How many feats do you think Pathfinder (or 3.5) SHOULD have?

[gadren]

I've always felt that characters don't get enough feats without using cheesy options such as flaws, etc, and I've seen this sentiment echoed on the forums, especially with how many options are tied to the feat system.
Without bonus feats or house rules, a Pathfinder characters gets a feat at every odd level, for a total of ten feats by level 19.

How many feats do YOU think characters should get to be more "reasonable", and at what levels do you think they should get them?

[mauk2]

I've always felt that characters don't get enough feats without using cheesy options such as flaws, etc, and I've seen this sentiment echoed on the forums, especially with how many options are tied to the feat system.
Without bonus feats or house rules, a Pathfinder characters gets a feat at every odd level, for a total of ten feats by level 19.

How many feats do YOU think characters should get to be more "reasonable", and at what levels do you think they should get them?

My two cents is, they should get a lot more. But not necessarily in the form of feats.

When we rebuilt all the classes for Epic Path, we tried to make sure that every class got 'something' at every level. Whether that was a feat, or a class ability, or simply an improvement to an existing class ability, we tried to make every level have 'something.'

Non-spellcasting classes, we gave slightly more stuff than that. Because spells are really darn nice. :)

For example, the Fighter gets a feat every level, and they get a completely separate stack of goodies every second level called Tactics, which are sort of like Rogue Talents, only...fightier.

We also added a generous handful of bonus feats to lots of the classes. We're also in the middle of doing a buff and balance pass on 1000+ feats, so there's a lot fewer utter clunkers in there.

[martixy]

IMO, PF's progression + 2 flaws + this (http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/) and other similar merges.

The other, more high-powered option I'm a big fan of is Feat, Feat, Ability Score increase, repeat ad infinitum.

[stack]

Depends on the quality of the feats. Martial feats in pathfinder are mostly weak and buried in huge feat chains, so a martial in PF needs a ton of them to get set up for any combat style more involved than thf w/ power attack. Last time I ran a game, I ended up giving out several feats just because they should be things the system does, like combat expertise and weapon finesse.

On the other hand, Rule of Cool's Legend granted feats in the 3.5 track, but the feats weren't required for basic functionality as a rule, they did cool stuff rather than just enable things that would have been allowed in the absence of a feat or give slightly larger numbers (there were some bigger number feats, but most carried something extra at least, though not all). When the feats are fun and useful but not required just to function you don't need as many.

[Tanuki Tales]

In my opinion? Not enough.

That's why I homebrewed a feat point system for them, based on Sonofzeal's rework of SKR's.

I really should start working on that thing again...

[charcoalninja]

I play with an E6 variant merged with Mythic. So our leveling looks like this:

1) Level 1-6 normal
2) E6 Style extra feats: characters keep earning bonus feats as they earn experience until they have narratively unlocked
3) Mythic Tier 1 - Now leveling picks up again so.
4) Level 7&8
5) E6 Style bonus feat pause again.
6) Mythic 2.
7) 9&10
8) E6 Style bonus feat pause again.
9) Mythic 3.

You get the idea. I basically balance / figure that it'll take 3 feats worth of effort to complete your Mythic Trials to advance so I end up with each character having around 27 extra feats by level 20, plus Mythic feats.

I like a lot of feats. There's literally like 2000 of them. If you only get one character for years of your life, it's far better to be able to enjoy all the wonderful crunch PF has to offer.

[Beowulf DW]

On the other hand, Rule of Cool's Legend granted feats in the 3.5 track, but the feats weren't required for basic functionality as a rule, they did cool stuff rather than just enable things that would have been allowed in the absence of a feat or give slightly larger numbers (there were some bigger number feats, but most carried something extra at least, though not all). When the feats are fun and useful but not required just to function you don't need as many.

One of the many reasons I love Legend.

[Snowbluff]

You know, I'm usually pretty content with my number of feats by midlevel with 2 Flaws in 3.5 or if I get 2 traits in PF.

One of the many reasons I love Legend.

I do like legend. Wish I could play it. I don't know anyone to play it with. D:

[Âmesang]

I utilized the flaw system to give a character Master of Poisons and Arcane Mastery; they're mostly for flavor but while the latter is very useful the two aren't that necessary in the grand scheme of things.

…though I'm sure many would tell me to drop Improved Familiar and Enspell Familiar, instead. :smalltongue:

With the exception of Pureblooded Suel, everything else the character has is a prerequisite for something (Eschew Materials => Ignore Material Components, Skill Focus/Spell Focus ×2 => Archmage, Improved Counterspell => Epic Counterspell).

[Aetis]

I think characters get enough feats.

My group plays 3.5 without flaws.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I suspect a -large- part of that sentiment comes from people always wanting more of a good thing. Feats are a good thing so you -never- really feel like you have enough unless you're a fighter and -then-, only then, do you get the classic refrain of "Feats aren't worth as much as real class features."

In 3.5 you get 7 feats, generally, and that's usually enough to gain entry to two or three PrC's and maybe even as many as 4 or 5 if you can find some classes you want with overlapping prerequisites. If you want to spend feats that don't service the higher purpose of entering a class or setting up some feat/class feature combo there's -nothing- stopping you from doing so and the base classes were designed to run at -acceptable- levels if you never multiclass at all. If you want extra feats, there are ways to get them even without getting DCFS cheesy. If you're finding yourself in the position of not having enough feats, even after these options (fighter dip for example), then you're probably trying to do too much at once.

In pathfinder you get 10, generally, and that -would- be plenty since PF went out of the way to make minimal multiclassing more attractive but they also made and keep making the mistake of burying anything interesting under an onerous pile of generally lackluster prerequisite feats. Like 3.5 there are ways to pick up extras, though I believe PF doesn't go quite as far, and if you still can't get enough after that then you're probably trying to do too much at once.

For 3.5, I'd say it's fine as is.

For PF, I'd say it's okay now but it's going to get worse if they keep up with the pattern.

[FocusWolf413]

I like to use G&G or something similar to eliminate feat taxes, then add 2 flaws and pathfinder progression.

Experimental Might has a cool system with 1 feat per level. I like that.

Personally, I like my characters like I like my drinks: strong, but without cheese.

[Coidzor]

If you eliminate onerous feat taxes, it's about right, especially for casters.

If you eliminate onerous feat taxes as well as make things like power attack part of the base functionality of the game rather than locking them behind feats, then even characters that are both martials and casters might actually have enough feats going by the standard number.

If you don't eliminate onerous feat taxes and the like, then doubling feats for martials and giving some number of extra feats just for martial crap for hybrids would be about right. Fighters might need one or two more that aren't as tightly limited as fighter bonus feats.

As for when, I find that most characters feel about a feat behind where they should be until about 9th level.

[darkdragoon]

There are really only a few "build around me" feats and a whole lot of filler. Consolidating feats may cut some of the dead wood, but then you still hit diminishing returns. And yet at the same time it's quite possible to spread yourself too thin. A lot of the suggestions just end up passing the buck to other things like attack bonus.

[MilleniaAntares]

When I DMed in 3.5, I gave out feats every level.

These days, my GMs either gave us a point-based system to buy feats based upon the particular campaign (as well as gestalt levels, ability boosts, etc), or just an arbitrary "here's a bonus feat for finishing this mission", or the ability to choose a feat instead of a sum of gold.

[Necroticplague]

It highly depends. Honestly, I don't think getting more feats is what's needed. I think you need less feat taxes. I wouldn't 'need' so many feats if the ONE I want wasn't hidden behind a half dozen others, none of which I want, and all of which are boring. Archers could do with two less feats were it not the every single good ranged feat requires precise shot, which requires point blank shot. Actually using an interesting weapon style would be more feasible if it didn't require 3 different feats.
On a related note, more scaling feats would be nice. Wouldn't feel the need for more feats if the ones I got kept up with me as I leveled.

[OldTrees1]

It depends on how valuable or worthless you design the feats. If a feat is worth a level's worth of class features*: Then I feel comfortable with 2 + 1/3HD prior to trading class features for more feats but I could go for as many as 1+1/HD.

*They are class features after all. Between features and stats one can create a lot.

However if you use feats that are worth less: Then I would want many more feats(perhaps even more than infinite).

[Shpadoinkle]

I think feats are a good concept executed poorly.

I remember back on the old WotC forums for D&D, there was a thread called "Races of War." The person who started it had pretty much rewritten every feat in the PHB, as well as a lot of others- what I remember about it most was that they were rewritten to scale as the PC advanced. Like, take Weapon Focus at 1st level, cool, you get a +1 to hit with that weapon. But when you hit +4 BAB, you ALSO get a +2 to damage with it, without having to burn another feat. And at +8 BAB your to-hit bonus goes up to +3, and at +12 BAB the damage gets boosted again, etc. All of this for one feat.

I think this is what feats pretty much need to be. They're a major investment for a character, so you should get some major bonuses for them. Or hell, maybe keep feats as they are, but write a new system to be used in addition to them that scales like that. Call them... I dunno. Superfeats, or... well, something less stupid than that, anyway; I suck at naming things. Make them count as certain feats for the purposes of prerequisites.

Like I said, feats are a good idea: they allow customization as well as allowing you to specialize in something in a way that 1e and 2e had to kind of kludge together, but feats were ALSO kind of a first stab at this sort of thing, so they can definitely stand to be redone.

[OldTrees1]

I think feats are a good concept executed poorly.

I think this is what feats pretty much need to be. They're a major investment for a character, so you should get some major bonuses for them.

Like I said, feats are a good idea: they allow customization as well as allowing you to specialize in something in a way that 1e and 2e had to kind of kludge together, but feats were ALSO kind of a first stab at this sort of thing, so they can definitely stand to be redone.

I agree feat are a good concept for customization via the addition or augmentation of abilities. Although I think your example of the Weapon Focus line as a single feat is a poor example (mere +numbers does not fully utilize the feat system).

[Coidzor]

I remember back on the old WotC forums for D&D, there was a thread called "Races of War." The person who started it had pretty much rewritten every feat in the PHB, as well as a lot of others- what I remember about it most was that they were rewritten to scale as the PC advanced. Like, take Weapon Focus at 1st level, cool, you get a +1 to hit with that weapon. But when you hit +4 BAB, you ALSO get a +2 to damage with it, without having to burn another feat. And at +8 BAB your to-hit bonus goes up to +3, and at +12 BAB the damage gets boosted again, etc. All of this for one feat.

I think that may have been Frank and K.

Fax Celestis's d20 Rebirth revamp of the 3.5 core rules also incorporated similar principles.

[mauk2]

If a feat is worth a level's worth of class features*:


When we were working up a bunch of re-written races for Epic Path, we decided that a major racial trait should scale with level and be worth about three nice feats at the top end. A minor racial trait was worth about one feat, and also scaled as much as possible.


heck, for that matter, we're working to make ALL the feats scale with level. You'd be surprised how much scaling feats changes how you look at things. :)

[Oroul]

When we were working up a bunch of re-written races for Epic Path, we decided that a major racial trait should scale with level and be worth about three nice feats at the top end. A minor racial trait was worth about one feat, and also scaled as much as possible.


heck, for that matter, we're working to make ALL the feats scale with level. You'd be surprised how much scaling feats changes how you look at things. :)

Mind making yourself a signature that explain who "we" are exactly or something. "Mauk2" is not exactly telling, nor are your comments.

As for OP's question: number of feat is fine, feat tax is not. I was pointed the same link you can see a bit sooner in this thread (http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/) and had to agree wholeheartedly.

I can totally see my level 1 human fighter pick up Weapon Focus (hammers), Powerful Maneuvers and Skill Focus: Craft(Weaponsmith), take a few throwing hammers as well as a two-hander maul and being able to both hold his ground, have a few interesting options in battle (especially Sunder) while having a bit of resources on the side for character development.

I love Cosmopolitan!
I love Distant Heritage!
I love Skill Focus and similar feats!
I love Style Feats!

But a man have to pay his taxes first.

[Oroul]

Mind making yourself a signature that explain who "we" are exactly or something. "Mauk2" is not exactly telling, nor are your comments.

As for OP's question: number of feat is fine, feat tax is not. I was pointed the same link you can see a bit sooner in this thread (http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/) and had to agree wholeheartedly.

I can totally see my level 1 human fighter pick up Weapon Focus (hammers), Powerful Maneuvers and Skill Focus: Craft(Weaponsmith), take a few throwing hammers as well as a two-hander maul and being able to both hold his ground, have a few interesting options in battle (especially Sunder) while having a bit of resources on the side for character development.

I love Cosmopolitan!
I love Distant Heritage!
I love Skill Focus and similar feats!
I love Style Feats!

But a man have to pay his taxes first.

That said, that link needs one more fix:

Master Craftman applies to any skill whose number rank satisfy the feat's prerequisite. A lot of skills can lead to Craft Wondrous Items, for non-casters, as well as Craft:(Alchemy) for Brew Potions and Craft:(Jewelry) for Forge Ring. The only crafting feats COMPLETELY out of reach for non-casters should be for items non-casters can't use: Wands, Rods and Staff.

Besides, Craft Wondrous Items will be limited by its own nature, still favoring casters. Elixirs, Headbands, Manuals and Lenses clearly won't come from the same craft!

[mauk2]

Mind making yourself a signature that explain who "we" are exactly or something.


Oh!

Sorry, my bad. :)

http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Epic_Path

[Pex]

Every other level works fine for me. I can't do everything, but I like to have to make those choices of what I want to do. If there's a fault it's that Pathfinder has too many feats from which to choose. Then personal bias comes in where the individual finds one feat is particularly better than another feat so would never choose the other. There may be feats than can be objectively determined to be too strong or too weak. Many feats are niche feats, suitable for a particular campaign and/or character build that could utilize them. How long it takes in real world play to get to the level(s) needed for the juicy feats you want altogether can contribute to the frustration of not having them yet.

[Barstro]

I think one every other level is fine. My issue is with the feat system itself. There are a number of feats that require a very long chain to get, and really hamper a character until the final link. I'd like to see some chains become a single feat that must be taken by a certain level. It could then gain other abilities for free at additional levels (Feat: Archery can grant five or six feats over the course of ten levels and still allow other feats to be chosen as well.

I could also see Feats costing points like the Pathfinder Eidolon Evolutions.

[digiman619]

I could also see Feats costing points like the Pathfinder Eidolon Evolutions.

Funny you mention that, as I was just about to namedrop the free fanmade d20 Modern expansion Phoenix (http://phoenixprojectrpg.com/ ) as a system that did that. Granted, it's a superhero RPG, so that can scare some off. Essentially every level, you get 10 points to spend on powers to make your superhero. You can spend 2 of those points to buy a feat. That way, non-powered heroes, a la Batman, are just as feasible as powerhouses like Superman.

[Sahleb]

Personally, I think 2 flaws + the pathfinder feat progression is plenty, if playing 3.5e.

Pathfinder has worse feat taxes, but that's just how it goes.

[Oroul]

Oh!

Sorry, my bad. :)

http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Epic_Path

Wait... you're making a d20 System where clerics are called "healer" class while it's healing capabilities are still limited by the number of slots available? I mean, not even an healing "orison" of (Lvl / 4, rounded up) that takes 5 rounds to cast or something similar? You know, something that would allow 1 to heal without very expandable fixed resources and outside of combat? Something that won't make weird strategies essential. (E.G.: Castigate / aid another on a subdual attack on the last remaining foe until the party is healed, then wait for the opponent to regain consciousness, rinse and repeat until fully healed)

If you don't want your Divine class to simply Heal, I get it, but if so, don't call it a healer. For example: DnD 4th Edition used the keyword "Leader" even though each one of them had the ability to heal twice per encounter for Healing Surge + Xd6 (which beats [1+Wis Bonus+domain x (1d8+1)] per day using all your slots). And even Rule of Cool's Legend system (http://www.ruleofcool.com/) got something that heals at will at first level:

1st Circle – Healing Burst(SU): By focusing for a moment on the mechanisms of creation, you can force a bit of life back into the world. As a move action, you may create a 15 ft radius spread originating from you, healing 1 HP per character level plus your Key Defensive Modifier to all allies within the spread. This is not a [Positive] or [Negative] effect and can only be used once per [Round].


And it still uses the very flawed save progression of 3/5 and 3/10 along with the same wizard spell list containing the same Save-or-Suck spells.
Nevermind, I now see how an attempt to rant would simply be wasted.


The only thing that kinda caught my eye was the very flexible stat bonus, but seeing how in EpicPath elves can simply go +4 Con / -2 Int / -2 Dex, I will probably implement it in my games, but with these restrictions, for flavor purposes:

Elf Improvable stats: INT, DEX, WIS, CHA
Elf Degradable stats: STR, CON, WIS, CHA

Human / Half-Human Improvable stats: All (Half Elves can't improve both Constitution and Strength at once, nor either by +4. Half-Orc can't improve Intelligence and Dexterity at once, nor either by +4)
Human / Half-Human Degradable stats: All

Dwarf Improvable stats: CON, STR, INT, WIS
Dwarf Degradable stats: STR, INT, DEX, CHA

Halfling Imp. stats: DEX, WIS, INT, CHA
Halfling Deg. stat: STR, CON, INT, WIS

Gnome Imp. stat: DEX, CON, INT, CHA
Gnome Deg. stat: STR, DEX, INT, WIS

[Psyren]

I think the number of feats isn't really the problem - the problem is that there are too many feat taxes to do the fun stuff, especially for martial classes. A good place to start remedying this is this list of feat tweaks. (http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/)

[Magesmiley]

I'm actually in the camp that 3.5 has it about right and Pathfinder hands out too many.

If everyone had more feats, it makes them less a customization that makes a character unique and more just a "ho-hum he has that ability too".

The rarer and harder to get that something is, the more sought after it is. And also the more valuable it is.

[squiggit]

Completely disagree. "ho hum he has that ability too" is exactly the problem 3.5 has. Certain playstyles need certain feats and when you're running on a very tight feat budget, you often end up with characters who don't really have many feats left over after getting their core set of abilities.

More feats just means more opportunities to define your character beyond those narrow confines, because you actually have space to customize once you get your baseline abilities in. Having less doesn't make them more valuable or more sought after either because they're not a commodity, they're just a thing you get.

[stack]

One idea I really liked from Legend: [iconic] feats. It was a special feat category of feats that were more potent and unique than others, often character-defining in some way, of which a character could only ever have 1.

[martixy]

I'm actually in the camp that 3.5 has it about right and Pathfinder hands out too many.

If everyone had more feats, it makes them less a customization that makes a character unique and more just a "ho-hum he has that ability too".

The rarer and harder to get that something is, the more sought after it is. And also the more valuable it is.

The point of more feats(IMO) is the ability to create a mechanically sound character and have left over for fluff. As a martial, maybe take a few tactical, situational feats that won't see much play, but would make your character very cool that one time when the opportunity presents itself.
As it is now, both variants of the game have so many long and thoroughly unimpressive feat-chains, you're left with way too little after that for actually customizing your character in more than WORDS.

[mauk2]

As it is now, both variants of the game have so many long and thoroughly unimpressive feat-chains, you're left with way too little after that for actually customizing your character in more than WORDS.



Well said.

Me and my buddy are doing a full overhaul of all the feats in our game, Epic Path. We've been at it for a month already.

I think my brain is bleeding. :D

But, we're doing a full pass to 'enrich' and 'balance' every feat. For example: Combat Reflexes is a great feat. It allows a melee to customize their combat abilities, and it automatically scales with how much effort a player puts into it, but it is also situational, demanding the player to work for the rewards.

Another great feat, for totally different reasons, is plain old Weapon Focus. It's just a dull, ordinary +1 to-hit, but it is also used CONSTANTLY. Weapon Focus gets used multiple times in every combat, so even though its bonus is small and kind of dull, it's ubiquitous.

Both of those are examples of great feats.

So we're rewriting EVERY feat to follow those same principals.

Now we just have to survive the process. :D

[Cosi]

Before you can say how many feats people should get, you have to decide what feats should do. Some feats define a character archetype (i.e. Lord of the Uttercold, Divine Metamagic). Others provide a minor bonus (i.e. Educated, Tomb-Tainted Soul). Many are in the middle (i.e. Dragonmarked Feats). If you're spending a feat on something that opens up a new tactic, it's quite reasonable to get half a dozen in a game. If you're spending a feat on something that gives you a situational bonus, you could easily justify getting two or three every level.

[martixy]

Well said.

Me and my buddy are doing a full overhaul of all the feats in our game, Epic Path. We've been at it for a month already.

I've been doing the same thing, though alone and for 3-4 months now(I'm waiting my gaming group to open up so we can start my campaign), which should be happening in a month or two.

Touching base with Cosi, I've been doing a lot of what this does: http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/
For example using weapon groups from Unearthed Arcana and the following edits to TWF:

* Two-Weapon Fighting feat line is revised:
- TWF: Additionally, at BAB+6 you can attack a single target with both weapons as a standard action. Different targets at BAB+11.
- Improved TWF: Grants a progression with the off-hand, like the main hand. This obsoletes Greater TWF and Perfect TWF.
- TW Defense: You receive the benefits of each successive feat automatically when you meet its prerequisites.
And other similar crap, with the main focus of making the game interesting for martials.

[Lycar]

I'll just add my proverbial 2c worth of opinion.

One of the reasons why you always feel feat starved is that you usually need feats to be merely functional (except casters but shush). :smallannoyed:

When I look what the word 'feat' is supposed to mean

"something ​difficult ​needing a lot of ​skill, ​strength, ​courage, etc. to ​achieve it.",

it occurs to me that any given class must be perfectly functional without so much as a single feat added to it. Feats then add to that functionality by giving the character something extraordinary to do above and beyond that.

For an archer, for example, hitting targets is his basic functionality. Whatever class you use to make that archer must, in and of itself, give all things required for a functional archer.

Being more precise at close range then at long range is not a feat. That is a basic fact of the matter. Being more accurate then another archer of comparable training may be a feat (barely). But being accurate enough to pin an enemy's weapon hand to the wall behind him, now that is a feat. Being able to shoot an extra arrow in a given time may be a feat.

But if you need 'feats' just to do things your class is supposedly capable of performing as a matter of fact, like 'fighting', then the class is just poorly designed.

Do casters need feats? No, they are perfectly capable of performing their basic functionality, casting spells, without any feats whatsoever. Feats allow them to do things above and beyond that.

For martials on the other hand, the sad matter of fact is that even such a basic thing as making wilder, less accurate, but potentially more damaging attacks is apparently "something ​difficult ​needing a lot of ​skill, ​strength, ​courage, etc. to ​achieve it."

Now if everybody could trade to-hit for damage, it might be a feat to get a better trade-off for your investment. But calling making desperate attacks extraordinary is bull****.

Any class that is supposedly capable of fighting in melee ought to be able to perform basic combat maneuvers without endangering themselves. On the other hand, doing something like this may well be a feat for someone whose core competency is not fighting. And while a basic disarm might just force an enemy to drop a weapon, it might be a feat to hurl the weapon a couple feet away.

Don't get me started on the insult that is the 5'-step of impunity. Step Up should be something every class with a melee focus ought to be be able to do as part of their core competency.* Skill or casting classes, not so much. For those, such a thing might be a feat indeed.

TLDR: Casters are fine, melee classes need about double the number of feats they get, just to be adequate. Especially Fighters. :smallsigh:

*Actually, disengaging/leaving a threatened area should just always require a withdraw action. But that is another topic. :smallannoyed:

[mauk2]

....making the game interesting for martials.


WELL SAID.

4e, god bless it, did that very well.

Sadly, they did it by throwing the spellcasting system out completely. Which frankly, from a game design perspective, was the right call, but DAMN, it was barely DnD after that.

Pathfinder was made by the angry spellcaster fans who felt slighted by 4e. As a result, their spells system is AMAZING, and I salute their effort there, but the rest of the game is larded through and through with a subtle contempt for melee that rankles me completely.

Every mythic hero, Hercules, Gilgamesh, Cu'Chulain, Beowulf, etc, etc, etc, was a melee warrior first and foremost. And yet the current d20 rules are frankly utter ****e for melee.

So, me and my buddy are fixin' all that crap, but doing our living best to keep the 'soul' of DnD alive and well in the process.

We hope that people like the melee classes AND the spellcasters. Because we've put a lot of work into making them ALL awesome. :)

[Oroul]

We hope that people like the melee classes AND the spellcasters. Because we've put a lot of work into making them ALL awesome. :)
Well, 4th edition had all defenses and skill scale up with your level at a fixed value behind. Re-do spells and/or saves or you'll fail. Especially if you focus on Epic Levels.

For example, a fighter 18 with a Will save of +15 [6 (base) + 2 (Wisdom Score) + 2 (Iron Will) + 5 (Cloak of Resistance)] vs. a level 9 Wizard casting Dominate Person with a DC of 24 [10 (base) + 5 (Spell Level) + 7 (Int) + 1 (School Focus) + 1 (Greater School Focus)] fails 40% of the time. That's a CR 8 foe. They could be facing 16 of those and it would still be easier than the Easy encounter for a party of 4 lvl 16 characters. So 4 of them on the fighter alone is not out of the question.

Considering Will Save / Heal Skill / Perception skill are pretty much the sole uses of the 14 Wisdom, that we spent a feat and used a Cloak of Resistance +5, there's not much we can do to bolster the Fighter's Will Save any more. And if there's no Edge / Willpower / Force Point to bolster his defenses, he's screwed.

And no matter what his abilities are, if he gets completely screwed by a CR 8 opponent, and if another character can end encounters with a single standard** action* he will never like his character. That's the focus of the 4th Edition you praised.

* Sleep, Color Spray, Unnatural Lust, Fireball, Confusion, Charm Monster (and to a lesser extent Charm Person), Phantasmal Killer, Cloudkill, Hold Monster, Suggestion, Mass Suggestion, Banishment, Hold Person (mass), Forcecage, Prismatic Spray (although unreliable), Control Undead, Limited Wish, Imprisonment, Time Stop, Wail of the Banshee, Weird, Suffocation (mass), Wish.

** Swift action with a Metamagic Rod of Quicken

[PoeticDwarf]

Without flaws? 2 on level one and after that same progression. Maybe an extra one on level 2 or something.

[mauk2]

Well, 4th edition had all defenses and skill scale up with your level at a fixed value behind. Re-do spells and/or saves or you'll fail. Especially if you focus on Epic Levels.

Well, despite the name, we are not 'focusing' on Epic levels, we just have them. Because we like them. :)

And your example is very nice for Pathfinder, but in Epic Path you would never see such a situation, because in our game, Monsters do not cast spells like players do.

So, yes, we fixed that.

To address the Fighter specifically, we added Tactics that make Fighters NIGHTMARISH to hurt, in any fashion. If you build a Fighter to be a Tank, then she's a TANK. Spell Resistance, huge buffs to saves, a boatload of hitpoints, DR for days, the ability to self-heal, it's allll in there.

The trade-off is, if you build for massive defenses, your offense will suffer a bit. But, the beauty of the Fighter is, the Challenge they get means that even if they do not one single point of damage in an entire fight, they can STILL dominate the battlefield and protect the squishies.

The approach we took makes for a very flexible and capable class indeed.

We hope people like it!

[Oroul]

@Mauk2:Before I begin, be careful! The image used here (http://www.epicpath.org/index.php/Fighter) is that of a follower of Khorne, property of a company trigger-happy on cease-and-desist orders (https://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Home?_requestid=12676705). Might as well avoid a lawsuit while it's not costly to do so.

Also: I am afraid I could be derailing the thread, so I,ve put my direct answer in the spoiler. On the plus side, it keeps the thread alive for OP.

That said, I'll reiterate my position as per OP's question:

> If feats /chain of feats are as is, characters have a huge lack of them, and since not every feat / chain of feat is even close to the same power level (e.g. Master Craftman vs. Power Attack), especially as a martial, you need to follow very specific builds to remain relevant.

> A lot more feats & a form of restriction between types of feats would bring a lot of needed diversity. For example, a free choice between Skill Focus (Craft), S.F. (Perform), S.F. (Profession) (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/skill-focus---final), Master Craftman (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final), Cosmopolitan (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/cosmopolitan) and Breadth of Experience (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/breadth-of-experience) would be awesome and far from breaking the game.

> If feat chains are consolidated like with the link that has been posted thrice in here, once by yours truly, the number of feats offered by 3.PF is kinda alright.


To address the Fighter specifically, we added Tactics that make Fighters NIGHTMARISH to hurt, in any fashion. If you build a Fighter to be a Tank, then she's a TANK. Spell Resistance, huge buffs to saves, a boatload of hitpoints, DR for days, the ability to self-heal, it's allll in there.

The trade-off is, if you build for massive defenses, your offense will suffer a bit. But, the beauty of the Fighter is, the Challenge they get means that even if they do not one single point of damage in an entire fight, they can STILL dominate the battlefield and protect the squishies.

The approach we took makes for a very flexible and capable class indeed.

We hope people like it!

I must admit, I really like the fighter's combat tactics. You can be sure, if I am forced to DM for a pathfinder game, that's I'll be using it instead of the regular fighter stuff. Choke Up, Vigilance, Tough Hide are all absolutely great ideas that allows one to customize his character in a way better manner than archetypes. Bravo.

It is a bit vague on the fighter's Combat Edge's value, but I expect it, at worse, to increase by +1 whenever the fighter gains another iterative attack. I'd really expect it to increase at level 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28... as per Pathfinder's class abilities / Power Attack progressions.

The fighter's challenge should have the ability to be turned off, if only to bluff about one's competency on the field of battle. Not being able to turn it off also encourages regular fighters to metagame and delay their action so that the multiclassed fighter can go first and have his lesser challenge removed instead of the opposite. It makes little sense and is an unnecessary pain in the ass. It is otherwise pure gold.


Well, despite the name, we are not 'focusing' on Epic levels, we just have them. Because we like them. :)
And I have absolutely no problem with it. I personally looove E6 + Mythic ranks.


And your example is very nice for Pathfinder, but in Epic Path you would never see such a situation, because in our game, Monsters do not cast spells like players do.

So, yes, we fixed that.
> First, you did not. Whether it is a wizard casting a spell, a dragon using his fear aura, a mummy throwing a curse, by definition missing a Will save is crippling.
> Second, a 6-points-difference-before-stats-are-applied is huge. We're talking "fair chance vs. auto-success/failure" huge. And I'd believe you should have a tendency to agree, otherwise why would your epic levels' save progression not keep the same pattern?
> Third, I am unsure of what you meant: Are DMs in Epic Path forbidden to create NPCs that use PC class levels? 4th edition took this approach, making even NPCs with class level like monsters with encounter powers. Don't get me wrong, that's not bad, I just want to understand the intent.

Don't get me wrong, it looks neat, but there's no way in hell I'm playing it without houseruling the lower save progression being "=(Good Save-2)". 10% + gap in base stat + feat is enough of a gap.

[mauk2]

Ah! Well, out of respect for OP, I'll spoiler this in reply.

Er, on-topic, yes, lotsa feats and class abilities! Get rid of the stinker feats! Me and my buddy are getting close to the end of re-writing a thousand feats, we know your pain.





I must admit, I really like the fighter's combat tactics.

Thanks! We put a ton of work into those. We hope it shows!



It is a bit vague on the fighter's Combat Edge's value

See, this is where other eyes are invaluable. The Combat Edge progression is in the Table:Fighter, and Table:Epic Fighter. Perfectly clear to me, but obviously, not good. So now we've clarified that. Thanks for the feedback!



The fighter's challenge should have the ability to be turned off,

Interestingly, you're the second person to suggest that. The inability to shut off the Challenge is an important balance that allows the fighter to be as versatile as they are compared to other Melee classes. Rogues, Rangers, Brawlers and Prowlers, are all very high-damage melee classes, but cannot be as durable as a Fighter is, but a Fighter CAN be built to be damage-competitive with them. To balance it out, the Fighter who neglects his defenses will be very very high damage, but will require a lot of support from his party, since everything he swings on now has good reason to concentrate on him alone.


Not being able to turn it off also encourages regular fighters to metagame and delay their action so that the multiclassed fighter can go first and have his lesser challenge removed instead of the opposite.

Well, first, multiclassing is not currently allowed in Epic Path, and might not ever be allowed. We specifically loaded all the classes with lots of 'late-blooming' abilities that are REALLY GOOD. Exacting Strikes, for example, is the Fighter's capstone Challenge ability, and you'd have to be crazy to miss it by dipping into another class. Similarly, the Sorcerer's late-game abilities, a Monk's late-game abilities, ALL the classes, they are all really, really nice.

Second, if players wish to 'metagame' by using tactics and planning out their turns between themselves, then that's a play style that we're not going to pooh-pooh. Everybody has their own brand of fun. :)



First, you did not. Whether it is a wizard casting a spell, a dragon using his fear aura, a mummy throwing a curse, by definition missing a Will save is crippling.

In Pathfinder, yes. But there is much more to Epic Path than one character class. One of the very first things we did was arrange all of the status conditions into status arrays, and rank them as weak, moderate, and strong. Then, as we were building the monsters, we ruthlessly removed all the strong conditions from anything below CR20-ish.

Missing ANY save is rarely 'crippling' in Epic Path below Epic level. Will it suck? Oh, you bet, but even when layered down under three or four weak or moderate conditions, we've proved in playtesting that characters keep on soldiering.

Check it out! :)

http://epicpath.org/index.php/Status_Conditions
http://epicpath.org/index.php/Ghoul





why would your epic levels' save progression not keep the same pattern?

The reason why we flattened out both to-hits and saves for the Epic levels was to freeze the differential between classes to stay within a d20 roll of each other. This is an important deep-design metric to keep the game playable. The difference between high-BAB and low-BAB never gets to be greater than ten, for example.



Third, I am unsure of what you meant: Are DMs in Epic Path forbidden to create NPCs that use PC class levels? 4th edition took this approach, making even NPCs with class level like monsters with encounter powers. Don't get me wrong, that's not bad, I just want to understand the intent.

Nothing is ever forbidden, but it's very much not needed. All Epic Path monsters are built from a common set of blueprints. Sound dull, right? Well, believe me, it works like gangbusters. We're constantly amazed at how well this approach works, and to be honest, it's probably the biggest change we made in the mechanics of the game.

To be clear: In Epic Path, monsters and players use entirely different mechanics. ALL bad guys should be statted out based on a blueprint for the proper CR and then dressed up with no more than three-to five 'specials'. If you want to make a special baddie, then you can add a role, such as Killer, Heavy, or Threat for a Big Bad. There's even a super-threat Villain role, but that's reserved for special occasions. :)



Hope that answers your questions! Thank you for the feedback!