is still not qualitatively different.

For all your feats you're still hacking at an enemy with your pointy stick of choice until it dies. You have no options.

[Necroticplague]

DMV, if you don't mind me asking, what would you do for a Fighter who wanted to put every single feat into one combat style? If someone wanted to be the absolute best mother-fighter in the world with a Longsword held in 2 Hands?

I ask this because while I feel your idea has merit, maybe it goes too far potentially? At least it's a good direction.

While I may not be the dude you're asking, I also made the same suggestion, so I'll try and answer from my perspective:

1. A master of a style should be able to make it do many things. Two-handed weapons have advantages in both flat-out damage, as well as things like Sunder and Disarm. So, in addition to whatever 2-h fighting feat, you might go for the sundering feat and disarming feat. So once you get the core style, you pick up related style that work well with it to represent mastery.

2. Styles should have branches. Just for example, once you have a base grapple feat (Let's say 'grabber', provides improved grapple, scorpion's grasp, then multigrab line), you might branch out into either grappling to do damage ('strangler', providing Chokehold, Stranglehold, Constrict, and Savage Grapple), or grabbing to lock a person down ('wrestler', lets you move someone in a grapple as a move action, not be flat footed while grappling, gain a cover bonus from those you grapple, and make those you pin considered helpless). A master of that style just grabs all the branches.

[Segev]

Weapon Supremacy gives you three flat numerical bonuses (yawn), and an "ability" that's been obsolete for about five levels because everyone has FoM (and doesn't actually let you do anything you couldn't, only do a thing you could already do in a different situation). The "take 10 on attack rolls" thing is also pretty much just a numerical bonus. Slashing Flurry gives you an extra attack, which is still not qualitatively different.

For all your feats you're still hacking at an enemy with your pointy stick of choice until it dies. You have no options.

That's why I think we need to up the feat game (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371450-Upping-the-Feat-Game) more than a little bit. Give feats that open new possibilities and give some scissors to go after certain papers that belong exclusively to spellcasters.

[INoKnowNames]

Currently, the system doesn't support this, except insofar as Weapon Focus/Spec is a thing. Just because the fighter can waste feats on them doesn't actually make him a longsword specialist in any meaningful way.

I know that the system doesn't, but it's a pretty common request from some players, and certainly one of the first things I remember encountering when I joined this board!

"I wanna be a good sword user! What feats should my fighter take? :smallsmile:"
"Why are you asking a question completely unrelated to the previous statement? :smallconfused:"


Flickerdart has a point. Even if one was to burn all of their feats into singular focus on one specific thing in 3.5, It is a marginal bonus at best. The current feats just aren't that good.

What I would do, If I had the Dev hat on is again have those general proficiency feats that allow one to focus specifically on the intended school of weaponry and wielding style, and then have other feats that grant options that aren't specific to weapons, but all the same will grant scaling bonuses.

For example, If you did want to have this longsword fighter, have him invest in something like a zweihander feat, then take like combat expertise, run, cleave, toughness, dodge, improved bullrush, improved trip, etc. All of those types of feats would grow with him, and make him better at using the two handed sword, without necessarily saying something like he is also picking up an archery feat and is also an archer.


On the other hand, someone who didn't want to necessarily be a master in a singular weapons group could grab more style feats, and still gain a bunch of different usable abilities from each one, yet not have to burn 3-6 feats just to be relevant in one weapon style, and could take the others as general style feats that are applicable to all styles.

The underlined was what I was looking for. That's exactly what I had in mind.


I finished watching it. But for the most part only the numbers/stats/tempo reached high level IMO. The actual techniques seemed like mid level techniques(jump, knockback, fast healing, really throw anything) benefiting from high level stats. It is certainly a good start when thinking about high level martial characters but I think high level martial deserves even more nice things. :)

If you can build a midlevel fighter who can do -half- of Raiden's tricks, or a Monk who could even remotely emulate Armstrong's capabilities, then you are worthy of the title "Emperor Tippy II". :smalleek:

And then you have to let me copy your build so I can play that character. Maybe you could play with me. :smallbiggrin:


For all your feats you're still hacking at an enemy with your pointy stick of choice until it dies. You have no options.

Oh don't say that. Because there are some feats like Combat Reflexes, Robilar's Gambit, Karmic Strike, Shock Trooper, Combat Brute, and the like that are some pretty good fighter feats, and they can be boiled down into that, too, so you make them sound bad. :smallfrown:


While I may not be the dude you're asking, I also made the same suggestion, so I'll try and answer from my perspective:

1. A master of a style should be able to make it do many things. Two-handed weapons have advantages in both flat-out damage, as well as things like Sunder and Disarm. So, in addition to whatever 2-h fighting feat, you might go for the sundering feat and disarming feat. So once you get the core style, you pick up related style that work well with it to represent mastery.

2. Styles should have branches. Just for example, once you have a base grapple feat (Let's say 'grabber', provides improved grapple, scorpion's grasp, then multigrab line), you might branch out into either grappling to do damage ('strangler', providing Chokehold, Stranglehold, Constrict, and Savage Grapple), or grabbing to lock a person down ('wrestler', lets you move someone in a grapple as a move action, not be flat footed while grappling, gain a cover bonus from those you grapple, and make those you pin considered helpless). A master of that style just grabs all the branches.

I wonder how many different kinds of branches you can form out of each different type of weaponry:

Ranged into Point Blank, Mid, or Snipping, as well as Movement or Accuracy based.
One Handed into..... ?
Grappling into Disabling, Strangling, or Judo-ing...
Two Weapon into Sword and Shield or Flurry...

This is probably worth splitting into it's own thread, actually.

[OldTrees1]

If you can build a midlevel fighter who can do -half- of Raiden's tricks, or a Monk who could even remotely emulate Armstrong's capabilities, then you are worthy of the title "Emperor Tippy II". :smalleek:

And then you have to let me copy your build so I can play that character. Maybe you could play with me. :smallbiggrin:
IIRC we were talking about how they should be, however I think that is a challenge I could try(if limited to the tricks shown in the video and if you account for when I said they had mid level abilities augmented by high level stats/mid level abilities numerically increased).


Armstrong looked(solely from the video) like he had Knockback, Improved Grab(I don't know how to get thisScorpion Grasp feat, doh!), Fast Healing(high level amount of a mid level ability), and Sweeping Boulder.

So I would start as a Goliath Monk Warhulk(adding in Barbarian 1 to qualify?). Getting the Fast healing high enough would be the tricky part.


Raiden looked(solely from the video) like he had some Jump based maneuverability, several stacked flurry abilities + pounce, a way to bypass DR, and a way to wield very large improvised weapons(high level amount of a low level ability).

So I would probably be a Fighter(Kensai) for the 2 extra attacks / Barbarian 1(for the Whirling Frenzy and Pounce). A transmuting weapon would fit the DR bypass. A 1 level Warblade dip at 9th + Martial Stance would grab Leaping Dragon stance for the Jumping although I would look into increasing movement speed(White Raven Tactics would help some). The wielding a very large weapon is just a bigger number version of Powerful Build but would be the hardest part.


But I am nowhere near deserving of such a title. I just spend more time looking at Fighter style optimization than most. I don't know high OP well enough to even compete in my own field.

[Flickerdart]

Oh don't say that. Because there are some feats like Combat Reflexes
Extra attacks that you don't get to control most of the time.

Robilar's Gambit
Extra attacks that you don't get to control.

Karmic Strike
Extra attacks that you don't get to control.

Shock Trooper
Two abilities that actually make Bull Rush slightly interesting - but the thing everyone takes it for is moar numbers.

Combat Brute
Extra attacks based on the world's dumbest mechanic of breaking your own treasure, and moar numbers.

and the like that are some pretty good fighter feats, and they can be boiled down into that, too, so you make them sound bad. :smallfrown:
That's because they are bad. The overwhelming majority of them just let the fighter do more of what anyone can do - attack rolls. Quantity will never be quality.

There are cool fighter feats that give them truly new and interesting things like PHBII's Combat Awareness, but they are saddled with onerous prerequisites and are generally weak when compared to what other classes get.

[Kaidinah]

It seems to me that a lot of this is coming down to "proficiency feats don't actually represent any sort of knowledge of how to fight with a weapon."

Weapon Finesse for example. What are you doing with that rapier if your dexterity isn't coming into play, and how can you claim to be proficient with it?
Or being proficient in shield use for armor, and shield bashing, but not keeping armor when you shield bash.

Clerics can use shields as armor, but lack martial weapon proficiency. So they can't shield bash. Paladins? Let them shield bash without penalty!

[Necroticplague]

Two abilities that actually make Bull Rush slightly interesting - but the thing everyone takes it for is moar numbers.

If we want to get technical, it's just shuffling the numbers about, not making them any bigger. Plus, Dungeoncrasher builds can make hilarious use of the ability to shove people in directions other that straight away.

[LokeyITP]

I wonder if those on the con-ish side of the argument substantially house-rule everything down in power level? So what if it takes years of training to jump 30 feet or track a 100lb anything through mixed terrain (and even early levels you're tracking things the size of a bus anyway). How long does it take to learn your first cantrip irl? :)

I.e. by the time the fighter can kill something with his body instead of non-lethal damage everything's immune to (BAB req also see below table http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize ), the bard has a empire like Alexander's and the casters add 3 10hit die demons per day to their armies of darkness?

[SinsI]

I wonder if those on the con-ish side of the argument substantially house-rule everything down in power level? So what if it takes years of training to jump 30 feet or track a 100lb anything through mixed terrain (and even early levels you're tracking things the size of a bus anyway). How long does it take to learn your first cantrip irl? :)
Actually, in that aspect D&D is very balanced due to the "starting age" parameter. Typical D&D campaign lasts a year and allows a character to grow from level 1 to level 20. This means that while the caster is still in the earliest steps of earning his first cantrip, a melee warrior that was born on the same day is already stepping into the Epic territory. It's just that players tend to mix old geezers that have spent their lifetime learning their 1st level spells and brand new rookies that have just passed their right of passage.

[Flickerdart]

Typical D&D campaign lasts a year and allows a character to grow from level 1 to level 20.
[citation needed]

[atemu1234]

Weapon Finesse should just be a property of appropriate weapons, not a feat.

Mostly the obligatory feats depend on the character. A Fighter with a 2-handable weapon is going to have Power Attack. A Rogue is going to have Darkstalker if they can spare a feat slot for it. A Druid is going to have Natural Spell.

This, basically.

[SinsI]

[citation needed]

DMG standard 3-4 encounters per day, 12-13 encounters to level up means that you level up in 3-4 days. So you need 60-80 days of active adventuring to reach lvl 20. Add some downtime and you will get an estimated campaign length of 1 year.

[Extra Anchovies]

DMG standard 3-4 encounters per day, 12-13 encounters to level up means that you level up in 3-4 days. So you need 60-80 days of active adventuring to reach lvl 20. Add some downtime and you will get an estimated campaign length of 1 year.

That's assuming (and I think this was Flickerdart's point) that most games A) start at 1, B) use standard per-encounter XP instead of milestone-based leveling, and C) end at 20. None of those three can be assumed to be true.

[SinsI]

That's assuming (and I think this was Flickerdart's point) that most games A) start at 1, B) use standard per-encounter XP instead of milestone-based leveling, and C) end at 20. None of those three can be assumed to be true.
None of that is important. What is important is that while the wizard is still drawing beginner level diagrams in class, the fighter has already been adventuring for many years, and is thus a better wizard than the wizard simply due to all the magic trinkets he has accumulated.

[Flickerdart]

DMG standard 3-4 encounters per day, 12-13 encounters to level up means that you level up in 3-4 days. So you need 60-80 days of active adventuring to reach lvl 20. Add some downtime and you will get an estimated campaign length of 1 year.
"Some downtime" between days of adventuring could be measured in years or decades...or days. And just because it's possible to reach 20 doesn't mean "typical campaigns" do. Hell, if everyone reached level 20, every world would be full of 20th level NPCs.

[Segev]

"Some downtime" between days of adventuring could be measured in years or decades...or days. And just because it's possible to reach 20 doesn't mean "typical campaigns" do. Hell, if everyone reached level 20, every world would be full of 20th level NPCs.

To be fair, a "typical campaign" does not represent a "typical denizen of the world's career." In fact, the conceit in none-too-few settings and/or systems (Exalted is a biggie on this) is that your party is actually nearly unique in its tale of power and might.

That said, I don't know too many gaming groups who can get through more than one "day's" worth of encounters in a single session, and even fewer who meet more than once per real-time week. Thus, unless the "lasts a year" estimate is strictly referring to in-game time, this seems a really solid under-estimation, using the assumptions presented.

(That said, I've seen games that went 10-15 levels in a single semester of college, but the DMs deliberately accelerated the advancement rate and handed out levels every session or three rather than handing out XP.)

[SinsI]

To be fair, a "typical campaign" does not represent a "typical denizen of the world's career." In fact, the conceit in none-too-few settings and/or systems (Exalted is a biggie on this) is that your party is actually nearly unique in its tale of power and might.

That said, I don't know too many gaming groups who can get through more than one "day's" worth of encounters in a single session, and even fewer who meet more than once per real-time week. Thus, unless the "lasts a year" estimate is strictly referring to in-game time, this seems a really solid under-estimation, using the assumptions presented.

We are talking about differences in starting age, so obviously out-of-game time doesn't matter. If you play twin human brothers, one went to fighter college and the other to a wizard's school, by the time the wizard graduates the fighter would already have 1d6 extra years of adventuring under his belt, which would make him not a 1st level rookie but at least 3rd level veteran (and since they are PC material, 20+ Epic is not out of line either). Come to think of it, he can take 1st level in Fighter and continue in Wizard, becoming an Archmage before his brother even started. :)

Back on topic, I wonder if any Item Creation or Metamagic feats should be "abilities to start with"?
I think Heighten Spell might be a good candidate.

[INoKnowNames]

IIRC we were talking about how they should be, however I think that is a challenge I could try(if limited to the tricks shown in the video and if you account for when I said they had mid level abilities augmented by high level stats/mid level abilities numerically increased).

[snip]

But I am nowhere near deserving of such a title. I just spend more time looking at Fighter style optimization than most. I don't know high OP well enough to even compete in my own field.

I'm halfway tempted to go through the video, make a note about everything they do and seeing if you can get every single ability in D&D up to that level of power, but I don't have the time until I get proper internet. I'm keeping a pbp game a little slower than I'd like as it is.

That said, I officially have my eye on you, OldTrees. :smallsmile:


That's because they are bad. The overwhelming majority of them just let the fighter do more of what anyone can do - attack rolls. Quantity will never be quality.

You have a very differing standard of what is good and bad from me, then. I consider feats like Natural Spell and Leadership to be broken/amazing depending on the game, and feats like Robilar's Gambit and Combat Brute to be decent/good. I'd say bad feats are like Skill Focus: Speak Language, or at least Diligent. Weapon Focus and Dodge are blech, but at least they provide some sort of use.

Also, if Quantity will never be quality, then why is Time Stands Still considered one of the best of the 9th level manuvers in Tome of Battle? :smalltongue:

I digress, I'm mostly just pulling strings and legs at this point.


There are cool fighter feats that give them truly new and interesting things like PHBII's Combat Awareness, but they are saddled with onerous prerequisites and are generally weak when compared to what other classes get.

Huh. I never found those feats worth taking myself, if only because most of those abilities are more easily replicated via magic items, but I suppose it's probably something I overlooked.

[Jay R]

Honestly, I wouldn't base whether or not something should be available to anyone on whether or not it's easy to do. Tracking takes skill, yes - but that skill is Survival, and saying "oh hey, you need this feat too" is a pointless tax. It's also an ability that just moves the plot forward, so it's a pointless tax that doesn't even do anything for you.

Survival and Tracking are two different skill sets, and people can have them at different levels. I am probably above average at Survival (two years as a Philmont Ranger), and definitely below average at tracking.

It's not a pointless tax; it's a realistic cost. If I want to get better at tracking; I'd need to spend lots more time trying to read sign in the wilderness. I'd get books like Seton's Animal Tracks and Hunter Signs. I'd actually study tracking, totally independently from survival.


Or being proficient in shield use for armor, and shield bashing, but not keeping armor when you shield bash.

Clerics can use shields as armor, but lack martial weapon proficiency. So they can't shield bash. Paladins? Let them shield bash without penalty!

Clerics can shield bash, with a penalty. People who train to do it, paladin or not, can do it without penalty.


DMV, if you don't mind me asking, what would you do for a Fighter who wanted to put every single feat into one combat style? If someone wanted to be the absolute best mother-fighter in the world with a Longsword held in 2 Hands?

I'm not the one you asked, but here's my answer:

If you want to be the best in the world at something, stay away from 3E/3.5E, which assumes you will always encounter people on your level.

---------------

If you want your characters to get more feats than characters in other games, don't waste time trying to justify it with this or that feat. Most of the justifications given are based on the vague idea idea that all top fighters share the same skill set and none of them are better at specialty attacks like Shield Rush. It's not true, any more than all the world's greatest football players have the same set of specialty moves.

Just see if you can talk your DM into granting additional feats.

[Ferronach]

I would have enjoyed if Fighter bonus feats each had one primary function, and then gained more as one leveled up. Scaling feats.

[snip]

Also, groups like two weapon fighting, and archery
You buy them, and they level up with you. Improved archery nets you the majority of critical archery skills, and as you level up, you don't purchase new feats for archery, as you are naturally getting better at doing what you do as you use that time to increase your level.


Something like this? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370686-3-5-Leveling-the-playing-field-(sot-of))

[OldTrees1]

I'm halfway tempted to go through the video, make a note about everything they do and seeing if you can get every single ability in D&D up to that level of power, but I don't have the time until I get proper internet. I'm keeping a pbp game a little slower than I'd like as it is.

That said, I officially have my eye on you, OldTrees. :smallsmile:

Set a reminder to send me a PM when you do have time/proper internet. This would be a fun project.

[daremetoidareyo]

When I DM, certain core feats are combined. Point blank shot and rapid shot. Dodge and mobility, power attack and cleave, weapon focus and specialization. Monks are proficient in unarmed strike and stunning strike is a class feature. That way 3.0 prestige classes stink less. Feats stink less.

[Terazul]

Survival and Tracking are two different skill sets, and people can have them at different levels. I am probably above average at Survival (two years as a Philmont Ranger), and definitely below average at tracking.

It's not a pointless tax; it's a realistic cost. If I want to get better at tracking; I'd need to spend lots more time trying to read sign in the wilderness. I'd get books like Seton's Animal Tracks and Hunter Signs. I'd actually study tracking, totally independently from survival.


In real life, you're correct, but it's missing the point of what he's saying/this thread, and from how the feat actually works. From a rules perspective you can't even use Track without ranks in (or a modest bonus to) Survival, and realistically the only characters who would take Track are the ones who would have it as a class skill/be that archetype anyway. Heck, you actually track people without having the feat in the first place using Survival:


Without this feat, you can use the Survival skill to find tracks, but you can follow them only if the DC for the task is 10 or lower. Alternatively, you can use the Search skill to find a footprint or similar sign of a creature’s passage using the DCs given above, but you can’t use Search to follow tracks, even if someone else has already found them.

That's such an arbitrary distinction that only makes it so characters who want to say "I'm good at tracking" have to waste a feat slot on something that arguably has little mechanical benefit because all it does is further the plot along when it works anyway (oh look, we can actually follow the footprints we found). There's like, no harm in giving it out.

You, personally, are not a good representation of what even a 1st level PC is/should be capable of. People keep trotting out the "well I can't"s though. Yes, in real life Pathfinding would be a different skill from Weather Watching, and they're both separate from Tracking and Foraging. In 3.5 all of that is covered by the singular skill Survival, because the rules say so. Track the feat is a meaningless tax you make players take to find trails you've arbitrarily made higher than DC 10.

[Flickerdart]

Also, if Quantity will never be quality, then why is Time Stands Still considered one of the best of the 9th level manuvers in Tome of Battle? :smalltongue:
Because the standard is set by "moar attacks" and "moar numbers" abilities. Time Stands Still is strong, but it doesn't let you do anything you couldn't do for the 16 levels before you got it. Something as lowly as Shadow Jaunt is miles ahead in that respect.

[Necroticplague]

Also, if Quantity will never be quality, then why is Time Stands Still considered one of the best of the 9th level manuvers in Tome of Battle? :smalltongue:

I digress, I'm mostly just pulling strings and legs at this point.

Huh? It was? I was under the impression that WRT, Shadow Jaunt, and the Diamond Mind ones that let you modify your attack roll (use concentration instead, hit touch, hit flat-footed) ones were considered leagues better. Of course, those aren't level 9, but that only makes the point better.

[SinsI]

Also, if Quantity will never be quality, then why is Time Stands Still considered one of the best of the 9th level manuvers in Tome of Battle? :smalltongue:

Because it is not an addition, but a multiplier - and feats and abilities that multiply things are in the realm of Quality improvement.
Quantity is poor because if you stack ten +1 bonuses all you get is a +10, but if you add a single x2 bonus while you already have +10 you can get the same +10 from that one bonus.
Just look at Ubercharger builds - they stack one multiplier on top of another to reach the realm of ridiculousness.
Think, what would happen if you could stack several sources that grant abilities like Ring of Wizardry?

[OldTrees1]

Because it is not an addition, but a multiplier - and feats and abilities that multiply things are in the realm of Quality improvement.
Quantity is poor because if you stack ten +1 bonuses all you get is a +10, but if you add a single x2 bonus while you already have +10 you can get the same +10 from that one bonus.
Just look at Ubercharger builds - they stack one multiplier on top of another to reach the realm of ridiculousness.
Think, what would happen if you could stack several sources that grant abilities like Ring of Wizardry?

Um. While I agree that Combat Reflexes and the like are good feats, force multipliers are quantitative not qualitative improvements. The reason Combat Reflexes is a good feat is that it is a force multiplier on the number of choices you have per turn which is a force multiplier(quantitative improvement) to your ability to make qualitative impacts.

In a more concrete form: Having 3 extra attacks every turn is not a qualitative improvement if you only get normal attacks. Add in options like Knockback and now those 3 extra attacks are potentially 3 extra flying foes.

[INoKnowNames]

Oh come on; I admitted that I was mostly pulling legs at this point! :smallbiggrin:


Because the standard is set by "moar attacks" and "moar numbers" abilities. Time Stands Still is strong, but it doesn't let you do anything you couldn't do for the 16 levels before you got it. Something as lowly as Shadow Jaunt is miles ahead in that respect.

You still acknowledge that Time Stands Still is strong, though, and you'd think that something being Strong would be of positive quality.


Huh? It was? I was under the impression that WRT, Shadow Jaunt, and the Diamond Mind ones that let you modify your attack roll (use concentration instead, hit touch, hit flat-footed) ones were considered leagues better. Of course, those aren't level 9, but that only makes the point better.

This branch of the discussion was about what feats were good and not, and I believe I was defending the ability to trigger extra attacks of opportunity as being good, because, as I believe OldTrees already made to SinsI, it's not about the damage; it's about what can be done with it. Improved Trip / Disarm, Stand Still, Thicket of Blades, Mage Slayer, Pierce Magical X, and such are all solid melee options, and (at least in most of the games I've played; maybe I Was just doing it wrong) several of these and more are allowed to be triggered (maybe not at the same time) in attacks of opportunity, giving fighters more options beyond just move forward and smack a bitch. That's why I was defending some of the first gateway options that came to my head.

Though, if I were to speak seriously about Tome of Battle, I've got a hunch that most of the other options that are considered miles better than Time Stands Still are considered so much better because they come about much longer than it. A Healer is considered meh because of lack of good abilities, and getting Gate as a 9th level spell doesn't change it. On the flipside, indeed for what Warblades and Swordsages can do, Time Stands Still is less the Oasis at the end of the desert and more the Icing on top of a very delicious cake.

... I'm hungry.

That said, and I also acknowledge that someone (I wish I had more time) could probably stand to update them, but I very strongly remember the old Warblade and Swordsage handbooks both listing Time Stands Still in Gold, with the note that "If you qualify for this, you're freaking taking it" and "Lots of attacks are the name of the game". Maybe that's just where I got that impression from, since some of the other 9th level moves don't seem to have been given the same amount of appreciation.

I'll be honest; I mostly like Time Stands Still because Cloud Strife is my favorite gish, and I love the fantasy.

[unbeliever536]

It seems to me that a lot of this is coming down to "proficiency feats don't actually represent any sort of knowledge of how to fight with a weapon."

Weapon Finesse for example. What are you doing with that rapier if your dexterity isn't coming into play, and how can you claim to be proficient with it?

Clearly when the designers meant "proficiency" they were imagining that you had taped a longsword to every weapon you're proficient with, and then applied those skills. (longswords, of course, are weapons every great hero knows how to use, and totally not a swordfighting form).

But yeah, Power Attack, Weapon Finesse, and Short Haft definitely for "this is what proficiency means". I might fuse IUS, Imp Grapple, and Choke (I guess? I don't know that feat), but that could also just be my personal biases showing through. Precise Shot I'd give to archers at some point because of the known issues with not having it - the fighting style just doesn't work. I might not give it from level 1 though.

[atemu1234]

All of the feats that grant new uses for skills.

[OldTrees1]

All of the feats that grant new uses for skills.

As a general rule or as an absolute rule with no exceptions? The general rule makes perfect sense but I suspect there is a feat or two out there that might be worth an exception.

2 examples that might be worthy exceptions:
1) Free action Spot and Listen checks(Quick Reconnoiter CAdv)
2) Move action DC 25 Listen check to pinpoint all foes within 30ft(Hear the Unseen CAdv)

Now personally I think those would be fine granted for free but I would increase the DCs a bit I think.

But feats like Keen Eared Scout(PHB II) would be great additions.

[Psyren]

Now personally I think those would be fine granted for free but I would increase the DCs a bit I think.


Letting anyone do them, but at a steep penalty/longer action that would be lowered by taking the feat, would be my approach as well. That way - favorable circumstances, buffs, high experience, extensive training and even things like shapeshifting could potentially let you do this without such a feat, but the feat lets you pull off such extraordinary things much earlier.

[OldTrees1]

Letting anyone do them, but at a steep penalty/longer action that would be lowered by taking the feat, would be my approach as well. That way - favorable circumstances, buffs, high experience, extensive training and even things like shapeshifting could potentially let you do this without such a feat, but the feat lets you pull off such extraordinary things much earlier.

That middle ground is an even better idea. In some cases you will need to buff the feats rather than penalize the non feat action (for the feats that were not worth a feat prior).

[Thurbane]

I think a feat-point system would go a long way to fixing things like this.

A character earns a certain number of feat-points per level.

Terrible feats like Skill Focus or Toughness would be worth 1 point, while really good feats like Leadership or Travel Devotion might be worth 4 or 5.

That way it's easy to purchase crappy "feat tax" feats, or you can hold on to your points to buy really good ones.

Ideally, the point value should be such that you could pick up one terrible feat per level, or one really strong feat every three levels or so.

[Ferronach]

I think a feat-point system would go a long way to fixing things like this.

A character earns a certain number of feat-points per level.

Terrible feats like Skill Focus or Toughness would be worth 1 point, while really good feats like Leadership or Travel Devotion might be worth 4 or 5.

That way it's easy to purchase crappy "feat tax" feats, or you can hold on to your points to buy really good ones.

Ideally, the point value should be such that you could pick up one terrible feat per level, or one really strong feat every three levels or so.

This is sort of like what DDO did with Enhancements (http://ddowiki.com/page/Enhancements) (more so with the older versions...).

[Extra Anchovies]

I think a feat-point system would go a long way to fixing things like this.

A character earns a certain number of feat-points per level.

Terrible feats like Skill Focus or Toughness would be worth 1 point, while really good feats like Leadership or Travel Devotion might be worth 4 or 5.

That way it's easy to purchase crappy "feat tax" feats, or you can hold on to your points to buy really good ones.

Ideally, the point value should be such that you could pick up one terrible feat per level, or one really strong feat every three levels or so.

Hm. Great idea! The last time someone tried this, everybody loved it.

It would be simpler to separate feats into "good feats" (Power Attack, Combat Reflexes) and "bad feats" (combat expertise, alertness), and let a character trade a good feat for two bad feats.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Hm. Great idea! The last time someone tried this, everybody loved it.

It would be simpler to separate feats into "good feats" (Power Attack, Combat Reflexes) and "bad feats" (combat expertise, alertness), and let a character trade a good feat for two bad feats.

It wasn't a bad idea when Sean K Reynolds did it; his execution was just terrible. Natural Spell was half the value of Two-Weapon Fighting, and less than Augment Summoning, Point Blank Shot and EWP.

[Thurbane]

It wasn't a bad idea when Sean K Reynolds did it; his execution was just terrible. Natural Spell was half the value of Two-Weapon Fighting, and less than Augment Summoning, Point Blank Shot and EWP.

Agreed - I like the idea in principle, but his implementation of it was terrible.

[Segev]

Just to throw a couple more cents on the pile...

Don't confuse a bad execution with a bad idea. Exercise and diet are good ideas! Eating nothing while going on a marathon every day is a terrible way to go about it.