PDA

View Full Version : So, I took the Otherworldly Feat...



Duskwither
2007-06-11, 09:29 PM
... From the FR Campaign Setting book. I'm now proficient in all Martial Weapons because I'm an Outsider now. Awesome, yes? :smallcool:

Seriously though, getting a free Proficiency with all Martial Weapons seems a bit too awesome. Is there anyone who would snip at that part of being an Outsider via this feat?

Damionte
2007-06-11, 09:33 PM
Being an outsider doesn't give you martial weapon proficiency for free.

What does your feat actually say? Can you quote it please. It's a 3.0 book so I don't have it sitting in front of me at work.

Yechezkiel
2007-06-11, 09:38 PM
Every group I know snips at that... the feat only changes your type, grants you Darkvision, and gives you +2 Diplomacy (and isn't that enough for a 1st-lvl feat?).

Arbitrarity
2007-06-11, 09:38 PM
Features
An outsider has the following features.

8-sided Hit Dice.
Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter).
Good Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves.
Skill points equal to (8 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.
Traits
An outsider possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

Darkvision out to 60 feet.
Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.
Proficient with all simple and martial weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Outsiders not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Outsiders are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native outsiders breathe, eat, and sleep.


Actually, they are. I would hope the change doesn't retroactively affect too much.

Yechezkiel
2007-06-11, 09:40 PM
Actually, they are. I would hope the change doesn't retroactively affect too much.

If anyone else doesn't see the problem with one feat replacing multiple Martial Weapon and Armor Proficiencies, you are hopeless.

Damionte
2007-06-11, 09:40 PM
You're not an outsider. You're "considered" an outside. similar to the 20th level Monk ability.

You'll need to quote the feat.

Arbitrarity
2007-06-11, 09:44 PM
I'm not saying it's not broken, I'm saying outisders are auto proficient with all martial weapons.

So are 1'st level fighters.

Like a Lion
2007-06-11, 09:44 PM
If anyone else doesn't see the problem with one feat replacing multiple Martial Weapon and Armor Proficiencies, you are hopeless.

Or maybe proficiencies are a crappy use of feats--a fighter level replaces ALL non-exotic weapon and armor proficiencies, c'mon. "Proficient with such-and-such particular weapon" is a very, very weak feat.

Otherworldly does make you an outsider, and it's way too good... but not because of the weapons thing, because it makes you an outsider. Alter Self into outsiders, Polymorph into outsiders, et cetera. And that's on top of becoming immune to _____ Person spells, gaining Darkvision, and whatever else. the weapon proficiencies are a drop in the bucket.

Yechezkiel
2007-06-11, 09:45 PM
You're not an outsider. You're "considered" an outside. similar to the 20th level Monk ability.

You'll need to quote the feat.

It's in the Players' Guide to Faerun, we cannot quote it here.


P.s. And it is a 3.5 book.

Arbitrarity
2007-06-11, 09:49 PM
Part of the feat says basically, your creature type is outsider (native).

You're an outsider.

Damionte
2007-06-11, 09:56 PM
Ok what rules are we goign to use. Imean if we are going 3.0 only "which apparantly you are" I suppose you can play it as written.

There's a reason though we've moved on to 3.5.

In 3.5 outsider is no longer a template of it's own. The different outsiders have been broken up into thier own groups. For instance in forgotten Realms Asimars and tieflings are now (celestial) and or (Fiendish) in 3.5 rather than simply(outsider).

The concept of becoming a template type compared to being considered a template type also changed.

If you guys are goign to play it qwith the 3.0 rules then go for it. It's your game. Under the current ruleset it wouldn't work. That feat doesn't even exist in 3.5

Duskwither
2007-06-11, 09:58 PM
Yeah, I can't quote it directly, but it specifically mentions I'm not a Humanoid, but an Outsider.

I gotta say, it's one heck of an awesome feat. Despite the controversy of it all, that is.

Sure makes getting into something like Eldritch Knight cheesey easy, though.

Edit: Whoa, my apologies, but I hadn't realized it was reprinted in the Player's Guide to Faerun at first, but it's just plain better there anyway. It's a 3.5 character.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-11, 10:13 PM
Damionte, what on earth are you talking about? The Player's Guide to Faerun web enhancement updates monsters to 3.5, and the various planetouched have the type Outsider (native) just like they always do.

Damionte
2007-06-11, 10:33 PM
In Races of faerun they don't. And the latest book trumps the older ones.

I don't have the players guide to faerun in front of me, and can't access the wizards site from work. I do happen to have Races of Faerun here with me though.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-11, 10:36 PM
In Races of faerun they don't. And the latest book trumps the older ones.

Is the outsider (native) type listed in any 3.5 book? Yes it is.

The Otherworldly feat makes Outsider (Native) your type. You gain all the benefits of that.

EDIT: Outsider type is in the MM. Native is a subtype.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-06-11, 10:36 PM
I've always figured it was an unwritten rule that things like free proficiency based on your type were based on if you had HD of that type or not. Like an aasimar shouldn't be automatically proficient (although lots of people seem to think they should) but a hound archon should be.

Like a Lion
2007-06-11, 10:37 PM
If tieflings and aasimar aren't native outsiders somewhere, that somewhere is wrong; they're native outsiders in the freakin' Monster Manual. It's the only thing that even sort of remotely justifies their LA.

Duskwither
2007-06-11, 10:40 PM
I've always figured it was an unwritten rule that things like free proficiency based on your type were based on if you had HD of that type or not. Like an aasimar shouldn't be automatically proficient (although lots of people seem to think they should) but a hound archon should be.

Really? The thought of an Aasimar having free Martial Proficiency is always one of the things that tempted me to actually make a cleric one.

Though, that's probably a good alternative, seeing as how there's a feat in the PGtF that offers proficiency with all Martial Weapons. Or maybe the intent was that it's an awesome feat only available to a select few regions/races? /shrug

Damionte
2007-06-11, 10:54 PM
Yeah I'm more concerened with rather or not this feat should be allowed to change your race. I do not believe it is currently meant to. The wording on the 3.0 feat doesn't take the current use of other contemporary abilities into effect.

Most 3.5 feats that give the same ability are written as "considered" a template of such and such type. In other words you can be effected by spells and effects which only effect such and such subtype. Compared to your normal Human/Elf/dwarf whatever sybtype you were before.

The feat you are referencing seems to have been replaced in races of faerun by similar feats which apply to these races.

celestial Bloodline, Outsider Wings and so on.

Also the abilities mentioned in the Monster Manual are for generic Outsiders who'm have not been defined in any other way.

In your case I would definately say you fall under ((Unless otherwise noted in a creatures entry))

You have a player class and well defined proficienies skills and hit dice.

The outsider type template is meant to represent a generic outsider you may meet as a random eno****er who does nto have a PC class.

The only ability you shoudl get from that feat is the one it says you get. Mainly Darkvision. Everything else an outsider get's is trumped by your own race 7 class abilities.

EDIT: Quick note, you'll have to forgive me if soem of these responses are hasty or seem to be lacking something. I'm at work and am tossing these replys up in bretween the things I'm "supposed" to be doing. :)

Jasdoif
2007-06-11, 10:57 PM
I've always figured it was an unwritten rule that things like free proficiency based on your type were based on if you had HD of that type or not. Like an aasimar shouldn't be automatically proficient (although lots of people seem to think they should) but a hound archon should be.Well, it's a written rule that humanoids lose the benefits of their type if they don't have racial HD. The other types have no such statement, however, and the FAQ supports that Aasimar and Tieflings retain the martial proficiencies of their Outsider type.

Ramza00
2007-06-11, 10:57 PM
I've always figured it was an unwritten rule that things like free proficiency based on your type were based on if you had HD of that type or not. Like an aasimar shouldn't be automatically proficient (although lots of people seem to think they should) but a hound archon should be.


Traits

A humanoid possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.
* Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, or by character class. If a humanoid does not have a class and wears armor, it is proficient with that type of armor and all lighter types. Humanoids not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Humanoids are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.

Why then would the Humanoid entry have the part I bolded? With your logic it would be Simple Weapons, for Character Class would overwrite it if the character class allowed more than simple weapons.

Damionte
2007-06-11, 10:58 PM
That reminds me... what Race is the character in question?

Ramza00
2007-06-11, 11:00 PM
Remember the Otherwordly is a lvl 1 only feat, due to the fact it is supposed to recognize innate abilities. It has this special qualifer.


Special: You may select this feat only as a 1st-level character. You may have only one regional feat.

Only humans (a certain subrace) and elfs (two certain subraces), and Spirit Folk can take this feat.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-11, 11:01 PM
I'm sorry about this but your wrong.


Yeah I'm more concerened with rather or not this feat should be allowed to change your race. I do not believe it is currently meant to. The wording on the 3.0 feat doesn't take the current use of other contemporary abilities into effect.

None of this matters at all. All that matters is what the feat says it does, which is changes your type to outsider and your subtype to native.


Most 3.5 feats that give the same ability are written as "considered" a template of such and such type. In other words you can be effected by spells and effects which only effect such and such subtype. Compared to your normal Human/Elf/dwarf whatever sybtype you were before.

No one cares one iota what other 3.5 feats do. We care what this feat does.


The feat you are referencing seems to have been replaced in races of faerun by similar feats which apply to these races.

celestial Bloodline, Outsider Wings and so on.

Does RoF say that those feats replace Otherworldly? No. Therefore they don't. Bug WotC about an errata.


Also the abilities mentioned in the Monster Manual are for generic Outsiders who'm have not been defined in any other way.

In your case I would definately say you fall under ((Unless otherwise noted in a creatures entry))

You have a player class and well defined proficienies skills and hit dice.

The outsider type template is meant to represent a generic outsider you may meet as a random eno****er who does nto have a PC class.

There is no "outsider template". Outsider is a type. That type has certain benefits.


The only ability you shoudl get from that feat is the one it says you get. Mainly Darkvision. Everything else an outsider get's is trumped by your own race 7 class abilities.

Stop with the wishful thinking. One thing the feat gives you is the outsider type. That gives you various other things.


I'm tired of people saying how stuff should be or was intended to be where it concerns RAW issues. All that matters is what is said. Yes it is most likely broken beyond belief. Yes it should be changed.

But that doesn't matter.

Ramza00
2007-06-11, 11:07 PM
Now was the feat supposed to give you the martial weapon proficiency as RAI that is a different question than does the feat give you martial weapon proficiency RAW (which it does give via RAW).

We have no evidence on the RAI, and because I say so, or I think it would be more balanced doesn't count.

Duskwither
2007-06-11, 11:11 PM
Yeah, I agree with Tippy there on every point.


That reminds me... what Race is the character in question?

Sun Elf. From Evermeet.

Damionte
2007-06-11, 11:19 PM
The forums took a dump on me in the middle of my typing. :(

Anyway here's the second attekpt at this post.. Haha


Now was the feat supposed to give you the martial weapon proficiency as RAI that is a different question than does the feat give you martial weapon proficiency RAW (which it does give via RAW).

We have no evidence on the RAI, and because I say so, or I think it would be more balanced doesn't count.

Actually that's the only thing that does count. What you and yours feels is right for "your" game. My arguments are based on the principle that the OP either as a GM or as aplayer will have to actually take this feat back to a real table of players and decide as a group rather this feet as he interprets it is ok to let into the game as is.

Everything is this game goes back to <Rule-Zero>.

We all understajd that many of the rules as printed have flaws. Otherwise we wouldn't get additional rules revisions. We discuss them to help each other make the game more fun to play for everyone at the table.

If the OP and his group play it one way or the other is up to them. Just offering different viewpoints on it.

Damionte
2007-06-11, 11:25 PM
At the same time though I believe I've already solved this one even from a Rules as written standpoint.

The Outsiders discription says "as otherwise stated".

This feat does state which outsider abilities you gain. You gain darkvision.

Otherwise the feat abilities would simply state you become an outside and not listed any specific outsider abilities.

Ramza00
2007-06-11, 11:27 PM
Ban the feat outright, in my mind, it is over powered. Else you will be doing as soon as lvl 5, alter self into a dwarven ancestor. (though this also has a major problem with polymorph line of spells). You can get alter self earlier, but this form requires 5 HD.

Str 22, Dex 8, Con 28, DR 10/adamantine, +18 natural armor

At lvl 5 a wizard or sorcerer with this feat is tanking better than a fighter, with comparable strength, without any investment in str via point buy/rolls.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060704a&page=3

This form is not normally possible since it is an outsider form, with this feat you have access to outsider forms.

Jack Mann
2007-06-11, 11:27 PM
Rule zero doesn't change what the other rules say. Rule zero is (ideally) what should be. The RAW is what is. Yes, in a given game, what the DM says is most important. But because that will change from game to game (I had a DM who let my sun elf with otherworldly get all martial weapons, but he was big on the RAW), they are secondary to a discussion on the rules. At best, they should be suggestions.

This is why you were wrong, Damionte. You said that the feat doesn't give the proficiencies. It does. That is what the rules say. It shouldn't, and his DM should probably ignore that part of the feat. But that is not the same thing. Is versus should again.

Terminology matters.

Damionte
2007-06-11, 11:30 PM
Are the forums like really really slow to anyone else right now? Or is it just me?

Ramza00
2007-06-11, 11:31 PM
Traits

An outsider possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

The text says, unless otherwise noted. That means you get it unless the entry says you don't get it. The Otherwordly feat doesn't say you do not get it, thus you get it.

(Otherwordly also gives a +2 bonus to diplomacy checks, even though that isn't listed under outsiders.)

Damionte
2007-06-11, 11:35 PM
Also this isn't a RAW discussion really.

The OP started this thread with. Wow this feat seems overpowered is there anyone who would change this feat?

So why exactly are we jumping on me now?

EDIT: On the point of RAW vs house rules. I've been playing a loooong time. Over 20 years, I've played with a lot of different groups, and have never sat down to a game, with the exception of maybe RPGA games that don't have at least 1 house rule.

come to thin of it even the RPGA uses house rules. granted they're house rules that many agreed apun but they're still house rules.

I have yet to encounter a play group who does every aspect of this game or any of it's previous incarnations exactly word for word RAW.

Ramza00
2007-06-12, 12:02 AM
AWW my posts got mixed up, instead of posting a new post I accidently edited an old one (thus my post 28 should have been a reply in like post 34 or so).

Three distinction due to the fact we are on the internet, and their isn't uniform house rules.


RAW rules as actually written, often semi obvious though sometimes goes against our intution.
RAI rules as the designers intended. If the designers don't tell us what the RAI is, it is indeterminate often, thus its a guessing game and less obvious than RAW
Houserules. What people actually play, but due to the fact no gaming group is the same there is no uniformity with houserules. Thus in general discussions we usually talk about uniform things and thus RAW or RAI and then state the problems with balance about RAW or RAI.


Saying it "shouldn't be this way" for I don't like it, doesn't make your opinion suddenly RAI or RAW. If it did work this way it would be circular logic, the rules support my interpretation for I say so->see my interpretation is supported by the rules->the rules support my interpretation for I say so->ee my interpretation is supported by the rules->etc

If you find the rules not to be balanced, PLEASE HOUSERULE THEM FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR GAME. I ain't against houserules, I am all for them. Saying your houserules are RAW or RAI when they are houserules I am against, for it confuses people.

Ramza00
2007-06-12, 12:09 AM
Ban the feat outright, in my mind, it is over powered. Else you will be doing as soon as lvl 5, alter self into a dwarven ancestor. (though this also has a major problem with polymorph line of spells). You can get alter self earlier, but this form requires 5 HD.

Str 22, Dex 8, Con 28, DR 10/adamantine, +18 natural armor

At lvl 5 a wizard or sorcerer with this feat is tanking better than a fighter, with comparable strength, without any investment in str via point buy/rolls.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060704a&page=3

This form is not normally possible since it is an outsider form, with this feat you have access to outsider forms.

Dark Tira
2007-06-12, 10:58 AM
Ban the feat outright, in my mind, it is over powered. Else you will be doing as soon as lvl 5, alter self into a dwarven ancestor. (though this also has a major problem with polymorph line of spells). You can get alter self earlier, but this form requires 5 HD.

Str 22, Dex 8, Con 28, DR 10/adamantine, +18 natural armor

At lvl 5 a wizard or sorcerer with this feat is tanking better than a fighter, with comparable strength, without any investment in str via point buy/rolls.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060704a&page=3

This form is not normally possible since it is an outsider form, with this feat you have access to outsider forms.

This is really more of a problem with Alter Self than with the otherworldly feat. You don't need to be an outsider to break it. I find it simpler to ban Alter Self, Polymorph, and Shapechange. Otherworldly is still an incredibly good feat but the additional martial weapon proficiency doesn't break it. It's certainly better than the Martial Weapon Proficiency Feat but that thing is a joke anyway. I've never seen anyone take it, ever.

Saph
2007-06-12, 11:54 AM
This is one of those cases where it's fairly obvious that something slipped through the editing net.

If you look at the Regional Feats in the PGtF, one of the other ones is Militia, which gives you proficiency with all martial weapons. Otherworldy gives you darkvision and a Diplomacy bonus, plus the outsider thing. So unless you seriously want to claim that Otherworldly was intended to give everything that it gives plus all the benefits of Militia too, the only reasonable conclusion is that it's an editing error.

It's like the Gate-for-Wishes trick - it's RAW legal, but it's definitely in "exploit" territory and there's no good reason for a DM to allow it.

- Saph

Duskwither
2007-06-12, 12:34 PM
This is one of those cases where it's fairly obvious that something slipped through the editing net.

If you look at the Regional Feats in the PGtF, one of the other ones is Militia, which gives you proficiency with all martial weapons. Otherworldy gives you darkvision and a Diplomacy bonus, plus the outsider thing. So unless you seriously want to claim that Otherworldly was intended to give everything that it gives plus all the benefits of Militia too, the only reasonable conclusion is that it's an editing error.

It's like the Gate-for-Wishes trick - it's RAW legal, but it's definitely in "exploit" territory and there's no good reason for a DM to allow it.

- Saph

Bolding mine.

Now, the thing I got from that, is that you aren't intended to get Martial Weapon profiency, because it makes the Militia feat redundant, but then I've seen it argued that this particular feat is really only subject to specific race/regions, that is much more limitied then the ones for Militia. Not a good argument, but then it depends on group to group, now doesn't it?

Ramza has a good point, but I wouldn't ban the feat outright. I would just specifically state what you don't get from the feat if a player was interested in taking , i.e. Proficiency with all Simple and Martial weapons.

Like a Lion
2007-06-12, 01:01 PM
This is one of those cases where it's fairly obvious that something slipped through the editing net.

If you look at the Regional Feats in the PGtF, one of the other ones is Militia, which gives you proficiency with all martial weapons. Otherworldy gives you darkvision and a Diplomacy bonus, plus the outsider thing. So unless you seriously want to claim that Otherworldly was intended to give everything that it gives plus all the benefits of Militia too, the only reasonable conclusion is that it's an editing error.

It's like the Gate-for-Wishes trick - it's RAW legal, but it's definitely in "exploit" territory and there's no good reason for a DM to allow it.

- Saph

Oh, come on! These are region-limited feats, some of'em are much better than the others. Sure, Otherworldly is a lot better... and guess what? Humans are a lot better than half-elves, and plenty of feats are a lot better than other feats. Since the feat says it makes you an Outsider, I'm guessing it was intended to make you an outsider. Did the person who wrote it not think their cunning plan all the way through? We don't know.

Otherworldly is good, but c'mon--without Alter Self and Polymorph abusive (and those spells are pretty ****ing abusive on their own) it's not *that* good. It's not gonna ruin your game.

Saph
2007-06-12, 01:13 PM
Oh, come on! These are region-limited feats, some of'em are much better than the others. Sure, Otherworldly is a lot better... and guess what? Humans are a lot better than half-elves, and plenty of feats are a lot better than other feats. Since the feat says it makes you an Outsider, I'm guessing it was intended to make you an outsider. Did the person who wrote it not think their cunning plan all the way through? We don't know.

Otherworldly is good, but c'mon--without Alter Self and Polymorph abusive (and those spells are pretty ****ing abusive on their own) it's not *that* good. It's not gonna ruin your game.

Most things that are overpowered aren't going to ruin your game. That doesn't change the fact that there's no good reason to allow them in.

Otherworldly, as written, gives you the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat, all Martial Weapon Proficiency feats, +2 to Diplomacy, darkvision, and immunity to spells like hold person and charm person. That's way too good for one feat. Saying "Well, some things are unbalanced, so we should allow everything else that's unbalanced too!" is a terrible argument.

- Saph

Quietus
2007-06-12, 01:16 PM
Ban the feat outright, in my mind, it is over powered. Else you will be doing as soon as lvl 5, alter self into a dwarven ancestor. (though this also has a major problem with polymorph line of spells). You can get alter self earlier, but this form requires 5 HD.

Str 22, Dex 8, Con 28, DR 10/adamantine, +18 natural armor

At lvl 5 a wizard or sorcerer with this feat is tanking better than a fighter, with comparable strength, without any investment in str via point buy/rolls.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060704a&page=3

This form is not normally possible since it is an outsider form, with this feat you have access to outsider forms.


When did we start ignoring the fact that alter self doesn't give you the physical scores OR the damage reduction of the form taken? Yes, you gain 18 natural armor, which is ridiculous. The rest is a moot point, because none of the rest is gained.

Polymorph, yes, you gain the rest. Alter self, no.

Besides, you can always houserule in that you don't gain natural armor from the form taken greater than your caster level, max 5.

Like a Lion
2007-06-12, 01:27 PM
Most things that are overpowered aren't going to ruin your game. That doesn't change the fact that there's no good reason to allow them in.

Otherworldly, as written, gives you the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat, all Martial Weapon Proficiency feats, +2 to Diplomacy, darkvision, and immunity to spells like hold person and charm person. That's way too good for one feat. Saying "Well, some things are unbalanced, so we should allow everything else that's unbalanced too!" is a terrible argument.

- Saph

You're going to have to allow SOME things that are better than other things. You're running a game with Soulknives? The difference between a Soulknife and any other class that fills whatever role it's filling is bigger than the difference.

Why is that too much for a feat? It just makes it a pretty good feat for some characters. If you're banning all of the top-ranked feats, that's a lot of feats that are gonna be gone.
And, oh, yeah--there are much better feats than Otherworldly. For a melee character, I wouldn't bother to take it, instead setting myself up for Steadfast Determination, Elusive Target, Shock Trooper... you know, one of the *really* good feats.
So some elves and Deep Imaskari get to be outsiders and proficient with martial weapon. Oh noes? Come on, it's really not that bad.

Saph
2007-06-12, 01:35 PM
You're going to have to allow SOME things that are better than other things. You're running a game with Soulknives? The difference between a Soulknife and any other class that fills whatever role it's filling is bigger than the difference.

So some elves and Deep Imaskari get to be outsiders and proficient with martial weapon. Oh noes? Come on, it's really not that bad.

I didn't say it was that bad. I said there was no reason for a DM to allow it, and there isn't.

The existence of underpowered things does not somehow negate the existence of overpowered things. It makes them worse, if anything, because it increases the power differential between characters. "Class X is underpowered, so you should allow Feat Y!" makes no sense.

- Saph

Damionte
2007-06-12, 01:42 PM
I still don't agree that as written it gives you anything more than darkvission.

Like a Lion
2007-06-12, 01:43 PM
I didn't say it was that bad. I said there was no reason for a DM to allow it, and there isn't.

The existence of underpowered things does not somehow negate the existence of overpowered things. It makes them worse, if anything, because it increases the power differential between characters. "Class X is underpowered, so you should allow Feat Y!" makes no sense.

- Saph
There's no reason for a DM to DISallow it, either. It's not overpowered, it's just good.
The existence of underpowered things shows that if you keep banning things that are stronger than some other things, you will have to ban a whole LOT of things. Not all choices in the game are equal. Some are overpowered compared to others, and underpowered compared to yet more. Feats were not designed to all be equally good. The feat is NOT going to have a heavy impact on your game, like, say, Shock Trooper or Quicken Spell might (do you ban those? Steadfast Determination? Power Attack?) It's not a top-tier feat. I'm not sure why you're so against it.
Militia is the Fighter of regional feats. It's okay for feats to be better than it, because it pretty much sucks.


Edit: Oh for chrsissakes, Damionte! It explicitly gives you the outsider type! If you can't accept that "gives the outsider type" means that you actually get the outsider type, then I'm really not sure what we can do for you.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-12, 01:47 PM
Saph, I think the point is that it gets hard to say where you draw the line. Is Otherworldly strictly better than Militia? Yes. But by how much? Skill Focus: Concentration is generally considered to be better than Combat Casting, also. Should it be disallowed? There are certain classes that are more powerful than others - if you allow these, why ban the feat?

Now, I happen to agree that Otherworldly gives you waaaay to much for just one feat. For me, it falls into the category of "too good, don't allow." But for others, it hasn't reached that threshold. For still others, the entire Wizard class falls in that category.

I think the main reason people bring the argument of general imbalance up as a counter to the suggestion that things considered "too good" be banned is that they assume that you're not banning any of the core classes/feats/abilities. And some of those are also "too good," possibly by the same order of difference as Militia//Otherworldly (this is arguable of course).

Like a Lion
2007-06-12, 01:50 PM
SF: Concentration is a great example. It gives +1 less when casting defensively (not a problem, since that's easy to do), but +3 more at every single other time. It is strictly a better feat. That doesn't make it overpowered.

Indon
2007-06-12, 01:55 PM
You could balance it out by removing the Native subtype.

That would give the individual who took it a host of disadvantages, such as the ability to be warded by Abjuration spells, and the inability to be ressurected.

Arbitrarity
2007-06-12, 02:03 PM
Actually, nothing in the description prevents abjurations from affecting them. But the lack of a (native) subtype does have some useful effects. Particularly if you force them to pick a home plane (blashphemy! Banishment!).

Dark Tira
2007-06-12, 02:22 PM
I'm with Lion on this one. There really is no reason to disallow it. Certainly it probably gives more than the author intended. Big Deal. If I'm running a FR game I'd rather have my players take this than something that can be abused.

Some feats are just better than others. Compare Eldritch Erosion (C Scoundrel) to Undo Resistance (F.Codex II) neither is particularly weak but Undo Resistance is generally better, should it be banned? Spider's right in that every group has a different power level but generally FR is considered to be a high-powered setting. My general rule is to not ban anything unless it's either A) Abusive or B) So good that every character will take it.

SoulCatcher78
2007-06-12, 03:53 PM
Better/Worse/in the dark it's all the same.

In this case, having the martial weapons prof shouldn't be that great unless you want your wizard wading into combat with a sword or using a bow rather than spells. Any competent low CR creature will go for the soft targets first (i.e. the wizard swinging a broad sword and howling like a banshee *not literally*).

Saph
2007-06-12, 04:39 PM
Saph, I think the point is that it gets hard to say where you draw the line. Is Otherworldly strictly better than Militia? Yes. But by how much? Skill Focus: Concentration is generally considered to be better than Combat Casting, also. Should it be disallowed? There are certain classes that are more powerful than others - if you allow these, why ban the feat?

But there's a difference between "generally better" and "makes completely redundant".

Skill Focus (Concentration) / Combat Casting is a good example. One gives a +3 in all situations, one gives a +4 in some situations. Most people would agree that the first is generally better, but there are some situations where that extra +1 from CC could make a difference. So SF doesn't make CC completely redundant.

Otherworldly, on the other hand, DOES make its counterpart completely redundant, because it gives you everything Militia gives you and more. It's especially blatant since they're in the same book within a few pages of each other, making it really obvious that Otherworldly wasn't intended to give weapon proficiencies except that the writer forgot about the racial traits thing.


I'm with Lion on this one. There really is no reason to disallow it. Certainly it probably gives more than the author intended. Big Deal. If I'm running a FR game I'd rather have my players take this than something that can be abused.

Good grief. With one post you talk about using Otherworldly to let you Alter Self into a Dwarf Ancestor, and then with your next post you say that Otherworldly "can't be abused".

- Saph

Like a Lion
2007-06-12, 05:05 PM
But there's a difference between "generally better" and "makes completely redundant".

Skill Focus (Concentration) / Combat Casting is a good example. One gives a +3 in all situations, one gives a +4 in some situations. Most people would agree that the first is generally better, but there are some situations where that extra +1 from CC could make a difference. So SF doesn't make CC completely redundant.
It effectively does. With the low DCs on casting defensively, after the first few levels it just plain won't ever matter. The feat is vastly superior. No one who cares even a lick about relative feat effectiveness takes CC over SF:Concentration.
The point is, making another feat useless in comparison doesn't make a feat overpowered. Flyby Attack makes Spring Attack totally useless in comparison if you can take it; not everyone can. Similarily, Otherworldly makes Militia totally useless in comparison... if you can take it. It's not like someone can ever choose Otherworldly *over* Militia, since they are regional feats that are never both availible to the same character, they cover different regions.

Otherworldly, on the other hand, DOES make its counterpart completely redundant, because it gives you everything Militia gives you and more. It's especially blatant since they're in the same book within a few pages of each other, making it really obvious that Otherworldly wasn't intended to give weapon proficiencies except that the writer forgot about the racial traits thing.

Otherworldly just plain isn't that good. Being an Outsider is convenient, but some people *never* get targeted by Charm Person. Darkvision is nice. But melee characters don't give a hoot about the melee weapon proficiencies, like as not... and they're pretty much useless to casters.
It's a good feat, but it's not like it's one of the best feats. And Militia sucks, if not quite as much as Martial Weapon Proficiency does--who cares if a crappy feat is even crappier in comparison to something?



Good grief. With one post you talk about using Otherworldly to let you Alter Self into a Dwarf Ancestor, and then with your next post you say that Otherworldly "can't be abused".

- Saph
That's really an abuse of Alter Self and Polymorph, and can be done no matter how you gain the outsider type (some other spells grant it, Lesser Aasimar/Tieflings have no LA, et cetera).

Dark Tira
2007-06-12, 07:42 PM
Wow, Lion pretty much nailed all the points I was going to make. Anyway, D&D is filled with feats that make other feats redundant. Should the superior feat be banned every time that happens? Of course not. The question isn't "why take Militia when you can take Otherworldly?" but instead "why take Otherworldly?" Quite frankly, not many characters get much of a boost from Otherworldly even with the additional proficiencies.

AtomicKitKat
2007-06-12, 07:52 PM
The only time I can think of where someone might want martial weapon proficiencies would be with say, a Druid going into Talontar Blighter(needs Halberd proficiency), or if you're a Winterhaunt of Iborighu who wants to use your scythe earlier(proficiency is granted by the PrC. Ditto the Snow Witch of Hleid, both in Frostburn).

Duskwither
2007-06-12, 08:07 PM
The only time I can think of where someone might want martial weapon proficiencies would be with say, a Druid going into Talontar Blighter(needs Halberd proficiency), or if you're a Winterhaunt of Iborighu who wants to use your scythe earlier(proficiency is granted by the PrC. Ditto the Snow Witch of Hleid, both in Frostburn).

I'm playing a Wizard, so Eldritch Knight technically opened up for me.

However... "Thou shalt not give up Caster Levels".

cubecrazymonkey
2007-06-12, 08:24 PM
Kind of in the same vein as the Otherwordly feat allowing proficiency with all martial weapons...

The Gladiator Mask of the Master of Masks prestige class (found in Complete Scoundrel) gives weapon proficiency with ALL martial and exotic weapons, in addition to a bonus on all attack and damage rolls. Of course, the limit is that you can only use one of the masks at a time, so this precludes the other abilities from other masks. How do you feel about this one in regards to being overpowered or ineffective?

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-13, 01:09 AM
Question:
This feat wouldn't give you d8 HD, full BAB, and all those skill points, would it?

Dhavaer
2007-06-13, 01:16 AM
Question:
This feat wouldn't give you d8 HD, full BAB, and all those skill points, would it?

Only if you somehow managed to take some Outsider HD.

Ramza00
2007-06-13, 01:20 AM
Question:
This feat wouldn't give you d8 HD, full BAB, and all those skill points, would it?

No those benefits are for racial hit die.

Like a Lion
2007-06-13, 01:28 AM
Wow, Lion pretty much nailed all the points I was going to make.

That is because I am AWESOME.
Awesome like a lion. (Get in the car!)