Another Reason Feats Seem Underpowered

[Endarire]

Greetings, all!

Consider when people in 3.5 get feats: Level 1, 3, 6, 9, and every 3 levels thereafter. Some races, templates, spells, items, flaws, and classes also grant bonus feats, chosen or preset.

Also consider that, starting at level 6, each feat comes after the equivalent of 1.5 spell levels from a full caster. At level 3, you as a full caster (sorry, Sors and delayed casters!) are casting level 2 spells. Your previous feat was when you could cast level 1 spells. Your next feat is when you can cast level 3 spells and are 1 character level away from casting level 4s. Your fourth feat is when you can cast cast level 5 spells and the situation only accentuates from here!

In the 3.5 system, there are fewer general feats granted to a character over 20 character levels than there are spell levels.

Pathfinder gave everyone more general feats, but also changed the power level of many feats, resulting in about the same situation as 3.5, or sometimes worse, or, for casters, sometimes better.

I'm posting this to make an observation, not to say the very popular systems should change. I'm not advocating house rules (though your group still can and should if it suits y'all). I just found this interesting enough to share.

[Pugwampy]

I think there is quite a few over powered feats if you dig deep enough .

Headlong Rush feat deals X2 damage on a successful charge attack.

[digiman619]

I personally feel it's due to feat chains. Whether or not all the pieces are worth it (which they often aren't), you still have to build your entire character toward that one feat at the end of the chain. Spellcasters can just nab polymorph any object, even if they've never had a single transmutation spell in their entire careers.

[Jowgen]

I personally feel it's due to feat chains. Whether or not all the pieces are worth it (which they often aren't), you still have to build your entire character toward that one feat at the end of the chain. Spellcasters can just nab polymorph any object, even if they've never had a single transmutation spell in their entire careers.

So really, the way Shadowcasters progress their mysteries would have been the way to go :smallsigh:

[digiman619]

So really, the way Shadowcasters progress their mysteries would have been the way to go :smallsigh:

With the semi-official fix? Yes. That or Spheres of Power.

[Arbane]

I think there is quite a few over powered feats if you dig deep enough .

Headlong Rush feat deals X2 damage on a successful charge attack.

I have a hard time thinking that's 'overpowered' in a system that has Prismatic Wall as something a spellcaster can do.

Which reminds me of a SomethingAwful gamer reviewing The Genius Guide to Horrifically Overpowered Feats (http://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/libertad/the-genius-guide-to-horrifically-overpowered-feats/) and deciding that compared to the stuff spellcasters can already do, most of the non-casty feats are not, in fact, Horrifically Overpowered.


Animated Leap: You can make a long jump up to your movement rate without an Acrobatics check, or a high jump equal to 1/2 that. It has a feat tax of 2 bad feats (Acrobatic, Run), and you cannot change your route mid-jump.

The verdict: Not overpowered. Overland Flight still exists in Pathfinder.

[Pugwampy]

I have a hard time thinking that's 'overpowered' in a system that has Prismatic Wall as something a spellcaster can do.

What level spell is that ? A level 1 Half Orc can headlong rush .

[Name1]

...Wait, are we seriously shocked that spellcasting-levels are better than feats right now?

Uhm... yeah, I agree, a feat is worse than a spell-level... I mean... yeah.
I get the feeling I'm missing something vital in this discussion.

[Coidzor]

I have a hard time thinking that's 'overpowered' in a system that has Prismatic Wall as something a spellcaster can do.

Which reminds me of a SomethingAwful gamer reviewing The Genius Guide to Horrifically Overpowered Feats (http://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/libertad/the-genius-guide-to-horrifically-overpowered-feats/) and deciding that compared to the stuff spellcasters can already do, most of the non-casty feats are not, in fact, Horrifically Overpowered.

There was also a similar to-do over on minmaxboards.

[Extra Anchovies]

I have a hard time thinking that's 'overpowered' in a system that has Prismatic Wall as something a spellcaster can do.

Ah, but what overpowered generally means is "stronger than alternative options or more accessible than similar options, to a degree that causes problems". So the Wizard is overpowered next to the Fighter because they are alternative options, but Prismatic Wall can't be directly compared to Headlong Rush because they're not direct alternatives. Prismatic Wall can, however, be compared to other spells of the same spell level, because they are alternative options. Headlong Rush can be compared to other feats that orcs could take (alternative options), and it can be compared to other options that increase charge damage (similar options) such as the Rhino's Rush spell.

[eggynack]

I don't know that this is a great argument. Assuming a black box for feats, with the only knowledge given being your argument, for all we know a feat gives as much power as 1.5 spell levels. They don't, of course, and they also don't give as much power as 3 normal levels, but that's just because feats aren't that great. One of the more interesting problems with feats is that, while there are a lot of great feats out there, many of them are only available if you already have awesome stuff to modify. A fighter is getting improved trip while the cleric is using DMM persist to basically add six spell levels for the purposes of spell duration (given the spell adjustment), the wizard is using craft contingent spell to get celerity accessible as a free action whenever they want, and the druid is using aberration wild shape to get doubled actions or immunity to magic. Even, say, a factotum is using font of inspiration to get more bonus actions and spell casting and such.

It all speaks to a core issue with feats. That being that it offers power in proportion to your already present power, instead of giving a high level of power to everyone. If a fighter were able to pick up exalted wild shape, they'd do that in an instant and spend multiple feats to do it. Hell, they wouldn't even need to be getting more than blink dog form to make that worth it. Essentially perfected dimension door is right up their alley. But fighters don't get exalted wild shape, or a crappy version of it. They get, at best, shock trooper and improved trip. Good feats in their own right, but nowhere close to the same level. Feats aren't underpowered. The feats of underpowered classes are underpowered. Sure, maybe exalted wild shape isn't worth 1.5 caster levels, but that's just because caster levels are better than just about anything. But it's probably worth more than two or three levels of some other class, probably up around tier three, possibly not including list casters. I'm not sure that a swordsage wouldn't take a couple levels off if it meant dimension door power, though the ability score trade doesn't work great for melee oriented classes.

[Endarire]

Eggy: Agreed. Likewise, ACFs (alternative class features) modify the base material while rarely just giving 'free' power. Whoever made the base classes in 3.5 set their power level and others in 3.5 and PF have modified them somewhat to keep them around the same baseline as their original class's power.

[Mutazoia]

The problem isn't that feats are underpowered, the problem is that casters are overpowered. It's a basic design flaw of 3.X. This is why WOTCs D20 system flopped in the early 90's when they first released it on their own....bad balance issues. Mechanically it was easier than figuring out THACO and such, but it was designed by people who wanted their favorite class(s) to be stronger, or at the very least, didn't put much thought into maintaining balance between the classes. It wasn't until they were able to copy-pasta Dungeons & Dragons lingo all over [D20 ruleset] that people started buying it (simply because it was a "new" D&D version).

If you wanted to fix feats, you would have to do a core overhaul of the entire system, and design each class (and that class's feats) to balance with each other.

This problem is what happens when you take an existing system, and try to shuffle in material and concepts from a completely different system, with little regard for the consequences.

[Name1]

Basically, I second what Mutazoia said: This is a 3.X thing. If it's a problem for you, well, 4th Ed. seems to be able to close the gap between casters and nocasters significantly, so that system might suit you more.

[Starbuck_II]

I have a hard time thinking that's 'overpowered' in a system that has Prismatic Wall as something a spellcaster can do.

Which reminds me of a SomethingAwful gamer reviewing The Genius Guide to Horrifically Overpowered Feats (http://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/libertad/the-genius-guide-to-horrifically-overpowered-feats/) and deciding that compared to the stuff spellcasters can already do, most of the non-casty feats are not, in fact, Horrifically Overpowered.

He made a mistake.
He probably doesn't realize Bleed damage is per healed (or heal skill checked).
So Extended Attack is more than next round. It is till healed.

[eggynack]

Eggy: Agreed. Likewise, ACFs (alternative class features) modify the base material while rarely just giving 'free' power. Whoever made the base classes in 3.5 set their power level and others in 3.5 and PF have modified them somewhat to keep them around the same baseline as their original class's power.
Dunno about that. I can think of a bunch of ACF's, for classes of tiers high and low, that trend towards being strict upgrades. Looking only at tier four or five core classes, barbarians have the first goliath sub level, the first half-orc sub level, spirit bear and spirit lion totems, streetfighter, wolf totem, trapkiller, and whirling frenzy. Fighters have darksong knight sub levels, dungeon crasher, zhentarim soldier, and arguable thug and the sneak attack thing. Monks get the first broken one sub level, dark moon sub levels, decisive strike, some of those fighting styles, and frigging invisible monk. Paladins get charging smite, the last crescent moon sub level, curse breaker, divine spirit, harmonious knight, mystic fire knight, and underdark knight. Rangers don't get too much, but wild shape ranger is obviously way above par, and voice of the city is nice. And, finally, rogues get death's ruin, the second changeling sub level, halfling sub levels seem sometimes nice, lightbringer penetrating strike, sometimes martial rogue, penetrating strike, and wilderness rogue seems good depending on skill allocation.

Not all of those are crazy good, but most or all of them represent some variety of upgrade. In combination, you can get some real power. Especially with some of the better ones. Dungeoncrasher fighter and zhentarim soldier together are considered good enough to justify tier four. Wild shape ranger is a definite push to tier three. Combine all that monk stuff and you might get tier four, and you're definitely hitting higher tier five at least. Paladin, once you combine all that stuff with a couple of feats, push towards tier three or four. Barbarian probably stays in its tier, but the ACF's are obviously good on a dip. Rogues seem to get the worst deal, mostly taking them up to what they should have been by allowing more diverse sneak attack targets. So, point is, ACF's are often really sweet. I just stuck with those low tier core classes, cause those're the ones that need the most love, but the casters get sweet ACF's too. Only place really missing the things is out of core, where there just isn't as much class specific support. But there is some.

[Arbane]

...Wait, are we seriously shocked that spellcasting-levels are better than feats right now?

Uhm... yeah, I agree, a feat is worse than a spell-level... I mean... yeah.
I get the feeling I'm missing something vital in this discussion.

Well, yeah, that's the problem. Feats are weak options for a weak class (fighters). And since anyone can take most of them, the designers decided to put the 'good' stuff behind lots of feat taxes.

(I remember reading somewhere that early in 3.0's design, feats were Fighter-only. If they'd stuck with that, do you think they would've been as shy about giving out powerful feat abilities?)

[Name1]

Well, yeah, that's the problem. Feats are weak options for a weak class (fighters). And since anyone can take most of them, the designers decided to put the 'good' stuff behind lots of feat taxes.

(I remember reading somewhere that early in 3.0's design, feats were Fighter-only. If they'd stuck with that, do you think they would've been as shy about giving out powerful feat abilities?)

They probably wouldn't have done that at all, 'cause the Fighter needs it. They could at least have given him more Skill Points and Class Skills...
Though in all honestly, that's why I play with Eclipse, 'cause with it playing a strict mundane is so incredibly pointless that no one does it :3

[eggynack]

Well, yeah, that's the problem. Feats are weak options for a weak class (fighters). And since anyone can take most of them, the designers decided to put the 'good' stuff behind lots of feat taxes.


(I remember reading somewhere that early in 3.0's design, feats were Fighter-only. If they'd stuck with that, do you think they would've been as shy about giving out powerful feat abilities?)

The good fighter stuff, anyway. For some reason, a lot of the best caster stuff doesn't have prerequisites. Out of the three crazy caster feats I listed, none technically have feat prerequisites, and only DMM has even an implied feat prerequisite that you need some metamagic to apply it to. Craft contingent doesn't require "advanced planning", exalted wild shape doesn't need "link of the exalted", and DMM doesn't require "divine punching". And that's a characteristic of a lot of the best caster oriented feats. Or, hell, a lot of the best feats that require class features. After all, craven, font of inspiration, sword of the arcane order, and adaptive style have no feat tax. In fact, neither does darkstalker, which has no prerequisites at all.

I actually think you're wrong, as a result. It's not that they were scared of making feats in general, and that negatively impacted fighters. It's that they were scared of fighters in general, and their broad access to feats, and they seem to have deliberately nerfed feats that fighters would take in order to keep them from being too powerful. So, my claim is that, if all feats were fighter only, then it seems possible that they'd be exactly like this. Because letting a fighter get improved trip at first level, and then improved grapple at second level, and then some archery thing at fourth, would just give them too wide a variety of powerful tricks too quickly. It's not that these feats had to be balanced around a paladin also getting access to them, and fighters got caught in the crossfire. It's that they had to be balanced around a fighter getting access to them, and paladins got caught in the crossfire.

[ryu]

The good fighter stuff, anyway. For some reason, a lot of the best caster stuff doesn't have prerequisites. Out of the three crazy caster feats I listed, none technically have feat prerequisites, and only DMM has even an implied feat prerequisite that you need some metamagic to apply it to. Craft contingent doesn't require "advanced planning", exalted wild shape doesn't need "link of the exalted", and DMM doesn't require "divine punching". And that's a characteristic of a lot of the best caster oriented feats. Or, hell, a lot of the best feats that require class features. After all, craven, font of inspiration, sword of the arcane order, and adaptive style have no feat tax. In fact, neither does darkstalker, which has no prerequisites at all.

I actually think you're wrong, as a result. It's not that they were scared of making feats in general, and that negatively impacted fighters. It's that they were scared of fighters in general, and their broad access to feats, and they seem to have deliberately nerfed feats that fighters would take in order to keep them from being too powerful. So, my claim is that, if all feats were fighter only, then it seems possible that they'd be exactly like this. Because letting a fighter get improved trip at first level, and then improved grapple at second level, and then some archery thing at fourth, would just give them too wide a variety of powerful tricks too quickly. It's not that these feats had to be balanced around a paladin also getting access to them, and fighters got caught in the crossfire. It's that they had to be balanced around a fighter getting access to them, and paladins got caught in the crossfire.

And the sad thing is that even if you rolled all those fighter feat chains into singular fighter only feats the result still wouldn't actually even be that impressive.

[eggynack]

And the sad thing is that even if you rolled all those fighter feat chains into singular fighter only feats the result still wouldn't actually even be that impressive.
Of course. The designer's fears clearly weren't rational in this case.

[Mutazoia]

Of course. The designer's fears clearly weren't rational in this case.

Well, the designers were people who managed to make a hit CTTG and thought that making an RPG was going to be a piece of cake. You kind of have to expect quite a few fumbles.

[ryu]

Well, the designers were people who managed to make a hit CTTG and thought that making an RPG was going to be a piece of cake. You kind of have to expect quite a few fumbles.

That makes it even more surprising! You'd think if magic the gathering came first they'd understand just how powerful removal, control, and instant combat tricks are. Hell the casters are the only ones to have something analogous to card draw!

[Cosi]

The problem with feats is that there are two paradigms which are fundamentally incompatible, both of which are in use. Some parts of the game, such as the Wizard's one bonus feat per five levels on top of full casting or the existence of feats like Weapon Focus or Educated, indicate that feats were expected to be a minor addition to character power. Other parts of the game, such as the Fighter's one bonus feat per two levels in place of class features or the existence of feats like Multitasking or Arcane Thesis, indicate that feats were expected to be a defining part of a character. Both of those paradigms can be made to work, but not at the same time. It's like if your races included Elves and Mind Flayers at the same cost.


The problem isn't that feats are underpowered, the problem is that casters are overpowered.

Oh, really? Because I seem to recall that if you actually benchmark classes against level appropriate opposition, non-casters under-perform as much if not more than casters over-perform. But yes, the imbalance is definitely the Wizard's fault. You can tell that's true because of the overwhelming success of 4e's decision to power everyone down to the Fighter.


(I remember reading somewhere that early in 3.0's design, feats were Fighter-only. If they'd stuck with that, do you think they would've been as shy about giving out powerful feat abilities?)

Yes they would have. Remember, there totally are feats that give good abilities. They are just, by and large, caster feats. Natural Spell is awesome, but it is a feat that only Druids can (usefully) take. DMM is awesome, but it doesn't do anything unless you have spells and turning and metamagic. Really (one of) the only good non-caster feat is Leadership. Feats weren't really the problem. The problem was that people didn't want to give Fighters good abilities.