"Feat tax" and Feat houserules

[Wonton]

We were chatting in this other thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?489644-Paizo-announces-Starfinder-RPG!/page3) about Pathfinder feats, and I thought it was a big enough topic that I could make a new thread for it.

The topic for discussion is what does everyone think of Pathfinder feats as a whole? The issue I have is primarily with Combat feats, where you often have to take 4 crappy pre-requisites just to get something that could probably be a standalone feat on its own. Or, as Psyren put it, "the problem of needing a feat to walk to the bathroom" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20833628&postcount=16). :smalltongue: Neckbreaker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/neckbreaker-combat) is a particularly egregious example of this, IMO. Spellcasters go from Magic Missile to Plane Shift levels 1-12, while a Fighter has to take 7 feats in the same time to learn how to break someone's neck.

In my current game, I've tried to address this issue a bit by bundling Dodge with Mobility, bundling Point-Blank Shot with Precise Shot, and bundling Combat Expertise with any one feat that has Combat Expertise as a pre-req. It's worked quite well so far, IMO. The houserule has achieved all the desired goals.

Other options I've considered are just giving everyone a bonus feat at level 1, or even giving everyone a bonus feat at every even level.

Thoughts on the issue of "feat tax", crappy filler feats, and ridiculously long feat trees? Have you tried any rule changes to address this, and how has that worked? Do you disagree entirely and think the feat system is perfect? All opinions are welcome. :smallsmile:

[ComaVision]

I play 3.5 not PF but I don't think that matters much here.

I don't have a problem with feat taxes, provided that the end result is worth it. Full casting PRCs can have feat taxes all day long and that's fine by me. As far as Weapon Focus, Point Blank Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting etc I like to have them scale based on BaB. For example, PBS gives an additional +1/+1 for every two points of BaB. It's not powerful but it's not terribly negligible assuming that anyone with PBS is getting several attacks. At the very least, it helps ranged attackers overcome DR. I also increased PBS' range to one range increment for the weapon, minimum of 30'.

[Wonton]

I play 3.5 not PF but I don't think that matters much here.

I don't have a problem with feat taxes, provided that the end result is worth it. Full casting PRCs can have feat taxes all day long and that's fine by me. As far as Weapon Focus, Point Blank Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting etc I like to have them scale based on BaB. For example, PBS gives an additional +1/+1 for every two points of BaB. It's not powerful but it's not terribly negligible assuming that anyone with PBS is getting several attacks. At the very least, it helps ranged attackers overcome DR. I also increased PBS' range to one range increment for the weapon, minimum of 30'.

Actually, I also have TWF work as ITWF, GTWF, etc. Gives you an extra off-hand attack each time you gain another main-hand attack from BAB. Having to take so many feats just to make the combat style work seems stupid to me.

[Seppo87]

Feat taxes have actually become worse with Ultimate Intrigue.

Now we need a feat to call a truce (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/call-truce) with the enemy.

Before this feat existed, I could (and did, in fact) just roleplay it.

Now I can't, because, duh.

[Necromancy]

I have a spreadsheet of all pathfinder feats and I can tell you that the total number is over 1500. Narrowing that down to about 10 feats is utterly obnoxious to be sure.

Easily 1000 of them are utter garbage. Most of the remaining are feat taxes.

[Wonton]

Feat taxes have actually become worse with Ultimate Intrigue.

Now we need a feat to call a truce (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/call-truce) with the enemy.

Before this feat existed, I could (and did, in fact) just roleplay it.

Now I can't, because, duh.

That's dumb. Those "here's a feat to do what any DM would just allow you to do" feats have always been dumb. Pretty much any feat involving Diplomacy or Intimidate is dumb, actually. Those skills are so dependent on roleplaying and GM interpretation that trying to tie them to mechanics too much seems silly to me. Unless you play in PFS, surely your DM doesn't actually require you to have that feat to attempt calling a truce?

[Gildedragon]

Feat taxes have actually become worse with Ultimate Intrigue.

Now we need a feat to call a truce (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/call-truce) with the enemy.

Before this feat existed, I could (and did, in fact) just roleplay it.

Now I can't, because, duh.
Crystal Mighty...
That shouldn't be a feat; it ought be a "new" use of the diplomacy skill, dice rolling rules to supplement the roleplay.

I approve of making skills more crunchy-versatile, but doing so at the expense of previous play is bad. Don't make it a feat, make it into new rules.

I play 3.5 not PF but I don't think that matters much here.

I don't have a problem with feat taxes, provided that the end result is worth it. Full casting PRCs can have feat taxes all day long and that's fine by me. As far as Weapon Focus, Point Blank Shot, Two-Weapon Fighting etc I like to have them scale based on BaB. For example, PBS gives an additional +1/+1 for every two points of BaB. It's not powerful but it's not terribly negligible assuming that anyone with PBS is getting several attacks. At the very least, it helps ranged attackers overcome DR. I also increased PBS' range to one range increment for the weapon, minimum of 30'.
Feat taxes on mundanes are pretty egregious: they bring little to the table except the capacity to actually play your character. If a similar mentality is applied to casters, requiring a feat to be able to use each spell level... well it becomes obvious how bad things get for mundanes.

We were chatting in this other thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?489644-Paizo-announces-Starfinder-RPG!/page3) about Pathfinder feats, and I thought it was a big enough topic that I could make a new thread for it.

The topic for discussion is what does everyone think of Pathfinder feats as a whole? The issue I have is primarily with Combat feats, where you often have to take 4 crappy pre-requisites just to get something that could probably be a standalone feat on its own. Or, as Psyren put it, "the problem of needing a feat to walk to the bathroom" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20833628&postcount=16). :smalltongue: Neckbreaker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/neckbreaker-combat) is a particularly egregious example of this, IMO. Spellcasters go from Magic Missile to Plane Shift levels 1-12, while a Fighter has to take 7 feats in the same time to learn how to break someone's neck.

In my current game, I've tried to address this issue a bit by bundling Dodge with Mobility, bundling Point-Blank Shot with Precise Shot, and bundling Combat Expertise with any one feat that has Combat Expertise as a pre-req. It's worked quite well so far, IMO. The houserule has achieved all the desired goals.

Other options I've considered are just giving everyone a bonus feat at level 1, or even giving everyone a bonus feat at every even level.

Thoughts on the issue of "feat tax", crappy filler feats, and ridiculously long feat trees? Have you tried any rule changes to address this, and how has that worked? Do you disagree entirely and think the feat system is perfect? All opinions are welcome. :smallsmile:
Yeah collapsing feat chains and having them gain uses with level seems the most reasonable. I started doing it with the Sacred Vow feat in 3.5, and then had it spread to other things (like dragonmarks, which I then turned into mini-classes)...
I feel feat chain feats need to either:
a) scale automatically as one levels
b) not scale but come with bonus "feat slots" in the feat meant to enhance it (point blank shot comes with a few bonus slots for archery feats)
c) not scale and not need to scale, with a lot of the feats being just part of normal combat

[RedMetal]

Feat taxes have actually become worse with Ultimate Intrigue.

Now we need a feat to call a truce with the enemy.

Before this feat existed, I could (and did, in fact) just roleplay it.

Now I can't, because, duh.

Hey, at least it doesn't require you to be a gnome :smallbiggrin:

[Florian]

I have a spreadsheet of all pathfinder feats and I can tell you that the total number is over 1500. Narrowing that down to about 10 feats is utterly obnoxious to be sure.

Easily 1000 of them are utter garbage. Most of the remaining are feat taxes.

I pretty much agree with you here. There´re some major ways to go down and some little side-ways to pick up along the way and that´s it.

[Psyren]

Here's a blog post our group has used to reduce the feat bloat:

Feat Taxes in Pathfinder (http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/#dw_accordions-3-nav_menu-dw-widget-1)

[Wonton]

Here's a blog post our group has used to reduce the feat bloat:

Feat Taxes in Pathfinder (http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/#dw_accordions-3-nav_menu-dw-widget-1)

Ha! I love that the Dodge, PBS, TWF, and Combat Expertise solutions are basically exactly what I came up with, but the post is from 2012. I thought I was so smart, but I guess there's nothing new under the sun. :smalltongue:

I love everything about this, by the way. Totally using this next campaign. Might even switch over to it right this instant. (pretty much every player except the Witch will get a bonus feat or two as a result)

[Pinkie Pyro]

I personally let my players ignore most feat pre-requisites that aren't directly related, and go back and make the "feat tax" feats actually worthwhile.

[Knight Magenta]

I've created a point-based feat system (https://dnineteen.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/feat-points/). So far, it seems to be working well.

TL;DR: 8 points when you gain a feat, costs are in this spreadsheet. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aaGvMIz27CdGReHaR8TzYquCuRT3Mq0Am7o0iHrIy0g/edit#gid=0) I have from the CRB to Ultimate magic stated out.

[Sayt]

The main one I haven't seen mentioned in here is reconsolidating combat maneuvers. Improved/Greater just becomes one feat. The features in Greater come online at 6 bab.

I've also seen people bundle all the combat expertise requiring maneuver feats into 'Deft maneuvers' and all the power attack requiring combat maneuver feats into powerful maneuvers.

[Gildedragon]

Here's a blog post our group has used to reduce the feat bloat:

Feat Taxes in Pathfinder (http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/#dw_accordions-3-nav_menu-dw-widget-1)
This
Is
Amazing!

[Kurald Galain]

The topic for discussion is what does everyone think of Pathfinder feats as a whole? The issue I have is primarily with Combat feats, where you often have to take 4 crappy pre-requisites just to get something that could probably be a standalone feat on its own.
Well, it gets a bad rep on forums, but that's mostly exaggerated.

In practice, people simply don't take the feats with overcomplicated prereqs. There are, after all, plenty of feats that don't have overcomplicated prereqs, and there are several classes, archetypes, and feats that explicitly dodge the prereqs. Also, if you want to break somebody's neck, there's the Coup de Grace rules for that.

That doesn't make the system perfect, not by a long shot (the biggest problem is that there are too many feats). But in practice, it works much better than people give it credit for. I suggest it's this trope at play (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks).

[Kurald Galain]

That's dumb. Those "here's a feat to do what any DM would just allow you to do" feats have always been dumb.

And yes, they are.

Note that the existence of a "call truce" feat doesn't mean that you can't call a truce in other ways, just like how the existence of a "light a campfire" spell doesn't mean you can't light a campfire in other ways.

[Pluto!]

This is one of the major reasons I play more C&C than 3e/PF these days.

It's a feature of 3e/PF that penetrates both systems going back to the first 3e splatbook, and it underpins the entire character-building minigame that remains one of the systems' major appeals.

[Milo v3]

Feat taxes have actually become worse with Ultimate Intrigue.

Now we need a feat to call a truce (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/call-truce) with the enemy.

Before this feat existed, I could (and did, in fact) just roleplay it.

Now I can't, because, duh.

Actually by RAW you can't use diplomacy in combat to make the enemies non-hostile because it takes a whole minute to attempt. The feat was an attempt to fix that diplomacy can't be used for in-combat truces properly (though they shouldn't be making feats to fix skills, they should just add the functionality to the skill, stupid Occult Adventures linguistics feat).

[Fizban]

Unless they changed it for pathfinder you just take a -10 penalty to do it as a full round action, though technically one could say that only works on a single target and may not be very useful against groups.

The obvious reason people make so many "here's a feat that lets you do something your DM probably let you do already," is because it's not actually all that probable. Some DMs let you do anything with barely a skill check, some won't let you do anything you don't have a rules-legal right to-especially if it's not core. In order to get the latter to allow new options you always need to charge some sort of cost, thus feats that give you skill options you should have had already.

Also, I'd not use the term "feat tax" quite as broadly. To me at least, "feat tax" means burning a feat on garbage to get something else, usually a prestige class but occasionally some other option. It is defined by the tax doing nothing, usually a flat numerical bonus that doesn't lead to any other feats, like Iron Will or Nimble Fingers, while the goal is completely worthwhile on it's own but undercosted without the tax.

The bloat problem is "feat trees," that's what makes it so you need 7 feats to do one thing. Those are caused by a fear of doing anything in more than baby steps, as if suddenly gaining a new ability will break the game. Pathfinder is even worse at this than 3.5 was, with ridiculously long trees. Except then there's all sorts of class features to skip them? Oh great, you've offloaded half your class features into the feat system and now half the feats only make sense when viewed from a specific class perspective. Yup, that's good design all right.

[martixy]

This
Is
Amazing!

It's actually become the standard response to this thread. Heck, it usually comes up earlier.
I use it as well.

Here's my edits:
TWF allows attacking with both weapons as a standard action after BAB+6
Imp. TWF provides the same progression of attacks with off-hand, as with main hand.
The following can be "bought" with BAB: Weapon, armor and shield proficiencies, power attack, combat expertise, precise shot, imp. unarmed strike, mounted combat, quick draw, rapid reload, blind fight.
Spring attack allows you to take any standard action, not just attacking(like flyby attack).

[ScarletThief]

I may be alone on this but j rather like the idea of needing many feats to lead up to a big ability but I do agree its kinda dumb to need for basic actions

[Azoth]

Actually by RAW you can't use diplomacy in combat to make the enemies non-hostile because it takes a whole minute to attempt. The feat was an attempt to fix that diplomacy can't be used for in-combat truces properly (though they shouldn't be making feats to fix skills, they should just add the functionality to the skill, stupid Occult Adventures linguistics feat).

Unless you have the channel energy class feature and are wearing 450gp Authoritative Vestments. Then you can AoE Diplomacy as the same action type as using your channel energy (standard by default) for 1 use of Channel Energy.

[Florian]

I may be alone on this but j rather like the idea of needing many feats to lead up to a big ability but I do agree its kinda dumb to need for basic actions

Depends. I also like it when a feat chain builds up an ability, what I dislike is when parts of the feat chain become useless when the next higher feat in the chain invalidates its own prereqs. For example, Dragon Style keeps expanding while in Blinded Blade Style, every new feat just replaces the previous one.

[Der_DWSage]

I may be alone on this but j rather like the idea of needing many feats to lead up to a big ability but I do agree its kinda dumb to need for basic actions

See, I'm actually okay with 'leading into a big ability' if it also includes 'And gets some small/moderately useful abilities on the way.' That way you don't spend three feats for the cost of one eventual feat and some garbage you'll never use, you just get feats that lead from 'nice' to 'Well, this was worth specializing.' I find Overwatch Style a good example of that-the middle feat isn't the greatest, but the first and last feats are well worth the trouble.

I find the real issue of Pathfinder feats is that there's very little, if any, synergy in the feat trees. Even rarer is synergy that goes beyond 'This is a bigger +X to your numbers.' The best that they usually get is 'You get a bigger bonus to your combat maneuver AND it threatens an attack of opportunity.' 90% of the feats that require Combat Expertise are actually the most egregious example of this-the only one that has anything to do with making yourself more defensive is Crane Wing Style.

[Kurald Galain]

I find the real issue of Pathfinder feats is that there's very little, if any, synergy in the feat trees. Even rarer is synergy that goes beyond 'This is a bigger +X to your numbers.' The best that they usually get is 'You get a bigger bonus to your combat maneuver AND it threatens an attack of opportunity.' 90% of the feats that require Combat Expertise are actually the most egregious example of this-the only one that has anything to do with making yourself more defensive is Crane Wing Style.

Yeah, the problem is not so much "feat trees", as it is "feat trees that start with Dodge, Combat Expertise, or Weapon Focus". Mind you, there are a lot of those.

Funnily, feat trees starting with Power Attack aren't a problem (because PA is a good feat by itself), nor are trees starting with IUS (because there are so many ways to get it for free).

[Florian]

I find the real issue of Pathfinder feats is that there's very little, if any, synergy in the feat trees. Even rarer is synergy that goes beyond 'This is a bigger +X to your numbers.' The best that they usually get is 'You get a bigger bonus to your combat maneuver AND it threatens an attack of opportunity.' 90% of the feats that require Combat Expertise are actually the most egregious example of this-the only one that has anything to do with making yourself more defensive is Crane Wing Style.

I think that expectations on what a feat should actually do can vary wildly. When I have the chance to be a player once in a while, I tend to build around one long feat chain and else mostly push available class features. So me playing a Barbarian will simply be Power Attack followed by Extra Rage Power, Extra Rage Power...

[Wonton]

I find the real issue of Pathfinder feats is that there's very little, if any, synergy in the feat trees. Even rarer is synergy that goes beyond 'This is a bigger +X to your numbers.' The best that they usually get is 'You get a bigger bonus to your combat maneuver AND it threatens an attack of opportunity.' 90% of the feats that require Combat Expertise are actually the most egregious example of this-the only one that has anything to do with making yourself more defensive is Crane Wing Style.

Agreed. My favourite feats are "here's a random thing you can do 1/day" and the like, but they're so few and far between. Of course, the other issue with 1/day abilities is that they often end up being 1/encounter if the DM's not careful about stringing encounters together, but that's a separate issue.

Overall, I think Psyren's blog post nailed it, IMO. I'm honestly surprised I've never seen that, considering it's 4 years old. I just wish it expanded into more of the books, Ultimate Combat is probably the most need of feat pruning/consolidation.

[upho]

Overall, I think Psyren's blog post nailed it, IMO. I'm honestly surprised I've never seen that, considering it's 4 years old. I just wish it expanded into more of the books, Ultimate Combat is probably the most need of feat pruning/consolidation.Yeah, I felt the same when I first saw it about a year ago. If I had seen it earlier, I wouldn't have needed to make nearly as many of my own similar house rules (see below).

But yes, you can tell it's old, unfortunately. Besides missing UC and later stuff (like Dirty Fighting), it also doesn't really deal with IMO the even more serious issue with nearly all combat maneuvers, namely that it's highly likely a rather rapidly increasing percentage of opponents, especially the important ones, will be flat out immune to them the higher up the levels you get. So all your investments into getting that super-high CMB and tactical combos using two or three maneuvers are quickly going to be completely disregarded with increasing frequency. (And if an opponent isn't immune, you'll instead always succeed, a binary effect that isn't much fun.) So chances are you'll be forced back in the old boring martial role of dealing single-target damage (using more or less numerous damage dice while having a more or less passive durability as your primary mediocre defense). And the only way to get around this is basically by dedicating your entire build to one single combat maneuver which has the required support, meaning tetori or perhaps a few Dirty Trick builds.

Also, I don't think it does much to save TWF. Saving up on one feat isn't going to do much to make the fighting style a real consideration for a larger number of builds, not while it still means they're basically paying feat slots and gold for being worse.

Copied and slightly edited from my post in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?490158-Combat-Maneuvers-and-what-to-do-with-them) about combat maneuvers:
1. Bonus Combat Feats All characters gain the following combat feats as bonus feats if/when they meet the prerequisites noted here (replacing the original prerequisites of the feats):
Combat Expertise no prerequisites
Deadly Aim Dex 13
Dirty Fighting BAB +1
Martial Power Con 13
Piranha Strike Dex 13
Point-Blank Shot no prerequisites
Power Attack Str 13
Weapon Finesse no prerequisites

2. Shortened Combat Feat Chains A creature who has the first feat in a chain consisting of "X -> Improved X -> Greater X" (such as the Two-Weapon Fighting feat chain) or "Improved X -> Greater X" (such as the Improved Trip chain) gains the following feat(s) in the chain, ie those named "Improved X" and/or "Greater X", as bonus feats as soon as the prerequisites are met.

3. No "Int 13" prerequisites No combat feat has this prerequisite.

4. Minimum Fighter level prerequisites replaced by minimum BAB All combat feats which originally have a minimum fighter level prerequisite replaces that prerequisite with a minimum base attack bonus of equal value (for example Base attack bonus +6 replacing 6th-level fighter in the case of Disruptive). (Note: This is primarily to make the "fighter-only" feats more accessible to the PCs in a game which has a T3 power target, making the fighter class a bit too weak to base a build on.)

5. Improved/Greater Slam Improved/Greater Bull Rush and Improved/Greater Overrun are replaced by the new feat "Improved/Greater Slam", which grants the benefits of both replaced feats and has the following prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1 / Str 13, Improved Slam, base attack bonus +6.

6. Improved/Greater Entangle Improved/Greater Drag, Improved/Greater Reposition and Improved/Greater Trip are replaced by the new feats "Improved/Greater Entangle", which grant the benefits of the replaced feats and has the following prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1 / Str 15 or Dex 15, Improved Entangle, base attack bonus +6.

7. Improved/Greater Sunder merged with Improved/Greater Disarm The benefits (but not the prerequisites) of Improved/Greater Sunder are added to Improved/Greater Disarm.

8. Flying creatures can be tripped Flying creatures are not immune to the trip combat maneuver, but instead of being knocked prone by a successful trip attempt, a flying creature takes a -2 penalty to AC and attack rolls, and its speed is halved for all its movement types. These penalties remain until the creature spends a move action to remove them, which provokes attacks of opportunity (unless the creature has an ability which allows it to stand up from prone without provoking). This is treated as a trip combat maneuver in all other respects, and it triggers any actions which are normally triggered by a successful trip attempt or a creature falling prone (and is thus compatible with for example the Greater Trip, Wolf Trip or Vicious Stomp feats).

9. Size and Combat Maneuvers A creature which is granted the benefits of a "Greater" combat maneuver feat may choose to disregard the normal size limit of the when using a related combat maneuver. When doing so, the creature takes a cumulative -5 penalty to the CMB check for each size category the target's size is above the normal size limit of the maneuver.

10. Freedom of movement and grappling Creatures affected by freedom of movement can be grappled by another creature also affected by freedom of movement, but the creature initiating the grapple takes a -5 penalty to its grapple checks.

The house rules have also enabled me to provide much more varied, difficult and tactically interesting combats, especially against more powerful BBEGs, while simultaneously often reducing the considerable risks of fluke PC kills powerful opponents otherwise often present.

Also, Improved and Greater TWF has the following changes (in addition to TWF granting these as bonus feats, as described):

Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved
Prerequisites: Dex 16, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
Whenever you take a standard or full-round action normally limited to a single attack (such as a charge or an attack action) and do not perform a Martial Strike, you can make an additional attack with an off-hand weapon you wield at your full base attack bonus, but both your main hand and off-hand attack rolls take the normal penalties of Two-Weapon Fighting. The additional off-hand attack does not gain any temporary bonuses which only applies to a single attack (such as the damage bonus of Vital Strike).
Normal: Without this feat, you can only get a single extra attack with an off-hand weapon, and only when taking an action which grants you iterative attacks.

Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You get a third attack with your off-hand weapon, albeit at a –10 penalty.
Whenever the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat allows you to attack twice instead of once in an action you take, the attack penalty of Two-Weapon Fighting is reduced by 2 (to a minimum of 0). In addition, once per round and opponent when you can make an Attack of Opportunity, you can make an additional attack against the same target with an off-hand weapon you wield. These two attacks only expends one Attack of Opportunity for your round, and the attack penalty of Two-Weapon Fighting is reduced by 2 for both of these attacks. The additional attack can not be replaced by a combat maneuver or attack action, regardless of any other abilities you may have.

These have worked very well so far, I think. It has especially promoted more tactical, versatile and fun melee fighting. It has also produced ranged builds which don't have the same first five or six feat slots filled with the same feats! (Blasphemy! I know...) :smalltongue:

[Mithril Leaf]

I think that some feat "taxes" are rather tedious, such as how if you want to shoot a bow at someone near someone else, you need two feats. Feat trees as a whole can be pretty awesome though, Bloodforge (which is a DSP product) has a rather lovely feat chain that lets you spend 4 or 5 feats to get your Charisma Mod as your HP and Fort stat, plus Fast Healing 2. I suppose it's more of a feat cloud though, as you can adjust the order of those abilities as you like.

[Jay R]

You can call it a Feat Tax. You can call it a Feat Chain. You can call it anything you want.

It's still just a mechanic for making that Feat an ability that is only available to high level characters.

Nobody calls having to learn first level spells before you get the good high level spells a "Spell Tax".

You aren't suppose to have high level abilities at low level. If you consider the ability too expensive, get something else. That's all.

[Honest Tiefling]

It's still just a mechanic for making that Feat an ability that is only available to high level characters.

They could just put high stat, BAB or skill requirements on it if that were the case. I always assumed feat chains existed to stop spellcasters from cherry picking the best ones.

I personally prefer reducing the number of feats and getting rid of trees. I really don't care if you have Combat Expertise if you want to do a combat maneuver. I guess I can see the logic, but I really don't like the idea of the huge hulking barbarian can't be good at tripping just because he's a bit average in the smarts department.

[Necromancy]

They could just put high stat, BAB or skill requirements on it if that were the case. I always assumed feat chains existed to stop spellcasters from cherry picking the best ones.

I personally prefer reducing the number of feats and getting rid of trees. I really don't care if you have Combat Expertise if you want to do a combat maneuver. I guess I can see the logic, but I really don't like the idea of the huge hulking barbarian can't be good at tripping just because he's a bit average in the smarts department.

Hmm, never realized that. Your average person lacks the brainpower to understand how to trip people with a stick. That needs to go into the dysfunction thread if it hasn't yet

[upho]

You can call it a Feat Tax. You can call it a Feat Chain. You can call it anything you want.

It's still just a mechanic for making that Feat an ability that is only available to high level characters.A feat can have plenty of different level gates (BAB, class level, skill ranks, etc.) totally independent of prerequisite feats. Have you seen a lot of posts here complaining about the level prerequisites of feats?


Nobody calls having to learn first level spells before you get the good high level spells a "Spell Tax".Huh? AFAIK, a 17th level wizard isn't required to know a single 1st level spell in order to learn a 9th level spell. And I don't know of a single specific spell you cannot choose to add to your spellbook/spells known unless you have already learned/know another specific spell. Could you please provide a few examples?


You aren't suppose to have high level abilities at low level. If you consider the ability too expensive, get something else. That's all.Who says so? And how does this apply to the discussion on feat taxes?

[digiman619]

Huh? AFAIK, a 17th level wizard isn't required to know a single 1st level spell in order to learn a 9th level spell. And I don't know of a single specific spell you cannot choose to add to your spellbook/spells known unless you have already learned/know another specific spell. Could you please provide a few examples?

In order to avoid a semantic argument later, I beleive he means "a specific 1st level spell" rather that "a single 1st level spell", i.e., it's not like you need to know burning hands to learn meteor swarm, or silent image for shades.

[Honest Tiefling]

Here's a blog post our group has used to reduce the feat bloat:

Feat Taxes in Pathfinder (http://theworldissquare.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/#dw_accordions-3-nav_menu-dw-widget-1)

Now that I have time to dig through this, I think I agree with most of these changes. I recommend this to anyone who wants to give a little boost to mundanes and see a bit more variety in combat. YOINK.

[Der_DWSage]

In order to avoid a semantic argument later, I beleive he means "a specific 1st level spell" rather that "a single 1st level spell", i.e., it's not like you need to know burning hands to learn meteor swarm, or silent image for shades.

No matter how much I would enjoy that...if it weren't for Wizards bollocksing everything with their 'potentially infinite spells known,' I'd probably sit down and make a list of spells that have pre-requisite spells, or at least 'X spells of Y school known,' similar to maneuvers. Maybe Wizards would have the same thing, but they have to have X spells prepared...

[Jay R]

A feat can have plenty of different level gates (BAB, class level, skill ranks, etc.) totally independent of prerequisite feats. Have you seen a lot of posts here complaining about the level prerequisites of feats?

No, people are complaining about Feat pre-requisites. A series of Feat pre-requisites differs from other methods by letting a Fighter have it earlier than a non-Fighter warrior.


Huh? AFAIK, a 17th level wizard isn't required to know a single 1st level spell in order to learn a 9th level spell. And I don't know of a single specific spell you cannot choose to add to your spellbook/spells known unless you have already learned/know another specific spell. Could you please provide a few examples?

Obviously, I wasn't clear. You don't have to learn or use a first level spell, but you have to have the capability 16 levels before you can learn a 9th level spell.

Similarly, you don't have to ever use Cleave or Power Attack before you get Great Cleave, but you have to go through the process of getting them. This is to make it an ability of mid-range fighters or high-level Rangers or other melee classes.


Who says so? And how does this apply to the discussion on feat taxes?

Getting rid of the feat pre-requisites is the same thing as making it easier to get top Feats at lower levels. Therefore I stated that Feats cost what they cost. If they aren't worth the cost to you, then get something else.

My main point is that a Feat with several pre-requisites is intended to be a rare ability that only a high level has learned. Complaining about "Feat Taxes" or "Feat trees" is just asking for high level abilities before they're supposed to be used.


They could just put high stat, BAB or skill requirements on it if that were the case. I always assumed feat chains existed to stop spellcasters from cherry picking the best ones.

In actual effect, they exist to let Fighters have nice things earlier than other warrior classes.


I personally prefer reducing the number of feats and getting rid of trees.

This is identical to wanting high level feats at lower level.


I really don't care if you have Combat Expertise if you want to do a combat maneuver. I guess I can see the logic, but I really don't like the idea of the huge hulking barbarian can't be good at tripping just because he's a bit average in the smarts department.

It's not true. Anybody can trip well; it doesn't take a feat.

It takes INT 13 to learn to do a much more clever maneuver that is more effective and protects yourself from AoOs. But anybody can be good at mere tripping.

[Kurald Galain]

They could just put high stat, BAB or skill requirements on it if that were the case. I always assumed feat chains existed to stop spellcasters from cherry picking the best ones.

True. The problem is not so much with feat trees in general, but with feat trees of which the first two feats suck in particular.

[killem2]

I think if I were to make a house rule, I would probably just go with a all in one answer:

Any prerequisite feat you have chosen can be retrained for a completely new feat as long as the new one came from the same genre, after you have had that feat for three levels or more. Example (As a fighter you took Point Blank Shot at level 1), which is a combat feat. You can retrain that Level 4 since levels 1-3 meet the requirement of having it for three levels. You can then "train" and switch out that feat.

This of course means it won't turn off feats like precise shot and the like.

[digiman619]

No, people are complaining about Feat pre-requisites. A series of Feat pre-requisites differs from other methods by letting a Fighter have it earlier than a non-Fighter warrior.

Fighters aren't the only ones who get bonus feats. And there's precedent for have a having a class level as an alternate prerequisites; Anticipate Dodge has the prerequisite of "BAB + 7 or monk level 4th or brawler level 4th"


Obviously, I wasn't clear. You don't have to learn or use a first level spell, but you have to have the capability 16 levels before you can learn a 9th level spell.

Similarly, you don't have to ever use Cleave or Power Attack before you get Great Cleave, but you have to go through the process of getting them. This is to make it an ability of mid-range fighters or high-level Rangers or other melee classes.
Except that unless I use the strictly-worse sorcerer (**** you, Monte Cook), I get an infinite number of spells. Even as a Human Fighter 20, the class and race with the most feats, I only get 22 feats. This means that I a want Improved Cleaving Finish (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/improved-cleaving-finish-combat). I need 5 feats (Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Cleaving Finish, and Improved Cleaving Finish), or almost a quarter of my feats. Even if I go to the clearly inferior Sorcerer (again, *** you Monte Cook), I just need 1 spell known for wish. which is roughly 3% of my capacity. And I dare you to look me in the face and say Improved Cleaving Finish is more worthwhile than wish


Getting rid of the feat pre-requisites is the same thing as making it easier to get top Feats at lower levels. Therefore I stated that Feats cost what they cost. If they aren't worth the cost to you, then get something else.
You primarily play casters, don't you? As a caster the only feats you usually use are the item creation feats and metamagic feats (the later of which you can just replace with metamagic rods). For those of us don't primarily cast, we need the feats to do practically everything.


My main point is that a Feat with several pre-requisites is intended to be a rare ability that only a high level has learned. Complaining about "Feat Taxes" or "Feat trees" is just asking for high level abilities before they're supposed to be used.

Counter-argument: The Hungry Ghost (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/hungry-ghost-monk) archetype gives Punishing Kick (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/punishing-kick-combat) at first level, even though it isn't "supposed" to be available until 8th level


In actual effect, they exist to let Fighters have nice things earlier than other warrior classes.
See above: Many other ways to gate a feat


This is identical to wanting high level feats at lower level.
See the three other monk archetypes that give "high level feats" at 1st level. You recall all the other threads about how these monks are now top tier and that not including one in your party is tantamount to handicapping yourself.


It's not true. Anybody can trip well; it doesn't take a feat.

It takes INT 13 to learn to do a much more clever maneuver that is more effective and protects yourself from AoOs. But anybody can be good at mere tripping.

No, they can trip, but they can't trip well. The system is actively trying to punish you for daring to using the combat maneuver if you didn't waste a feat on Improved Trip.

[Kurald Galain]

No, they can trip, but they can't trip well. The system is actively trying to punish you for daring to using the combat maneuver if you didn't waste a feat on Improved Trip.

Not at all. The system is expecting you to use tactics.

Anyone can trip well. You either use a reach weapon, or do it in a surprise round, or you armor up enough that you're not worried about the OA, or several other methods I can think of. You're not entitled to have your One Pony Trick work 100% reliably all the time, RPGs don't work like that.

[digiman619]

Not at all. The system is expecting you to use tactics.

Anyone can trip well. You either use a reach weapon, or do it in a surprise round, or you armor up enough that you're not worried about the OA, or several other methods I can think of. You're not entitled to have your One Pony Trick work 100% reliably all the time, RPGs don't work like that.

Fair enough, I retract that point. The other 5 stand, however.

[Milo v3]

No, people are complaining about Feat pre-requisites. A series of Feat pre-requisites differs from other methods by letting a Fighter have it earlier than a non-Fighter warrior.

Similarly, you don't have to ever use Cleave or Power Attack before you get Great Cleave, but you have to go through the process of getting them. This is to make it an ability of mid-range fighters or high-level Rangers or other melee classes.

In actual effect, they exist to let Fighters have nice things earlier than other warrior classes.
*Ranger laughs in distance while ignoring prerequisites*


Obviously, I wasn't clear. You don't have to learn or use a first level spell, but you have to have the capability 16 levels before you can learn a 9th level spell.
If this was the line of thinking they were using the prerequisite would be based on BAB or something, rather than requring a specific chain of feats. Since, knowing 9th level spells does not require


Getting rid of the feat pre-requisites is the same thing as making it easier to get top Feats at lower levels. Therefore I stated that Feats cost what they cost. If they aren't worth the cost to you, then get something else.
No, since you can easily make the prerequisites based on something like BAB or skill ranks. Nothing in the game design's would necessitate feat chains to prevent players from gaining the abilities at inappropriate levels.


This is identical to wanting high level feats at lower level.
Why would removing feat trees = those feats being available at a lower level?

[martixy]

Jay, you appear to possess a vastly different impression of the issue being discussed than most other people here.

The crux of the issue is not about getting high level feats earlier, it's about the ability to gain more tricks. About increasing versatility. Breadth, not depth. This is what makes the game fun. Having things to do, being able to make interesting and effective decisions in play, moment to moment.
To extend Kurald's idea, rolling low initiative or the armor discrepancy inherent in the system is NOT tactics. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Feat chains specifically prevent versatility by taking up more of the same resource.

Take for example Spring Attack, a classic example. The feat prerequisites for it take up valuable slots of the same resource for piddlingly mediocre numerical bonuses, that no player in the world would find exciting in their own right.
Weapon Finesse is another offender: it forces classes that rely on Dex to spend resources just to remain competitive with what other classes get for free.

A feat chain that takes many feats to give you 1 good maneuver is the definition of a "feat tax" we are discussing here.

There are plenty of other gating mechanisms that can be used to prevent you from obtaining
high level abilities before they're supposed to be used.

[Kurald Galain]

Take for example Spring Attack, a classic example. The feat prerequisites for it take up valuable slots of the same resource for piddlingly mediocre numerical bonuses, that no player in the world would find exciting in their own right.
Yes, the prereqs of SA are pointless.



Weapon Finesse is another offender: it forces classes that rely on Dex to spend resources just to remain competitive with what other classes get for free.
Actually, no. Weapon Finesse is there to compensate for the fact that a dex build has better AC, saving throws, skills, and initiative than a str build. Like in most RPGs, dexterity is the god stat.

[martixy]

Actually, no. Weapon Finesse is there to compensate for the fact that a dex build has better AC, saving throws, skills, and initiative than a str build. Like in most RPGs, dexterity is the god stat.

Very true. It was perhaps not the best example.
However I still consider it a feat tax due to various other factors, which is another lengthy argument I'm not willing to engage in ATM.

[Pex]

A feat can have plenty of different level gates (BAB, class level, skill ranks, etc.) totally independent of prerequisite feats. Have you seen a lot of posts here complaining about the level prerequisites of feats?

Huh? AFAIK, a 17th level wizard isn't required to know a single 1st level spell in order to learn a 9th level spell. And I don't know of a single specific spell you cannot choose to add to your spellbook/spells known unless you have already learned/know another specific spell. Could you please provide a few examples?

Who says so? And how does this apply to the discussion on feat taxes?

You must know and cast Arcane Mark before you can cast Instant Summons. :smallbiggrin:

[DarkSonic1337]

You must know and cast Arcane Mark before you can cast Instant Summons. :smallbiggrin:

Technically true, but also technically not a 1st level spell :p

Actually....can't a sorcerer cast arcane mark, trade it out, learn instant summons, and then cast instant summons without knowing arcane mark? Or better yet, cast arcane mark from a runestaff (and thus never KNOW the spell).:p

[Fitz10019]

I think some feats should be given when you have the ability score high enough. Anyone with Strength 16 or higher can Power Attack. Anyone with Dexterity 16 or higher can Finesse a light weapon. Anyone with Constitution 16 or higher has Die Hard. I wouldn't set any for mental ability scores.

Knight Magenta's point-spending approach to feats was earlier proposed by Sean K. Reynolds (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html).

We had a post here years ago about how strange SKR's evaluations were, and we discussed corrections in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?245177-Fixing-SKR-s-Feat-Point-System).

[killem2]

I think some feats should be given when you have the ability score high enough. Anyone with Strength 16 or higher can Power Attack. Anyone with Dexterity 16 or higher can Finesse a light weapon. Anyone with Constitution 16 or higher has Die Hard. I wouldn't set any for mental ability scores.

Knight Magenta's point-spending approach to feats was earlier proposed by Sean K. Reynolds (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html).

We had a post here years ago about how strange SKR's evaluations were, and we discussed corrections in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?245177-Fixing-SKR-s-Feat-Point-System).

Whoa! i never knew that existed. I really enjoy that system. I'm going to talk to my buddy who is our groups other GM, and see if we can't start smashing this on pathfinder.

[ace rooster]

One thought I had was paying for feats directly from xp, possibly with a scaling cost that must be payed for scaling feats like power attack. The idea was to also have spells known cost xp, and making it so that wizards would have to 'know' spells as well as have them in their spellbook in order to cast them. They could have an infinite repotoire of spells if they had infinite xp.

Harder to run due to having to actually track xp, but breaks away having to balance all feats equally across all levels, which looks impossible. Opens up methods for limiting caster power somewhat too, and even christmas tree avoidance. Require items to need xp commitment and suddenly using them becomes a choice.

[upho]

No, people are complaining about Feat pre-requisites. A series of Feat pre-requisites differs from other methods by letting a Fighter have it earlier than a non-Fighter warrior.No, people are complaining about too long feat chains (TWF) for too little return and about poor or even worthless feat prerequisites (such as Weapon Focus and Combat Expertise in many cases). And with regards to fighters, I'm saying you can very easily achieve the exact same effect without any prerequisite feats at all.


Obviously, I wasn't clear. You don't have to learn or use a first level spell, but you have to have the capability 16 levels before you can learn a 9th level spell.

Similarly, you don't have to ever use Cleave or Power Attack before you get Great Cleave, but you have to go through the process of getting them. This is to make it an ability of mid-range fighters or high-level Rangers or other melee classes.Talk about false equivalents! The caster's "prerequisite capability" to learn 1st level spells is not even remotely close to being comparable to a feat prerequisite. But to perhaps make it easier for you to understand why people are complaining and for you to see their perspective, let's look at how a similar system for prepared casters and spells would look, using two good "staple" spells as examples:

Haste
Prerequisites you must prepare cat's grace, expeditious retreat, jump, and time shudder in order to prepare haste

Teleport
Prerequisites you must prepare dimension door, master's escape, retrieve item, returning weapon, storm step, and urban step in order to prepare teleport

Just as in the case of many prerequisite feats, some of these prerequisite spells are good and some are bad or useless to have for most prepared casters and parties during a typical adventuring day. Note also that these examples would still usually have less impact on a prepared caster than feat prerequisites often have on martial classes, since the prerequisite spells would occupy a smaller proportion of lower level spell slots than the proportion of earlier level feat slots occupied by prerequisite feats in many cases. More importantly, unlike with feat prerequisites, this example spell system doesn't force the caster to learn and prepare the spell prerequisites during all levels before they can learn haste or teleport.


Getting rid of the feat pre-requisites is the same thing as making it easier to get top Feats at lower levels. Therefore I stated that Feats cost what they cost. If they aren't worth the cost to you, then get something else.

My main point is that a Feat with several pre-requisites is intended to be a rare ability that only a high level has learned. Complaining about "Feat Taxes" or "Feat trees" is just asking for high level abilities before they're supposed to be used.And as shown, this isn't true. And note that "feat taxes" are per definition feats you would never take if they hadn't been prerequisite feats. AFAICT, people are complaining about too many feats being locked behind too many such poor prerequisite feats, thus making making them unnecessarily rarely worthwhile. In effect, you get a game with a very limited mechanical variation between martial characters.