Feats as Special attacks

[Orzel]

One thing that bugged me is the difference between special attacks and many feats. Everyone can attempt to trip but everyone can't attempt to shoot 2 arrows at once. Just because 99% of the population will fail at it doesn't mean my experience fighter can't attempt to do the fancy trick he saw someone do. Sure he's likely to fail but he has a better chance than that guy

*points to a commoner*

And if he wants to waste a feat on something he should be able to do already, it should just take away a few of the penalties.

So Power Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Rapid Shot, Many Shot: Grab a check, provoke an AoO, create an Improved feat, and go party with Charge and Grapple.

Whoever agrees... toss a tree at a commoner.

[Jasdoif]

Feats should allow characters to do Cool Stuff. Cool Stuff isn't as cool if anyone has a chance at doing the same thing. Besides, anyone having a chance of attempting anything makes for far too many choices in combat.

If your fighter without Manyshot wants to try it shooting multiple arrows as a standard action...let them. Of course, they take the usual penalties and all but one of the arrows will automatically fail to do anything productive...but hey, they can attempt all they like.


And isn't this the opposite of what you said earlier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39614) about how feats shouldn't just provide numeric bonuses?

[Draz74]

I somewhat agree. In my games, I do make up weakened versions of some of these to be used without feats. Power Attack for example -- no reason everyone can't take -4 to their attack roll to do +2 damage.

But some of them ... meh. Just say, fluff-wise, that the fighter is attempting to do it, and that he fails. Sometimes that doesn't work. Maybe Manyshot should fall into the same category with Power Attack, for example.

But if a guy without Whirlwind Attack tries to make a Whirlwind Attack, the way to simulate it in-game is that he just ends up making a full attack, without hitting any particular opponent more than once. He's not as accurate when attacking that fast as a guy who has the feat (so he still takes iterative attack penalties), and his 6 seconds of action might run out before he has time to attack every opponent in range. But he can still be trying to do the same thing. He can try to pretend to have Rapid Shot, too, but he'll just run out of time before he's actually fired an extra shot.

Notice how people often complain that one of the problems with Feats is that they just reduce a penalty or give a static bonus, like Weapon Focus or Dodge, which becomes pretty lame over time. People want feats that actually let them do something different. Of course, feats like that can still be worth taking if the penalties they reduce are big enough, like the ridiculous TWF penalties. Still, there's something to be said for feats that actually give you a new ability.

[Matthew]

You can attempt anything you like in D&D. There's really nothing stopping you attempting to shoot two Arrows in a Round without Rapid Shot. It's up to the DM whether to allow it and decide what penalties to apply. That's exactly how it worked in (A)D&D 2.x and it's how it works in D&D 3.x, the codification of everything has just obscured the 'limited only by your imagination' part.

[Orzel]

When I DM I usually allow 1 for 1 Power attack up to a point as an option and make the feat for 2 for 1 two handers, PA with light weapons, and restricted by BAB.

I also do 3 tiers of feats. Some are free as long as you meet the attribute and BAB prereqs, the sillly numbers feats only count as half, and then you get the real feats that grant/remove something, has flavor, and isn't simpistic.

My real gripe was that I see every melee weapons guy with an nonlight weapon with Power Attack, every ranged guy with Rapid shot, every druid with...

If a large percentage of the people in your profession have it and many of them are not high level, that feat doesn't seem "special" enough to be a feat and probably isn't.

[squidthingy]

Feats should allow characters to do Cool Stuff. Cool Stuff isn't as cool if anyone has a chance at doing the same thing. Besides, anyone having a chance of attempting anything makes for far too many choices in combat.

If your fighter without Manyshot wants to try it shooting multiple arrows as a standard action...let them. Of course, they take the usual penalties and all but one of the arrows will automatically fail to do anything productive...but hey, they can attempt all they like.


And isn't this the opposite of what you said earlier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39614) about how feats shouldn't just provide numeric bonuses?

I agree, the point of feats is to be able to do something that you can't normally do

[Matthew]

Well, the point of Feats was to customise your Character, as I recall. The Feat System itself actually sucks quite badly, mainly because there are too many and not enough slots. What it has ended up doing is limiting what any given Character can do (or creating the illusion thereof). A good example of how Feats ought to work is 3.0 Two Weapon Fighting. You could still Two Weapon Fight without the Feat, just with a greater penalty.

[Glorfindel]

I somewhat agree. In my games, I do make up weakened versions of some of these to be used without feats. Power Attack for example -- no reason everyone can't take -4 to their attack roll to do +2 damage.

Wasn't that allowed by the RAW? I can't find it, but I remember reading something like that in the PHB, that you can take a -2 to attack to gain a +1 to damage. Or was that a 3.0 rule?

[Matthew]

I don't recall anything of that nature, but it would certainly be a reasonable DM call.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

A good example of how Feats ought to work is 3.0 Two Weapon Fighting. You could still Two Weapon Fight without the Feat, just with a greater penalty.

You can still do that in 3.5, but it isn't pretty. :smallamused:


I have not heard of un-feated PA, but what has been suggested makes for a reasonable house rule (except maybe in a Coup de Grace situation).

[Matthew]

Heh, yes indeed. Though it was quite a mess in 3.0 if you didn't have Ambidexterity.

I think that this is a really interesting pont, though. Feats have two forms in 3.5, they either allow your Character to do things that he otherwise could not have done or they enhance the things that they can already do. I think I much prefer the idea of the latter, but allowing for more 'Unfeated Feats'.

[AtomicKitKat]

Well, the point of Feats was to customise your Character, as I recall. The Feat System itself actually sucks quite badly, mainly because there are too many and not enough slots. What it has ended up doing is limiting what any given Character can do (or creating the illusion thereof). A good example of how Feats ought to work is 3.0 Two Weapon Fighting. You could still Two Weapon Fight without the Feat, just with a greater penalty.

I would hold up the TWF tree as an example of what not to do. The more feat slots you sink into the tree, the worse the payout(You get another attack, at worse and worse AB).:smallamused: Any game I run, I'd just collapse the whole lot into a single Feat(maybe 2), and you get the bonus attacks if you have the BAB+Dex for it.

[Matthew]

That would be because it was not the Feat Tree I was holding up as an example, but the first Feat in that 3.0 Tree, which does something quite different to the other Feats. Indeed, I quite agree that the other Feats need to be rolled up in some way.