What feats shouldn't be feats?

[Mars Ultor]

The other day I was reading about opposition to the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The argument at the time was that by listing particular things as separate items the federal government would either seek to limit someone's unspecified rights, or assume it had power over everything but the separately listed amendments. These complaints led to the addition of the 9th Amendment (Just because it isn't listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist), and the 10th Amendment (If any power isn't specifically given to the federal government, it belongs to the States and the people).

That made me think about what I see as a problem in 3.5: Feats. By specifying feats for a variety of things, and requiring that feats be "purchased," it limits the abilities of characters. Weapon Finesse forces a player to spend a feat for something that shouldn't exist. It shouldn't require special training to use a rapier or a dagger in the way in which it was intended. It's not as if learning a rapier is the same as using a great axe, the way to wield the weapon is inherently different. Shield Bash is another feat which forces unnecessary limitations. A Cleric is unable to shield bash because he doesn't have martial weapon proficiency, and even classes with that proficiency must spend another feat learning to use a shield for both offense and defense. Holding a shield in front of you and hitting someone with it is part of using a shield, it's not some special technique.

Power Attack is also an unnecessary feat, you're swinging harder at the cost of a little accuracy--that's included in using a weapon, it's not an additional power. Every kid who's ever played baseball has realized that a minor change in hand placement (choking up) has an effect on accuracy versus power.

Requiring a feat to be spent for the use of a Bastard Sword is insanity, not only is it almost inconsequential from a game aspect, it's actually the reverse of the actual weapon. Bastard swords were regular swords with extended grips, they let you use both hands on what was originally a one-handed weapon. In the game, the Bastard Sword is a two-handed weapon, if you spend a feat, it allows one-handed use, the opposite of reality.

Point Blank Shot says that if someone is close to you it's slightly easier to hit them. You have to use a feat to simulate how something ordinarily works in real life. You're more accurate throwing something ten feet than throwing it forty feet.

There's also the issue of creating feats that allow you to do things for which it's not worth spending a feat. Has anyone ever taken Improved Overrun? Isn't it very, very similar to Improved Bull Rush? While I acknowledge that they are specialized tactics that require special training, aren't they both essentially Improved Pushing?

Improved Feint. If a player asked me if he could feint to fake out an opponent, I'd have him make a bluff check versus his foe's Wisdom, a successful feint would mean you get a +2 to hit, an unsuccessful feint would mean a -1 penalty to your AC that round. Instead, if you want to feint in combat it's an investment, you've got to spend a feat to do something which is a normal part of combat. And by requiring a player to spend a feat, it incentivizes him to use it often. Every attack becomes a use of Improved Feint, you had to spend a feat to use it, you've got to get value from it. Instead of it being an occasional part of combat, nearly every attack requires a second set of rolls.


What are feats you think shouldn't be feats?

[Thurbane]

Reckless Offense (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#recklessOffense), which is basically just the reverse of fighting defensively.

[Psyren]

1) All the ones in this article (http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/#dw_accordions-3-nav_menu-dw-widget-1) and its sequel. (http://michaeliantorno.com/item/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/)

2) In general, stuff that requires no special technique/training and is just a function of a creature's physical nature. Power Attack is a good example as stated, swinging for the fences at the cost of accuracy is something anyone can do. Awesome Blow is another, once you're strong enough you should be able to just send your foes flying. Weapon Finesse should be built into light weapons.

[RNightstalker]

While I don't see the connection with the Preamble, any feat that gives you a +2 bonus on skill checks is an absolute waste.

[Doctor Awkward]

1) All the ones in this article (http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/#dw_accordions-3-nav_menu-dw-widget-1) and its sequel. (http://michaeliantorno.com/item/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/)

2) In general, stuff that requires no special technique/training and is just a function of a creature's physical nature. Power Attack is a good example as stated, swinging for the fences at the cost of accuracy is something anyone can do. Awesome Blow is another, once you're strong enough you should be able to just send your foes flying. Weapon Finesse should be built into light weapons.

You don't think that learning how to fight with a sword while relying entirely on hand-eye coordination, reflexes, natural grace, and deftness in movement entirely at the expense of physical strength is something that should require any sort of special training?

[Psyren]

You don't think that learning how to fight with a sword while relying entirely on hand-eye coordination, reflexes, natural grace, and deftness in movement entirely at the expense of physical strength is something that should require any sort of special training?

You mean Weapon Finesse? I think that's part of learning how to fight with those weapons in the first place (i.e. proficiency.) If I'm proficient with a rapier or an elven curve blade for example, I already learned how to employ "grace, deftness, and hand-eye coordination" when using them - it would be nonsensical to learn to use them any other way.

[TheIronGolem]

Combat Expertise, for the same reasons as Power Attack but with extra stupid points for the INT requirement.

[Oberron]

Toughness, dodge. Toughness is not worth a feat and should just be given to every one at first lvl for tiny buffer and prevent one shots to wizards and other squishes. Dodge can be a simple swift action.

[Doctor Awkward]

You mean Weapon Finesse? I think that's part of learning how to fight with those weapons in the first place (i.e. proficiency.) If I'm proficient with a rapier or an elven curve blade for example, I already learned how to employ "grace, deftness, and hand-eye coordination" when using them - it would be nonsensical to learn to use them any other way.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how sword fighting really works.


https://youtu.be/n5w2Mh6CyXo

Pictured above: Not manual Dexterity.

That is extensive development of many of the body's muscles.

The engarde (starting position) is essentially a half-squat. Imagine holding this while performing all of that footwork.

The dominant arm must parry, cut, beat, thrust and so on while maintaining complete control of the blade out to the tip at all times. After a few minutes of that your arm will feel like it is going to fall off. The offhand frequently has to be held up high or out to the side for balance.

Your core and abdomen must keep your body upright and balanced when you lunge.

Your calves must perform sudden changes in direction, advances, and retreats while keeping you on your feat.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the D&D 3.5 ruleset was structured in such a way as to model reality. This is why Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting were originally two separate feats-- to reflect how absurdly difficult is actually is to learn how to effectively fight with a weapon in each hand.

Likewise, replacing all of that strength training and reliance on developed muscles for quick movement in favor of a style that focuses purely on redirection of movement and precision would be borderline experimental in real life. This is why it's a feat in 3.5.

[Psyren]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how sword fighting really works.



Pictured above: Not manual Dexterity.


This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Dexterity score. It is not just "manual Dexterity."

[gkathellar]

You mean Weapon Finesse? I think that's part of learning how to fight with those weapons in the first place (i.e. proficiency.) If I'm proficient with a rapier or an elven curve blade for example, I already learned how to employ "grace, deftness, and hand-eye coordination" when using them - it would be nonsensical to learn to use them any other way.

This is true, and fits well with the level of abstraction ability scores operate at. Any deeper and we tempt the whole, "wait, do ability scores make sense in the first place?" question, and that way lies madness.


This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how sword fighting really works.


https://youtu.be/n5w2Mh6CyXo

Pictured above: Not manual Dexterity.

Dexterity =/= manual dexterity. Yes, the naming is stupid, but given it applies to AC, Hide, Reflex saves, and similar "this is agility" things, it's pretty clearly a general "you are quick/agile/whatever" stat.

But even if it were manual dexterity, there's plenty of said on display there in the use of guards, point control, general positioning, and general striking technique in the video you linked. IRL you need manual dexterity for any kind of weapons work, just as you need strength for any kind of weapons work - the two are complementary aspects of a well-trained body's abilities. Ability scores cannot be made to match well with reality.

[Thurbane]

Cats get Weapon Finesse for free. Just sayin'. :smalltongue:

[Doctor Awkward]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Dexterity score. It is not just "manual Dexterity."

...It's also hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance. None of that is going to help hit people with a sword without some kind of special training.

[MisterKaws]

blub

And that's why we disregard all that in-game. It's not reality, after all.

Functionally, there's no reason, other than certain restricted abilities, for someone to use light weapons in D&D. A rogue would actually be better off dipping Thug Fighter and Sneak Attacking with a Glaive instead, except for SAD, that is. The Rogue requires Dex for a lot, so also requiring him to have high Str, while also needing to keep up in Inteligence(Skills), Charisma(Rogues are usually the party face) and Wisdom(no use sneaking if someone sneaks on you) is just absurd.

So, from a mechanical standpoint, a Rogue requires this help of sorts.

Also, Darkstalker for sure. It shouldn't be impossible to sneak against creatures just because they have supernatural hearing. You'd just need supernatural nimbleness to counter it.

[Psyren]

...It's also hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance. None of that is going to help hit people with a sword without some kind of special training.

Agility, balance, reflexes, and hand-eye coordination don't help you hit things? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

I officially have no idea what you're on about at this point.

[FaerieGodfather]

You don't think that learning how to fight with a sword while relying entirely on hand-eye coordination, reflexes, natural grace, and deftness in movement entirely at the expense of physical strength is something that should require any sort of special training?

We're talking about something that is 100% mechanical abstraction in the first place, with barely more than a concidental resemblance to real life.

In real life, you need high STR and DEX to be effective with any melee weapon, and you'd add WIS to the list with any ranged weapon.

D&D just... pretty much arbitrarily limited it to STR on the basis of fantasy archetypes, while the wholly unnecessary feat just added support for some other, arguably more popular, archetypes. Weapon Finesse isn't special training, it's a literal feat tax for playing an arbitrarily unfavored character type.


Toughness, dodge. Toughness is not worth a feat and should just be given to every one at first lvl for tiny buffer and prevent one shots to wizards and other squishes. Dodge can be a simple swift action.

My thought has been to combine Toughness with Great Fortitude and Improved Initiative with Lightning Reflexes, but that's left me at a loss for pairing up Iron Will.

[Segev]

I, for one, want to have weapon finesse for my sinisterity.

[Thurbane]

My thought has been to combine Toughness with Great Fortitude and Improved Initiative with Lightning Reflexes, but that's left me at a loss for pairing up Iron Will.

Endurance? Alertness?

[daremetoidareyo]

Fling ally

[Dimers]

My thought has been to combine Toughness with Great Fortitude and Improved Initiative with Lightning Reflexes, but that's left me at a loss for pairing up Iron Will.

Diehard!


Fling ally

I first read that as an answer to the question above. :smallbiggrin:

[soullos]

After reading Elephant in the Room feat tax blog post a while back I've made similar steps to remove unnecessary feats and make them just baseline mechanics that anyone can do. Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse, Brutal Throw are removed and anyone can use those mechanics for free. I also ported over Deadly Aim from PF (power attack with ranged weapons), but it's not a feat, but available to all. Point Blank Shot is nuked from orbit and no longer required for anything! My players love the freedom this houserule grants allowing them to diversifying their builds earlier and taking feats they wouldn't have before.

Another useless feat, Spell Thematics from Magic of Faerun: Spend a feat to reflavor your spells! *rolls eyes* Seriously, if you want your fireballs to be screaming skulls, have at it.

[Doctor Awkward]

Agility, balance, reflexes, and hand-eye coordination don't help you hit things? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

No, they don't.

A sense of balance stops you from falling over.
Reflexes help you react to danger.
Agility gets you away from danger.

Hand-eye coordination is the only aspect of the Dexterity ability score that directly translates into offensive maneuvers in any kind of a fight. The rest of it is entirely physical; muscle training and technique.

Weapon Finesse does not govern everything about fighting with a weapon. It solely governs the attacking aspect of it. This is what you claim is something that should be a completely natural extension of learning how to fight with a sword and I can promise you that it could not be farther from the truth.

[Troacctid]

Precise Shot, Weapon Finesse, and Brutal Throw are at the top of my list (in that order).

[Psyren]

Weapon Finesse does not govern everything about fighting with a weapon. It solely governs the attacking aspect of it. This is what you claim is something that should be a completely natural extension of learning how to fight with a sword and I can promise you that it could not be farther from the truth.

I can promise you that I've completely lost interest in this conversation. My answer stays unchanged.

[Doctor Awkward]

But even if it were manual dexterity, there's plenty of said on display there in the use of guards, point control, general positioning, and general striking technique in the video you linked. IRL you need manual dexterity for any kind of weapons work, just as you need strength for any kind of weapons work - the two are complementary aspects of a well-trained body's abilities. Ability scores cannot be made to match well with reality.

No it's not a perfect representation, but the fact remains that your ability to hit an opponent with a sword is governed far more by your muscles than by any other physical characteristic. This is true regardless of what type of sword you are using. This is why the default modifier for melee attack rolls in D&D is Strength. Fighting entirely by reflex, subtlety, and precision is contrary to how fighting in general even works. It's a poor basis of any argument for why Weapon Finesse should not be a feat.

[Malphegor]

D&D 3.5 forgot that they have a whole section in the PHB about different maneuvers you can do. Ideally, a lot of fighty feats would have been in sections like how it was described how to charge, how flanking works, in subsequent books.

Power Attack- probably should have been a basic feature of combat as is. Subtract a bit from your chance to hit in a bid to hit harder. That makes so much intuitive sense that it should be in all D&D attack rolls. Reckless Charge is basically 'you're easier to get hit in exchange for which you hit harder', which is the same philosophy as Power Attack.

These kind of tradeoffs probably don't need to be feats. Sacrifice a thing to get a thing. Everyone could use that. Everyone COULD use that. Everyone can do a reckless charge and hit harder without caring. Everyone can do wild swings that are probably harder but less refined and careful. But D&D illogic means it tends to be only those who've trained to be reckless can be reckless.

[Heliomance]

The important thing to keep in mind is that the D&D 3.5 ruleset was structured in such a way as to model reality.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/583/267/e8a.gif

[Zaq]

Track and Investigate should just be functions of their respective skills, not feats. Not every “new function for this skill” feat bothers me (Wanderer’s Diplomacy and Master Manipulator are kind of fun, as is Keen-Eared Scout if you somehow get Alertness for free), but Track and Investigate really rub me the wrong way.

The restrictions on monks and paladins multiclassing (with anything, not necessarily between those two specific classes) are dumb, so the feats that exist only to lessen those restrictions shouldn’t need to exist. I forget the names because they’re also dumb.

Natural Spell should either be a class feature or banned outright. Class feature in a high-powered game and banned in anything that isn’t a high-powered game. It shouldn’t be a feat, either way.

[DEMON]

Regarding the Weapon Finesse discussion - forcing an absurd level of realism to mundane stuff like swordfighting is exactly the reason why mundanes can't have nice things... And why we have so many feats that no one takes, because there are only so many feat slots and so many better feats (and/or feat taxes).

The actual reason it costs a feat to use Dex for melee attacks was because the game designers felt there's already enough things keyed off Dexerity by default and didn't want to add another one.



The restrictions on monks and paladins multiclassing (with anything, not necessarily between those two specific classes) are dumb, so the feats that exist only to lessen those restrictions shouldn’t need to exist. I forget the names because they’re also dumb.


Monastic Training and Knight Training.

There's also the Ascetic... and Devoted... line of feats that combines Monk/Paladin with another class for some benefits and also allows free multiclassing between those classes.

[Psyren]

The actual reason it costs a feat to use Dex for melee attacks was because the game designers felt there's already enough things keyed off Dexerity by default and didn't want to add another one.

Indeed they did - and since then we've got both 5e and Starfinder that said sod it and gave every finesse weapon Dex to attack by default. The sky hasn't fallen over there, so I for one am happy to port that evolved design back into 3.5 and PF.


Track and Investigate should just be functions of their respective skills, not feats.

Agreed. If you want to be especially good at those things that's what Skill Focus is for.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Shot on the Run and Spring Attack are both pointless. You can already do both without a feat at all! Just ready your standard action to make an attack when you hit a certain point when moving your speed, and voila! Sure, Spring Attack nixes the AoO from your target, but reach weapons usually do that, too.

Why are those feats even a thing, anyway?

[liquidformat]

Shot on the Run and Spring Attack are both pointless. You can already do both without a feat at all! Just ready your standard action to make an attack when you hit a certain point when moving your speed, and voila! Sure, Spring Attack nixes the AoO from your target, but reach weapons usually do that, too.

Why are those feats even a thing, anyway?

Shot on the Run and fly by attack I agree with, but I just combined all three into Spring Attack and combined it with bounding assault and rapid blitz, to have one feat that gives you the ability to move between each attack and mark opponents you don't draw AoO from as you do so.



Monastic Training and Knight Training.

There's also the Ascetic... and Devoted... line of feats that combines Monk/Paladin with another class for some benefits and also allows free multiclassing between those classes.

I am confused what your point is, if it is feats like Monastic Training and Knight Training are worthless but feats like Ascetic... and Devoted... are good then agree with you...


Precise Shot, Weapon Finesse, and Brutal Throw are at the top of my list (in that order).

What is the issue with precise shot? I can tell you from experience as a bow hunter that there is a huge skill and proficiency difference between being able to hit a target, hit a moving target, and finally hit the correct target as two or more targets fight each other or are closely packed.

[Telonius]

The whole "can't take another level in Paladin or Monk if you multiclass away" thing is dumb, but that's more of a problem with the classes than with the feats. Stacking features in two classes that normally wouldn't stack is something that you ought to require a feat for.

[DEMON]

Indeed they did - and since then we've got both 5e and Starfinder that said sod it and gave every finesse weapon Dex to attack by default. The sky hasn't fallen over there, so I for one am happy to port that evolved design back into 3.5 and PF.

I'm right there with you.


Shot on the Run and Spring Attack are both pointless. You can already do both without a feat at all! Just ready your standard action to make an attack when you hit a certain point when moving your speed, and voila! Sure, Spring Attack nixes the AoO from your target, but reach weapons usually do that, too.

Why are those feats even a thing, anyway?
I might be wrong, so feel free to correct me, but I'm fairly sure you can't replicate the move-attack-move combo of these feats with a ready action:


The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun.

You can move and then ready, but you can't move any further afterwards.


I am confused what your point is, if it is feats like Monastic Training and Knight Training are worthless but feats like Ascetic... and Devoted... are good then agree with you...
I made no point at all there. Zaq couldn't remember the names of the Feats, so I listed the feats he might have meant.


What is the issue with precise shot? I can tell you from experience as a bow hunter that there is a huge skill and proficiency difference between being able to hit a target, hit a moving target, and finally hit the correct target as two or more targets fight each other or are closely packed.

Archery doesn't really need a heap of feat taxes just to function properly. This is yet another instance where "going for realism" just complicates things for a particular combat style.

[liquidformat]

Archery doesn't really need a heap of feat taxes just to function properly. This is yet another instance where "going for realism" just complicates things for a particular combat style.

I agree with you for feats like endurance, dodge/mobility, point blank shot, and alertness that are pretty much just feat tax for better things; however, I don't think Precise shot is a feat tax. It represents your focus on being an archer and not just a someone who happens to use a ranged weapon sometimes. It is like having mounted combat feat vs a mount for transport.

Granted I think the Mounted Combat feat should scale with the number of times you can block an attack with the ride skill. I have house ruled it to an additional use with every 5 ranks of the ride skill.

[Segev]

I agree with you for feats like endurance, dodge/mobility, point blank shot, and alertness that are pretty much just feat tax for better things; however, I don't think Precise shot is a feat tax. It represents your focus on being an archer and not just a someone who happens to use a ranged weapon sometimes. It is like having mounted combat feat vs a mount for transport.

Granted I think the Mounted Combat feat should scale with the number of times you can block an attack with the ride skill. I have house ruled it to an additional use with every 5 ranks of the ride skill.

Personally, I'd just modify it so that Mounted Combat adds your ranks of Ride to the mount's Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom for purposes of AC and saving throws (as appropriate). e.g. a Ride 5 rider on a Dex 11 mount would calculate AC and Reflex saves for the mount as if the mount's Dex were 16.

Alternatively, the Ride check gives the mount temporary hp that last until the rider dismounts (or they're used up) and can be "recharged" as an immediate action in response to the mount taking damage.

[HouseRules]

Well, That's why there's Rule 0: Dungeon Masters are allowed to create any House Rules that they desire to ensure balance in their Campaigns.

I don't like the fact that there is "1 move action" and "1 attack action" (standard action).
Thus, I House Rule them in different ways:

Make the game more complicated but the martial characters stronger
Characters have attack points = Base Attack Bonus
Each attack point could attack 1 Hit Dice worth of enemies
Players must hit the highest Hit Dice Enemy first.
...


So a 20 BAB character has 20 Attack Action Points. They could use these to do 20 standard attacks vs 20 different 1 Hit Dice Monsters, 10 standard attacks vs 2 Hit Dice Monsters, etc.

A similar break down for movement

30 feet Base Land Speed = 30 Land Speed Points (each point represent 1 foot of land move)
Diagonals are 7 feet, not the 1-2-1-2 rule.
Triagonals are 8 or 9 feet, (sqrt(3)*5 ~8.66 feet), so use 9 for upwards and 8 for downwards.
30 feet Base Land Speed -> 7.5 feet (Calculated) Swim Speed -> 7 feet Swim Speed
...


Characters could at any time use their movement points, before, between, or after any attack actions.

[Luccan]

EWP in general is weird. It implies that there are weapons, made for medium and small humanoids, that almost no one can learn to wield as easily as other weapons. And yes, many would be impractical in the real world, but if we were concerned with that they shouldn't exist anyway. Also, way too many are just "not from Europe, so you don't know how to use it". Which makes their exclusion to characters like monk and ninja really limiting for character concepts. And as mentioned, others like the bastard sword are just silly restrictions.

[Troacctid]

What is the issue with precise shot? I can tell you from experience as a bow hunter that there is a huge skill and proficiency difference between being able to hit a target, hit a moving target, and finally hit the correct target as two or more targets fight each other or are closely packed.
It's redundant with the cover rules. Soft cover already grants +4 AC.

[liquidformat]

EWP in general is weird. It implies that there are weapons, made for medium and small humanoids, that almost no one can learn to wield as easily as other weapons. And yes, many would be impractical in the real world, but if we were concerned with that they shouldn't exist anyway. Also, way too many are just "not from Europe, so you don't know how to use it". Which makes their exclusion to characters like monk and ninja really limiting for character concepts. And as mentioned, others like the bastard sword are just silly restrictions.

I use a modified close to exhaustive (might have missed a few) weapon groups rather than the standard simple, martial, exotic that really makes the whole weirdness of EWP moot.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DLN1nYjfnK_UWmVrFn4DwPhIMJKkMlyHx2yefwZgT1M/edit?usp=sharing


It's redundant with the cover rules. Soft cover already grants +4 AC.

So your issue is with soft cover compared to shooting into melee rules rather than the feat itself?

[Luccan]

I use a modified close to exhaustive (might have missed a few) weapon groups rather than the standard simple, martial, exotic that really makes the whole weirdness of EWP moot.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DLN1nYjfnK_UWmVrFn4DwPhIMJKkMlyHx2yefwZgT1M/edit?usp=sharing



So your issue is with soft cover compared to shooting into melee rules rather than the feat itself?

Is this just the weapon groups from UA or did you add your own?

Nevermind, it's shorter than I thought, I'll just read it

[liquidformat]

Is this just the weapon groups from UA or did you add your own?

It is expanded to cover all weapons from all splat books, though I might have missed some, also I added some weapon groups such as Capture and moved some weapons around.

[Anachronity]

I basically see it as the designers having a "we'll let them take a feat for it" mindset, without actually realizing that feats are indeed a substantial cost.
Some feats exist for 'realism' (it's hard to reload a crossbow quickly!), some are separated out into many feats for 'balance' (TWF and archery), and some feel like they're intended to be a built-in tutorial so that new players learn combat a piece at a time ("Tripping is a thing, and you can do it too if you take this feat! And if you're bored with normal combat you can take this one to make tough choices about trading accuracy for damage!")

Naturally, any 'realism' or 'balance' in 3.5 is thrown out the window when drastically altering reality with magic is totally a thing you can do, usually within the span of 6 seconds.



Personally, I usually use a custom feat tax reduction paralleling the ones psyren posted

1) All the ones in this article (http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/#dw_accordions-3-nav_menu-dw-widget-1) and its sequel. (http://michaeliantorno.com/item/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/)
Although I usually add addendums to simplifications where it's clear the author doesn't actually know what the original feat does, as well as adding a few additional ones.

In particular I find the combined maneuver feats very fun. They made it so much easier to access maneuvers in combat, which in turn encourages both the players and me as the GM to branch out into unconventional team-based and environment-based strategies instead of just focusing on making your sword-swinging numbers bigger. They also provide reasonable alternatives at relatively low investment to any full-BAB characters whose main strategy is currently not applicable. Werewolf DR got the TWFer down? Then get the werewolf down and don't let it stand up until it's dead.

[Psyren]

Shot on the Run and Spring Attack are both pointless. You can already do both without a feat at all! Just ready your standard action to make an attack when you hit a certain point when moving your speed, and voila! Sure, Spring Attack nixes the AoO from your target, but reach weapons usually do that, too.

Why are those feats even a thing, anyway?

As noted above, readied actions can't trigger during your turn by any means, which means moving after a readied action before your next turn is near-impossible.


I agree with you for feats like endurance, dodge/mobility, point blank shot, and alertness that are pretty much just feat tax for better things; however, I don't think Precise shot is a feat tax. It represents your focus on being an archer and not just a someone who happens to use a ranged weapon sometimes.

I agree - Precise Shot lets you break the rules (shooting into melee) just like Improved Precise Shot lets you break another rule (ignoring partial cover./concealment.) Breaking rules is what feats should let you do.

[Doctor Awkward]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/583/267/e8a.gif

Scathing.

I could provide about ten hours worth of mathematical proofs to demonstrate how 3.5 actually does model reality a lot more than most people think (mostly on account of reality working differently than most people think it does), but I get the feeling it would be largely wasted on you.

[RNightstalker]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/583/267/e8a.gif

Very Well Done! Extra experience to you!

[MisterKaws]

Scathing.

I could provide about ten hours worth of mathematical proofs to demonstrate how 3.5 actually does model reality a lot more than most people think (mostly on account of reality working differently than most people think it does), but I get the feeling it would be largely wasted on you.

Yes, and real-life combat is all about people smacking each other while facetanking each and every hit, without bothering to block, dodge, or parry.

[Stevesciguy]

Yes, and real-life combat is all about people smacking each other while facetanking each and every hit, without bothering to block, dodge, or parry.

Uh... while I don't really agree with Doctor Awkward's assessment, it is worth pointing out that Armor Class is a thing that represents blocking, dodging, and parrying

As for things that shouldn't be feats: Rapid Metamagic. The full round casting time for spontaneous metamagic really sucks, and I end up having to take this feat on every spontaneous caster because I have better things to do with my move action. Might just be me, but I'd consider it a feat tax.

[MisterKaws]

Uh... while I don't really agree with Doctor Awkward's assessment, it is worth pointing out that Armor Class is a thing that represents blocking, dodging, and parrying.

Except that it's pitiful, and also has no difference based on skill, just a minor bonus from agility and the rest is fully provided by magic items.

So, if two fighters take off their equipment, aren't they just gonna smack each other?

[Stevesciguy]

Except that it's pitiful, and also has no difference based on skill, just a minor bonus from agility and the rest is fully provided by magic items.

So, if two fighters take off their equipment, aren't they just gonna smack each other?

I didn't say that it did it well, just that it's not absent from the rules

[MisterKaws]

I didn't say that it did it well, just that it's not absent from the rules

It really just describes AC as being all that then proceeds to ignore it for the other 100 books.

[Psyren]

3.5 models reality by abstracting it. That's why your Dexterity score isn't just in your hands, or whatever nonsense Awkward was spouting earlier; it does represent grace, balance, core muscles etc.



As for things that shouldn't be feats: Rapid Metamagic. The full round casting time for spontaneous metamagic really sucks, and I end up having to take this feat on every spontaneous caster because I have better things to do with my move action. Might just be me, but I'd consider it a feat tax.

Yes it's a tax, but here's the thing - spontaneous casters already have an advantage where metamagic is concerned (i.e. being able to apply it on the fly.) They don't have to prep metamagicked versions of their spells in advance. So I'm okay with this disadvantage that they need a feat to overcome.

The only thing I would do here is what PF did - let you apply quicken to spontaneous spells without needing Rapid Spell.

[Aniikinis]

I use a modified close to exhaustive (might have missed a few) weapon groups rather than the standard simple, martial, exotic that really makes the whole weirdness of EWP moot.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DLN1nYjfnK_UWmVrFn4DwPhIMJKkMlyHx2yefwZgT1M/edit?usp=sharing

Completely off-topic, but I just needed to ask why the khopesh is in the Heavy blades group? It's functionally a short-sword version of a sickle-sword, and due to the way it's used it'd probably fit more with the axes, so I'd really understand it better in either of those two categories (axes or light blades) rather than the heavy blades.

[MisterKaws]

Yes it's a tax, but here's the thing - spontaneous casters already have an advantage where metamagic is concerned (i.e. being able to apply it on the fly.) They don't have to prep metamagicked versions of their spells in advance. So I'm okay with this disadvantage that they need a feat to overcome.

The only thing I would do here is what PF did - let you apply quicken to spontaneous spells without needing Rapid Spell.

A single advantage amidst three thousand disadvantages, especially if you're talking Sorcerer. Wizards not only get to cast quickened spells without a feat tax, they also get bonus feats to take said spell quickening. Add to that all of the other things wizards get.

IMO, should be free for sorcerers.

[AvatarVecna]

Feats that shouldn't be feats? Here's a fun game, crack open the Complete Adventurer to the feat section, and take a shot every time you think "that should just be a normal skill use with a penalty or a high DC or something", and you should have a lovely night. Or, if you've tired of living, play the game again using Complete Scoundrel's "Skill Tricks" section.

[PraxisVetli]

Feats that shouldn't be feats? Here's a fun game, crack open the Complete Adventurer to the feat section, and take a shot every time you think "that should just be a normal skill use with a penalty or a high DC or something", and you should have a lovely night. Or, if you've tired of living, play the game again using Complete Scoundrel's "Skill Tricks" section.

My table just has Skill Tricks be things you can do once you have that amount of ranks.
No cost or limit to how many you know. Honestly it made skills much more viable, and added a depth of interaction to both combat and RP scenarios.

[Psyren]

A single advantage amidst three thousand disadvantages, especially if you're talking Sorcerer. Wizards not only get to cast quickened spells without a feat tax, they also get bonus feats to take said spell quickening. Add to that all of the other things wizards get.

IMO, should be free for sorcerers.

They have to know which spells they need to quicken well in advance though, while Sorcerers don't.

I'm not against Rapid Spell being free by any means (though in general I'd rather eliminate feat taxes for martials than casters) - rather, I'd be fine either way.

[MisterKaws]

They have to know which spells they need to quicken well in advance though, while Sorcerers don't.

I'm not against Rapid Spell being free by any means (though in general I'd rather eliminate feat taxes for martials than casters) - rather, I'd be fine either way.

Martials need to be upgraded to xianxia levels to compete with casters. Mountain Cleave, Seven League Jump, ripping the fabric of spacetime with a palm slap, that sort of thing.

Though I'd love a system like that to be honest. Why did no one make a d20 xianxia yet?

[Venger]

that's tome of battle.

[Psyren]

Martials need to be upgraded to xianxia levels to compete with casters. Mountain Cleave, Seven League Jump, ripping the fabric of spacetime with a palm slap, that sort of thing.

I'd rather not derail this discussion but I have pretty strong opinions about martials competing with casters, on even footing anyway. I think there is room to make them better without going that far. And I think xianxia/wuxia in D&D is a controversial topic at best.



Though I'd love a system like that to be honest. Why did no one make a d20 xianxia yet?

Can't speak to the market forces that might make that a good or bad idea, but I do see unofficial conversions for things like Exalted that might be what you're after.

[liquidformat]

They have to know which spells they need to quicken well in advance though, while Sorcerers don't.

I'm not against Rapid Spell being free by any means (though in general I'd rather eliminate feat taxes for martials than casters) - rather, I'd be fine either way.

Honestly I am ok with leaving feat taxes in for magic classes, heck if anything they should have more taxes to compensate for their massive power jumps compared to mundanes.

[Malphegor]

Completely off-topic, but I just needed to ask why the khopesh is in the Heavy blades group? It's functionally a short-sword version of a sickle-sword, and due to the way it's used it'd probably fit more with the axes, so I'd really understand it better in either of those two categories (axes or light blades) rather than the heavy blades.

Obviously the curved bit weighs more because of the um...

... I'm not sure. My best guess is they assumed some ceremonial burial one is what actual battle ones are like? I know D&D assumes armour is absurdly heavy most of the time (which would apply to jousting armour I guess but actual combat stuff needs flexibility and speedy movement) so maybe they assume weapons are all heavy?

[liquidformat]

Completely off-topic, but I just needed to ask why the khopesh is in the Heavy blades group? It's functionally a short-sword version of a sickle-sword, and due to the way it's used it'd probably fit more with the axes, so I'd really understand it better in either of those two categories (axes or light blades) rather than the heavy blades.

Well the intent was to only put finesse-able blades into the light blade category, though would have to go back through to verify all of those are finesse-able, the scimitar we normally make finesse-able in my games. So that was the base criteria for putting it into heavy blades and I don't believe the khopesh is finesse-able if I am not mistaken, AFB at the moment so can't confirm. As far as blades vs axe, technically all axes and slashing polearms could reasonably fit into 'heavy blades'; however, UA uses heavy/light to make two categories of swords since there are so many. If I am remembering correctly the A&EG khopesh deals 1d8 19-20/x2 and can be used for trip and is described as being similar to a long sword. That seems to me to fit well within 'heavy blades' as they are defined. In SS khopesh deals 1d6 18-20/x2 and can be used for trip. I could see an argument for that one being a light weapon for the same reasons as the scimitar.

[MisterKaws]

that's tome of battle.

Eh, not even near. Even low-power wuxia(which is basically the low-power version of xianxia) characters get to do "more" than sublime way practicioners. Maybe not more in actual in-game stats, but they get more versatility in long-range attacks, movement, speed, and techniques. Xianxia itself gives martials almost as much versatility as casters, but the western audience seems to shun a lot all of that, aside from the few who realize the double standards involved in forcing a conan-level of power in martials while having a superhero-level of power in casters.

[liquidformat]

Eh, not even near. Even low-power wuxia(which is basically the low-power version of xianxia) characters get to do "more" than sublime way practicioners. Maybe not more in actual in-game stats, but they get more versatility in long-range attacks, movement, speed, and techniques. Xianxia itself gives martials almost as much versatility as casters, but the western audience seems to shun a lot all of that, aside from the few who realize the double standards involved in forcing a conan-level of power in martials while having a superhero-level of power in casters.

In Wuxia style martials should be as powerful if not more powerful than the casters by the time you hit epic levels.

[Asmotherion]

Well i would never play a Fighter or Barbarian without Power Attack for example; it might as well be included in the core build.

On the other hand there are minor Feats for spellcasters that are not as usefull as others but they are more fun to play with rather than without for RP reasons; Some Reserve feats come to mind were it hurts your optimisation to choose but are very fun to have (Acidic Splatter/Dimensional Jaunt/Dimensional Reach... They're less useful in a high optimisation game but i'd be lying if i told you i ever regreated them in a less optimisation oriented one). Would be more fun if you got one for free.

Finally there's some feats never worth it that only mislead newbies and are avoided by anyone with some experiance.

[pabelfly]

Indeed they did - and since then we've got both 5e and Starfinder that said sod it and gave every finesse weapon Dex to attack by default. The sky hasn't fallen over there, so I for one am happy to port that evolved design back into 3.5 and PF.

I rather like this idea. Interested in what you think might happen if you start stacking dex to damage from other sources, like the Shadow Blade feat and level 2 of Champion of Corellon Larethian?

[HouseRules]

In Wuxia style martials should be as powerful if not more powerful than the casters by the time you hit epic levels.

Isn't Dragon Ball a very good example where Martials are more powerful than Casters? Especially the Babadi during the Boo Saga. Bibidi and Babadi are the only casters in the story earlier. But now, a new one appeared, the current villain is a caster that uses spirit power as well. Pure in spirit energy, but evil in intent. Different from spirit bomb that is pure in spirit energy but good in intent.

[Zaq]

I rather like this idea. Interested in what you think might happen if you start stacking dex to damage from other sources, like the Shadow Blade feat and level 2 of Champion of Corellon Larethian?

It's okay to get benefits in exchange for costs. Shadow Blade costs a minimum of a feat (up to three if you aren't a member of a class who gets Shadow Hand stances by default) and locks you into a specific stance, which is itself sometimes noticeable (especially if, say, you are a member of a class who gets Shadow Hand stances by default).

Champion costs way more than that: you have to be a subpar race, you have to spend at least four feats, you have to gain a buttload of proficiencies (which means taking levels in certain classes), you have to spend two precious levels, and you're a minimum of ECL 9 when you get the second-level ability you came for. Minimum. Probably more if you take levels in classes that naturally nudge you towards DEX.

What you get in exchange isn't OP at all. Costs should come with benefits. I still would never take CoCL on a real character. Those costs are way, way greater than the benefits you get in return.

[pabelfly]

It's okay to get benefits in exchange for costs. Shadow Blade costs a minimum of a feat (up to three if you aren't a member of a class who gets Shadow Hand stances by default) and locks you into a specific stance, which is itself sometimes noticeable (especially if, say, you are a member of a class who gets Shadow Hand stances by default).

Champion costs way more than that: you have to be a subpar race, you have to spend at least four feats, you have to gain a buttload of proficiencies (which means taking levels in certain classes), you have to spend two precious levels, and you're a minimum of ECL 9 when you get the second-level ability you came for. Minimum. Probably more if you take levels in classes that naturally nudge you towards DEX.

What you get in exchange isn't OP at all. Costs should come with benefits. I still would never take CoCL on a real character. Those costs are way, way greater than the benefits you get in return.

Ah, okay. Thank you for your response.

[Asmotherion]

Isn't Dragon Ball a very good example where Martials are more powerful than Casters? Especially the Babadi during the Boo Saga. Bibidi and Babadi are the only casters in the story earlier. But now, a new one appeared, the current villain is a caster that uses spirit power as well. Pure in spirit energy, but evil in intent. Different from spirit bomb that is pure in spirit energy but good in intent.

Technically DBZ characters would be Warlock-Monk multiclasses. A large portion of the fights revolve around ki-based Attacks; The closest thing to that in 3.5 is Eldritch Blast.

[HouseRules]

Technically DBZ characters would be Warlock-Monk multiclasses. A large portion of the fights revolve around ki-based Attacks; The closest thing to that in 3.5 is Eldritch Blast.

They are technically Muscle Wizards because it already move into the realms of Deities.

[Psyren]

I rather like this idea. Interested in what you think might happen if you start stacking dex to damage from other sources, like the Shadow Blade feat and level 2 of Champion of Corellon Larethian?

In Pathfinder, getting X stat to a given check doesn't stack (https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9sgk) (i.e. can only be done once.) No idea if this is how it works in 5e, but I'd port this back to 3.5 along with making WF free and porting in Agile and Guided weapons.


Isn't Dragon Ball a very good example where Martials are more powerful than Casters? Especially the Babadi during the Boo Saga. Bibidi and Babadi are the only casters in the story earlier. But now, a new one appeared, the current villain is a caster that uses spirit power as well. Pure in spirit energy, but evil in intent. Different from spirit bomb that is pure in spirit energy but good in intent.

Dragonball is very inconsistent when it comes to magic (e.g. Vegeta can override Babidi's control spell, but the much-more-powerful-at-the-time Boo has to keep Babidi from speaking.) With that said, it's a completely different genre than D&D in any event.

[Kayblis]

Actually, there are a couple options to solve the problem of dumb feats, must of them easy to homebrew.

My favorite approach is learning with other d20 systems. A good place to start is Conan RPG's approach of "Special Attacks and Manoeuvres", which are abilities and tricks you can use any time you meet the prereqs. These can be as simple as AIM:"BAB +1, using bow or crossbow" to take a full-round action aiming and getting a bonus on your next turn, or more circumstantial stuff as RIPOSTE:"BAB +4, has been the target of an attack roll below half your AC" to gain an AoO against said target as an immediate action. All those special moves are freely useable and have a set action cost, down to a free action.

[Calthropstu]

Indeed they did - and since then we've got both 5e and Starfinder that said sod it and gave every finesse weapon Dex to attack by default. The sky hasn't fallen over there, so I for one am happy to port that evolved design back into 3.5 and PF.



Agreed. If you want to be especially good at those things that's what Skill Focus is for.

But the sky IS falling...

[Selion]

I've always been upset that there isn't a way to hide spellcasting without some exotic feats. At low levels in almost every group i played there is someone who would try to use somatic component in a dark place or under his robe, pronounce a spell at low voice or faking a drunkenness to have bizarre gestures in which it would be plausible hide a spell.
I agree that all of them should be difficult maneuvers, but they are all possible, they should have a success rate, even if little.

[Psyren]

But the sky IS falling...

Uh, is it?
If this is referring to something specific I'm afraid I don't get it.


I've always been upset that there isn't a way to hide spellcasting without some exotic feats. At low levels in almost every group i played there is someone who would try to use somatic component in a dark place or under his robe, pronounce a spell at low voice or faking a drunkenness to have bizarre gestures in which it would be plausible hide a spell.
I agree that all of them should be difficult maneuvers, but they are all possible, they should have a success rate, even if little.

While I'm not overly concerned about removing feat taxes for spellcasters, I would consider letting them attempt this kind of thing baseline and then having feats like Cunning Caster sharply reduce the penalties - sort of similar to how you can TWF without the TWF feat, but you probably shouldn't.

[liquidformat]

I've always been upset that there isn't a way to hide spellcasting without some exotic feats. At low levels in almost every group i played there is someone who would try to use somatic component in a dark place or under his robe, pronounce a spell at low voice or faking a drunkenness to have bizarre gestures in which it would be plausible hide a spell.
I agree that all of them should be difficult maneuvers, but they are all possible, they should have a success rate, even if little.

It seems reasonable to just put hiding somatic components under slight of hand maybe DC of 20+ spell level, failure means you ruin the spell. I can't think of an existing mechanic for the verbal component though.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It seems reasonable to just put hiding somatic components under slight of hand maybe DC of 20+ spell level, failure means you ruin the spell. I can't think of an existing mechanic for the verbal component though.Bluff is basically Sleight of Tongue.

[Troacctid]

I've always been upset that there isn't a way to hide spellcasting without some exotic feats. At low levels in almost every group i played there is someone who would try to use somatic component in a dark place or under his robe, pronounce a spell at low voice or faking a drunkenness to have bizarre gestures in which it would be plausible hide a spell.
I agree that all of them should be difficult maneuvers, but they are all possible, they should have a success rate, even if little.
This is a function of the Sleight of Hand skill, no feats needed. Rules Compendium has the details.

[liquidformat]

This is a function of the Sleight of Hand skill, no feats needed. Rules Compendium has the details.

So there is actually something that doesn't make things worse in the Rules Compendium? Well I guess even a blind squirrel can find a nut...


Bluff is basically Sleight of Tongue.

Ya that actually works out nicely though it is a bit different use for bluff than I standardly think.

[Stevesciguy]

Here is the relevant section:


UNOBTRUSIVE SPELLCASTING
As part of casting a spell, you can make a Sleight of Hand check to make your verbal and somatic components less obtrusive, muttering magic words under your breath and making magic gestures surreptitiously. Your Sleight of Hand check is opposed by any observer’s Spot check. The observer’s success doesn’t prevent you from casting the spell, but it keeps you from doing it unnoticed.

Conveniently, it also includes verbal components

[Luccan]

I've always been upset that there isn't a way to hide spellcasting without some exotic feats. At low levels in almost every group i played there is someone who would try to use somatic component in a dark place or under his robe, pronounce a spell at low voice or faking a drunkenness to have bizarre gestures in which it would be plausible hide a spell.
I agree that all of them should be difficult maneuvers, but they are all possible, they should have a success rate, even if little.

The, I wanna say third-party, update of Dark Sun to 3.5 lets wizards use Bluff to hide spellcasting. As others have suggested, there's also Sleight of Hand to consider, but it seems simpler to keep it under one skill.

Edit: Apparently Sleight of Hand applies to things other than your grabbing limbs, according to Rule Compendium, so that would probably work better as something to cite.

[Doctor Awkward]

Except that it's pitiful, and also has no difference based on skill, just a minor bonus from agility and the rest is fully provided by magic items.

So, if two fighters take off their equipment, aren't they just gonna smack each other?

D&D 3.5 is also a game. Part of the rules of that game is random chance. Combat is an abstraction which includes that element of randomness-- the hundreds of thousands of quantifiable factors that, in real life, sometimes causes the inferior fighter to triumph over the superior one. If the better character always won in real life then sports betting would not be a thing.

At no point did I say D&D 3.5 was a reality simulator. I said that the rules on which the game operates trend towards reality much more than people think they do.

If you want a reality simulator, try Chainmail or Warhammer 40k.



3.5 models reality by abstracting it. That's why your Dexterity score isn't just in your hands, or whatever nonsense Awkward was spouting earlier; it does represent grace, balance, core muscles etc.

I mean, the rules don't actually say anything like that. But hey, whatever you have to imagine them to say so you feel like you won an argument. /thumbsup

[rrwoods]

I mean, the rules don't actually say anything like that. But hey, whatever you have to imagine them to say so you feel like you won an argument. /thumbsup
Yes, they do.


Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance.
That’s the first sentence of the SRD entry for Dexterity.

Your assertion that someone is misquoting a rule to try to win an argument is — in addition to being unnecessarily standoffish and accusatory — easily proven false.

[JNAProductions]

D&D 3.5 is also a game. Part of the rules of that game is random chance. Combat is an abstraction which includes that element of randomness-- the hundreds of thousands of quantifiable factors that, in real life, sometimes causes the inferior fighter to triumph over the superior one. If the better character always won in real life then sports betting would not be a thing.

At no point did I say D&D 3.5 was a reality simulator. I said that the rules on which the game operates trend towards reality much more than people think they do.

If you want a reality simulator, try Chainmail or Warhammer 40k.

First off, 40k is a horrible reality simulator. Even ignoring the obvious (Daemons and Psykery and whatnot) you've got stuff like Flamethrowers being good anti-air weapons.

And second of all, that response doesn't actually address the point that was made. AC is, almost entirely, based on equipment (at least for Fighters). So, at level 1, two naked Fighters with nothing but swords will miss each other a decent amount of the time. But scale that to level 20, and even their fourth attack on the iterative will usually hit.

For reference, assuming starting stats of 12 Dex and 16 Str...

Level 1
BAB +1, Str +3, Weapon Focus +1 equals +5 to-hit
AC is 11
Hit rate is 75%, for one in four attacks missing

Level 20
BAB +20/15/10/5, Str +5, Weapon Focus +1 equals +26/21/16/11 to-hit
AC is still 11
Hit rate is 95% for all attacks, for one in twenty attacks missing

[MisterKaws]

D&D 3.5 is also a game. Part of the rules of that game is random chance. Combat is an abstraction which includes that element of randomness-- the hundreds of thousands of quantifiable factors that, in real life, sometimes causes the inferior fighter to triumph over the superior one. If the better character always won in real life then sports betting would not be a thing.

At no point did I say D&D 3.5 was a reality simulator. I said that the rules on which the game operates trend towards reality much more than people think they do.

If you want a reality simulator, try Chainmail or Warhammer 40k.

Now you're just retracting what you said earlier. Changing your argument mid-way isn't very nice.

D&D combat in no way represents reality aside from being a very abstract copy of it. It looks more like an RTS combat system, where no one bothers to dodge hits, than what actually happens in reality. And don't even get me started on the issue with lanky mages easily hitting expert fighters with their touch spells.

It does get a bit better with some of Unearthed Arcana's variants, but then AC goes over the roof and combat starts to get boring, because too many misses plus too much HP compounds into fights as long as what you'd expect from a 4e encounter.

Overall you'd need to restructure: the action system to represent better speed, instead of just being represented by initiative, and the Attack-AC-HP system, to better represent what an actual fight between experienced fighters is like: a flurry of parries until a single deadly hit finishes it all.

But nobody wants that cause it's boring as ****. If you'd rather be playing that sort of realistic fight, go for Runequest.

I prefer my ultra-magical worlds with twenty-limbed races, cat-people, bat-boys, tiny drunken grumpy vertically-challenged scottish people, super-proud long-eared people who just spend a hundred years of their lives on mandatory art study, green-skinned giants who totally do not rape humans on a daily basis, and all of those other funky playable races out there.

So Finesse for all Light Weapons? Yes.

[DrMotives]

And second of all, that response doesn't actually address the point that was made. AC is, almost entirely, based on equipment (at least for Fighters). So, at level 1, two naked Fighters with nothing but swords will miss each other a decent amount of the time. But scale that to level 20, and even their fourth attack on the iterative will usually hit.


There was a fix for that in the Wheel of Time game book, which is another d20 system open rules product. In that, every class gets an AC bonus from leveling up, along with their BAB and saves. I think it may have been typeless to stack with everything, but fluffed as parry/dodge from more combat experience. It's an idea I like a lot.

[King of Nowhere]

As a rule of thumb, I think you should be allowed to do most stuff that feats let you do, at a penalty.

there's already plenty of cases. For combat expertise, you have fight defensively, which lets you do the same with steeper penalties and lesser benefits. for using weapons you're not proficient with, there is a -4 penalty. all the manuevers like disarm, grapple and similar can be done without feats, but aren't worth much. so, pretty much anything that is covered by a feat but is conceivably done without special training, I just assume that can be done with a penalty otherwise.
A special case is the reckless attack, which is the opposite of fighting defensively. given that real world skilled fighters do not skewer each other several times per round, but they parry much more, i assume that reckless attack is the default in adventuring. I assume that's because 1) you can't really parry the big monster, you better try to kill it asap and hope there's still enough left of you for the cleric to fix afterwards, and 2) if you take your time, the wizard is goig to blast you to bits from the rear lines.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

i assume that reckless attack is the default in adventuring.I agree with this. In particular, if the PCs automatically gain power attack and combat expertise, the default is to maximize striking accuracy at the cost of both defense and power.

[Doctor Awkward]

Yes, they do.


That’s the first sentence of the SRD entry for Dexterity.

Your assertion that someone is misquoting a rule to try to win an argument is — in addition to being unnecessarily standoffish and accusatory — easily proven false.

Which is quite contradictory to what was claimed; that Dexterity is in any way a measure of muscular ability and/or development.


And second of all, that response doesn't actually address the point that was made. AC is, almost entirely, based on equipment (at least for Fighters). So, at level 1, two naked Fighters with nothing but swords will miss each other a decent amount of the time. But scale that to level 20, and even their fourth attack on the iterative will usually hit.

For reference, assuming starting stats of 12 Dex and 16 Str...

Level 1
BAB +1, Str +3, Weapon Focus +1 equals +5 to-hit
AC is 11
Hit rate is 75%, for one in four attacks missing

Level 20
BAB +20/15/10/5, Str +5, Weapon Focus +1 equals +26/21/16/11 to-hit
AC is still 11
Hit rate is 95% for all attacks, for one in twenty attacks missing

D&D 3.5 characters at level 20 are effectively demi-gods. Actual peak physical human ability tops out around level 5. The community has previously done extensive math to demonstrate this. That a demi-god would fail to hit their opponent in combat only 5% of the time is working-as-intended. A hypothetical 20th-level fighter would also be capable of absorbing blows that would kill an ordinary person several times over.



Now you're just retracting what you said earlier. Changing your argument mid-way isn't very nice.

"D&D trends towards reality" is exactly the same as saying the "rules were written to model reality", just phrased slightly differently.

You are imagining it to be different because that makes it easier to argue against. For example:


D&D combat in no way represents reality aside from being a very abstract copy of it.
This is something else I never said.
I said the rules of the game were made to model reality. There are many rules in the game aside from those that govern combat.
Combat is, of course, the least realistic aspect of the game rules because it has to be in order to facilitate game play.


It looks more like an RTS combat system, where no one bothers to dodge hits, than what actually happens in reality.
Because it is a game and there needs to be some method of adjudicating character actions. Combat is not, and was never intended to be, completely and 100% true to life and no one ever claimed that it was.


And don't even get me started on the issue with lanky mages easily hitting expert fighters with their touch spells.
Because everyone knows expert fighters in real life would have no problem evading gunfire, right?
That's basically what spells are, and if you were imagining them to be something different then that's your fault, not the game's.



Overall you'd need to restructure: the action system to represent better speed, instead of just being represented by initiative, and the Attack-AC-HP system, to better represent what an actual fight between experienced fighters is like: a flurry of parries until a single deadly hit finishes it all.
But nobody wants that cause it's boring as ****. If you'd rather be playing that sort of realistic fight, go for Runequest.

I prefer my ultra-magical worlds with twenty-limbed races, cat-people, bat-boys, tiny drunken grumpy vertically-challenged scottish people, super-proud long-eared people who just spend a hundred years of their lives on mandatory art study, green-skinned giants who totally do not rape humans on a daily basis, and all of those other funky playable races out there.

So Finesse for all Light Weapons? Yes.

This is, ironically, the most cogent argument made yet for Weapon Finesse to be a feature instead of a feat.

Because D&D 3.5 is also a game and the game should be designed to be fun and fair.

So if you actually want to start there, then I would ask in reply how it's fair for Strength-based two-handed combatants if Dexterity-based combatants are allowed to base both their attack and defense off of their single high stat?

[Caelestion]

Perhaps because one person is using a single-handed rapier and the other is using a two-handed greatsword? The high Dex character is probably also wearing much lighter armour to take advantage of their higher Dex score.

[pabelfly]

So if you actually want to start there, then I would ask in reply how it's fair for Strength-based two-handed combatants if Dexterity-based combatants are allowed to base both their attack and defense off of their single high stat?

Wouldn't most DEX attackers be penalised by not being able to Power Attack?

[MisterKaws]

D&D 3.5 characters at level 20 are effectively demi-gods. Actual peak physical human ability tops out around level 5. The community has previously done extensive math to demonstrate this. That a demi-god would fail to hit their opponent in combat only 5% of the time is working-as-intended. A hypothetical 20th-level fighter would also be capable of absorbing blows that would kill an ordinary person several times over.

Would demigods always succeed, even in trying to hit a fellow demigod?



"D&D trends towards reality" is exactly the same as saying the "rules were written to model reality", just phrased slightly differently.

You are imagining it to be different because that makes it easier to argue against. For example:


This is something else I never said.
I said the rules of the game were made to model reality. There are many rules in the game aside from those that govern combat.
Combat is, of course, the least realistic aspect of the game rules because it has to be in order to facilitate game play.


Because it is a game and there needs to be some method of adjudicating character actions. Combat is not, and was never intended to be, completely and 100% true to life and no one ever claimed that it was.


Because everyone knows expert fighters in real life would have no problem evading gunfire, right?
That's basically what spells are, and if you were imagining them to be something different then that's your fault, not the game's.

Okay, so, let me ask the exact same thing again: Would demigods have any problem avoiding gunfire? It'd be the slowest thing ever in their senses, accustomed to fighting at lightning-fast speeds.



This is, ironically, the most cogent argument made yet for Weapon Finesse to be a feature instead of a feat.

Because D&D 3.5 is also a game and the game should be designed to be fun and fair.

So if you actually want to start there, then I would ask in reply how it's fair for Strength-based two-handed combatants if Dexterity-based combatants are allowed to base both their attack and defense off of their single high stat?

High-Strength fighters get to use heavy armor because they don't need dexterity. High-Dexterity fighters need the dexterity because they are often forced to use lighter armor for their skills/sneak attacks/skirmishes. They also get penalized by not having the more efficient version of Power Attack, which makes it impractical to damage foes, which is also why they need their precision damage mechanics, which requires them to move a lot, which is, again, harder if you have to carry around a buttload of heavy armor and a Glaive-Guisarme on your hand(represented by carry weight).

Again, they need Finesse because requiring them to have another ability to invest, while already being required to have Dexterity, Intelligence, and Charisma, is not a good design decision. Strength fighters commonly don't need to act as the party face, thus their only needed abilities are Strength and Constitution, while also having more base damage, which also can't be resisted by half of the creatures in the game(Undead, Oozes, Constructs, Plants, and half of the Aberrations).

[DEMON]

So if you actually want to start there, then I would ask in reply how it's fair for Strength-based two-handed combatants if Dexterity-based combatants are allowed to base both their attack and defense off of their single high stat?

Damage. Strength-based two-handed combatants will still have one stat govern their attack and damage and have their weapons benefit from higher base damage and power attack.

[Mendicant]

My thought has been to combine Toughness with Great Fortitude and Improved Initiative with Lightning Reflexes, but that's left me at a loss for pairing up Iron Will.

This was my first thought as well when I started paring down feats, but I decided against these. Improved initiative is already a solid feat; tacking lightning reflexes onto it seemed unnecessary. Otoh, toughness + GF still seemed a little blah.

What I can down to was:

Great Fortitude + Endurance + the ability spend HP to temporarily ignore debilitating effects from stuff like pain and nausea.

Iron Will + Diehard-automatic stabilization. (You keep losing HP, but you stay upright.)

Lightning Reflexes + the ability to sacrifice Reflex as an immediate action in order to give an adjacent ally a bonus to either reflex or AC.

Toughness is +1 HP per level, DR 1/--, and automatic stabilization. People still haven't taken it.

[The Random NPC]

In Pathfinder, getting X stat to a given check doesn't stack (https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9sgk) (i.e. can only be done once.) No idea if this is how it works in 5e, but I'd port this back to 3.5 along with making WF free and porting in Agile and Guided weapons.

You generally can't stack it in 5e (there're some rare edge cases where you can, but it isn't worth pursuing), and technically Guided is 3.5.


Because everyone knows expert fighters in real life would have no problem evading gunfire, right?
That's basically what spells are, and if you were imagining them to be something different then that's your fault, not the game's.

Touch spells do not emulate gunfire in any way. It should be really easy for a Demigod to avoid being touched, especially when they have 3 feet of steel to chop off attempts to touch them.

[Anachronity]

Toughness is +1 HP per level, DR 1/--, and automatic stabilization. People still haven't taken it.

Toughness is +1 hp/lvl in Pathfinder too and it almost never gets taken. I might start bundling it with Diehard and a stacking DR 1/- whenever I end up GMing Pathfinder again.

In my games my players and I have found Dodge + Mobility as a single feat to be pretty solid; about on-par with vanilla Improved Initiative.

And again I can't say enough for combining the assorted improved combat maneuver feats down into one or two feats. It just gives players and baddies so many more ways to interact during combat in any situation where, for whatever reason, smacking people with your sword doesn't work. Which I find in turn makes players feel less obligated to double down on smacking them even harder until it does work.

The common fix I've heard for the three save feats is that it turns a bad save into a good save for all current and future class levels (i.e. a 9th-level rogue with Great Fortitude has a base Fort save of +6 instead of +3)
In my own games I would also give it an additional +2 if you already have a class for which that is a good save, since we play with a multiclassing rule of only one 1st-level 'good save' bonus per save, so a Fighter 2 (+3)/Cleric 2 (only +1)/Rogue 9 (+3 or +4) would have base Fort +7 without the feat and +10 with it. Might still need some help though. Alternatively you could just straight up it to +3 and it'd be a lot more attractive, just because save math is actually pretty balanced in most games from the player's perspective, and that additional 5% can really make a difference.

I also like "skill focus grants 5e advantage (i.e. roll twice and take the higher)" instead of the +3. Particularly because consistency is a lot of what most players who actually consider taking the feat are looking for in their skill of specialty, and rolling twice makes failure at most straightforward tasks (balancing on a narrow ledge, bluffing a town guard who didn't see the incident, climbing a slick rope, etc.) a lot less common and makes the character seem a lot more competent at that skill as a result.

[Zaq]

I also like "skill focus grants 5e advantage (i.e. roll twice and take the higher)" instead of the +3. Particularly because consistency is a lot of what most players who actually consider taking the feat are looking for in their skill of specialty, and rolling twice makes failure at most straightforward tasks (balancing on a narrow ledge, bluffing a town guard who didn't see the incident, climbing a slick rope, etc.) a lot less common and makes the character seem a lot more competent at that skill as a result.

Brainstorm based on this: anyone have thoughts on the idea of Skill Focus allowing the user to, a certain number of times per day (possibly scaled by HD, though not likely 1/HD), retroactively turn a rolled check with the skill in question into a 10 on the die? So like, they attempt the check, the die comes up with a 4, and they say “okay, I invoke Skill Focus, so my 4 was actually a 10.” It’s like taking 10, but you can do it while stressed, you still have a chance of getting a higher result, and it’s not necessarily available all day every day. Adds to that “consistency” piece in an arguably slightly more aggressive manner.

(Skill Focus should still give a straight bonus, too. Some skills need every scrap of bonus they can get.)

[MisterKaws]

Brainstorm based on this: anyone have thoughts on the idea of Skill Focus allowing the user to, a certain number of times per day (possibly scaled by HD, though not likely 1/HD), retroactively turn a rolled check with the skill in question into a 10 on the die? So like, they attempt the check, the die comes up with a 4, and they say “okay, I invoke Skill Focus, so my 4 was actually a 10.” It’s like taking 10, but you can do it while stressed, you still have a chance of getting a higher result, and it’s not necessarily available all day every day. Adds to that “consistency” piece in an arguably slightly more aggressive manner.

(Skill Focus should still give a straight bonus, too. Some skills need every scrap of bonus they can get.)

Rogue and Exemplar can already do this without limit, can't they?

[HouseRules]

Toughness is +1 hp/lvl in Pathfinder too and it almost never gets taken. I might start bundling it with Diehard and a stacking DR 1/- whenever I end up GMing Pathfinder again.

In 3E, Toughness is +3 HP per feat, but you could keep on paying the feat tax.
Taking Toughness again stacks with itself.
You could take Improved Toughness that gives +1/level.

Pathfinder Toughness combines Toughness and Improved Toughness into a single feat.

[Zaq]

Rogue and Exemplar can already do this without limit, can't they?

Skill mastery is proactive: you choose to take 10 rather than risk failing. It’s usable without limit.

My proposal is reactive: you roll, but after you find out that the result wasn’t favorable, you retroactively boost it to 10. My proposal would not be at-will and would be more readily accessible than skill mastery (a no-prereq feat rather than a relatively late-game class feature). My proposal would still give you a reason to roll and to see if you can get a result better than 10, but it provides a safety net however many times per day if the dice frown on you.

Relative to SM, it slightly increases the risk (can’t be used at-will, so you can run out of it and therefore you risk not having it when it matters) and somewhat increases the potential reward (you can get higher than 10). This is especially relevant in the early game where the d20 roll makes up a larger proportion of your total check result.

[Psyren]

Damage. Strength-based two-handed combatants will still have one stat govern their attack and damage and have their weapons benefit from higher base damage and power attack.

Correct - free finesse would still not extend to damage, leading to there still being a need to either spend build resources (e.g. Agile or Shadow Blade) or use specialized techniques that are locked to a class (e.g. Sneak Attack or Favored Enemy) for this fighting style to put out relevant numbers at mid to high levels. All it really does is make it so these classes/concepts don't have to pay a mandatory tax early on for basic effectiveness.

[MisterKaws]

Skill mastery is proactive: you choose to take 10 rather than risk failing. It’s usable without limit.

My proposal is reactive: you roll, but after you find out that the result wasn’t favorable, you retroactively boost it to 10. My proposal would not be at-will and would be more readily accessible than skill mastery (a no-prereq feat rather than a relatively late-game class feature). My proposal would still give you a reason to roll and to see if you can get a result better than 10, but it provides a safety net however many times per day if the dice frown on you.

Relative to SM, it slightly increases the risk (can’t be used at-will, so you can run out of it and therefore you risk not having it when it matters) and somewhat increases the potential reward (you can get higher than 10). This is especially relevant in the early game where the d20 roll makes up a larger proportion of your total check result.

Hmm... True that. Would especially help Truenamers, and anything that mostly improves bad classes is good for me. I might just put that in my games.


http://memecrunch.com/meme/1OEPF/if-i-had-one/image.png?
This is the one bad part of living in the middle of nowhere. Aside from bad internet, of course.

[Enixon]

Not actually a feat, but I noticed a while back that in Pathfinder the Constable archetype for Cavaliers grants the ability at 2nd level to make grapple checks at the end of a charge, which implies that's not a thing you can normaly do. Also as far as I could tell there's no feat that also lets you do that. So apparently anyone that's ever played football or otherwise ran up and tackled someone or something is actually an at least 2nd level Constable Cavalier :tongue:

[MisterKaws]

Not actually a feat, but I noticed a while back that in Pathfinder the Constable archetype for Cavaliers grants the ability at 2nd level to make grapple checks at the end of a charge, which implies that's not a thing you can normaly do. Also as far as I could tell there's no feat that also lets you do that. So apparently anyone that's ever played football or otherwise ran up and tackled someone or something is actually an at least 2nd level Constable Cavalier :tongue:

I think PF writers goofed up there, because by RAW, a Grapple is an attack action, which can be taken in place of an attack during a charge.

[DEMON]

Correct - free finesse would still not extend to damage, leading to there still being a need to either spend build resources (e.g. Agile or Shadow Blade) or use specialized techniques that are locked to a class (e.g. Sneak Attack or Favored Enemy) for this fighting style to put out relevant numbers at mid to high levels. All it really does is make it so these classes/concepts don't have to pay a mandatory tax early on for basic effectiveness.

May this be the day when one of these forum's celebrities quoted my post and responded with "Correct".


Hmm... True that. Would especially help Truenamers, and anything that mostly improves bad classes is good for me. I might just put that in my games.


http://memecrunch.com/meme/1OEPF/if-i-had-one/image.png?
This is the one bad part of living in the middle of nowhere. Aside from bad internet, of course.


Taking a terribly designed class and then using it as a reasoning why something is a good choice isn't the way to go. Truenamer is bad and no general rule should be based around making them less femalebullpoo!

Also Right there with you :(

[MisterKaws]

Taking a terribly designed class and then using it as a reasoning why something is a good choice isn't the way to go. Truenamer is bad and no general rule should be based around making them less femalebullpoo!

Hey, they're pretty good. Once you fix the issue with missing two thirds of the time, anyway.

[pabelfly]

Taking a terribly designed class and then using it as a reasoning why something is a good choice isn't the way to go. Truenamer is bad and no general rule should be based around making them less femalebullpoo!

If you play a Truenamer at a table you have to have a pretty in-depth discussion about how to properly implement the mechanics of how they work into the game, which ends up doing what you're complaining about anyway.

Anyway, there's no reason not to give a Truenamer at a gaming table a few breaks if someone want to play one. Even with a bunch of rulings in their favour, they're not really the most OP of casters.

[MisterKaws]

If you play a Truenamer at a table you have to have a pretty in-depth discussion about how to properly implement the mechanics of how they work into the game, which ends up doing what you're complaining about anyway.

Anyway, there's no reason not to give a Truenamer at a gaming table a few breaks if someone want to play one. Even with a bunch of rulings in their favour, they're not really the most OP of casters.

There's times where people just want to play something in a game and you can't be bothered to try explaining them why it is not viable, so it's easier to just help them make it be viable instead.

I mean, if you have four players, three of which want to play beatsticks while the last wants to play a Batman Wizard. You damn better be prepared to give the beatsticks enough magic items to make them have to choose like high-school girls on their first date, lest they end up getting depressed by not being able to do a single thing because any challenge for the Wizard is a death sentence to them.

So... Yeah, I guess you just need to keep making these tiny mental notes of fixes to every single crappy class in the books.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

For Toughness, I've combined it with Endurance and it's been reasonably popular. Probably helps that no one *has* to take it since Spheres of Might replaces Diehard with a talent anyway

[Psyren]

There's times where people just want to play something in a game and you can't be bothered to try explaining them why it is not viable, so it's easier to just help them make it be viable instead.

I mean, if you have four players, three of which want to play beatsticks while the last wants to play a Batman Wizard. You damn better be prepared to give the beatsticks enough magic items to make them have to choose like high-school girls on their first date, lest they end up getting depressed by not being able to do a single thing because any challenge for the Wizard is a death sentence to them.

So... Yeah, I guess you just need to keep making these tiny mental notes of fixes to every single crappy class in the books.

Wizards might have a high ceiling but they have a pretty low floor too. It all depends on the optimization level of the player; depending on where that is, you can absolutely challenge the wizard and the martials without turning the martials into casters themselves.

[PraxisVetli]

Correct - free finesse would still not extend to damage, leading to there still being a need to either spend build resources (e.g. Agile or Shadow Blade) or use specialized techniques that are locked to a class (e.g. Sneak Attack or Favored Enemy) for this fighting style to put out relevant numbers at mid to high levels. All it really does is make it so these classes/concepts don't have to pay a mandatory tax early on for basic effectiveness.

We have Weapon Finesse as a feat, but it extends to damage as well.
So far hasn't been a problem, and actually only 1 player has taken it.

[MisterKaws]

Wizards might have a high ceiling but they have a pretty low floor too. It all depends on the optimization level of the player; depending on where that is, you can absolutely challenge the wizard and the martials without turning the martials into casters themselves.

That's why I said Batman Wizard. Some people don't have many experienced friends to play with. I, for example, am confined to the middle of nowhere until I finish my university and thus, any game I play is going to have few experienced people. Now, I'm reasonable enough not to pull a batman or druidzilla in the middle of three warriors, but say, maybe someone whose only experience is the nightmarish landscape of Roll20. They probably have only experienced either munchkins or total newbies, and probably couldn't very well differentiate.

In cases like that, you probably want to give martials some bonus feats, a magic tool here and there, some flight too, until they're about even with the Wizard, because otherwise it's kind of hard on them, and you don't want to scare newbies...

[AnimeTheCat]

In 3E, Toughness is +3 HP per feat, but you could keep on paying the feat tax.
Taking Toughness again stacks with itself.
You could take Improved Toughness that gives +1/level.

Pathfinder Toughness combines Toughness and Improved Toughness into a single feat.

In my games, I make Toughness grant 2x your Con modifier for each level. So if you have a 14 Con at level 3, you have +6 HP from con. With Toughness, you have +12 HP from Con. People (frontliners) actually take the feat and don't feel bad about it because having a barbarian or fighter with 16 or 18 Con at level 1 with Toughness makes you really really tanky against those threats, and getting +6 or +8 HP per level for free (not including level-up dice) is really really good. Stacks with temporarly or magical increases to your Con score (so Bear's Endurance gives you +4 HP per HD instead of +2 per HD, and a Barbarian's rage does the same). I haven't had any problems with it yet, so I think it's a good fix.

[Kris Moonhand]

I think PF writers goofed up there, because by RAW, a Grapple is an attack action, which can be taken in place of an attack during a charge.

Nope. The only combat maneuvers which can replace a melee attack are Trip, Disarm, and Sunder. Anything else requires a standard action to perform. Though Overrun and Bull Rush can replace a charge, of course. However, if you don't want to be a Constable, you can always go into Charging Stag Style and take the Stag Horns (https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Stag%20Horns) feat.

[MisterKaws]

Nope. The only combat maneuvers which can replace a melee attack are Trip, Disarm, and Sunder. Anything else requires a standard action to perform. Though Overrun and Bull Rush can replace a charge, of course. However, if you don't want to be a Constable, you can always go into Charging Stag Style and take the Stag Horns (https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Stag%20Horns) feat.

Add that to the list of things I didn't know changed from 3.5 to PF then.

[Remuko]

In my games, I make Toughness grant 2x your Con modifier for each level. So if you have a 14 Con at level 3, you have +6 HP from con. With Toughness, you have +12 HP from Con. People (frontliners) actually take the feat and don't feel bad about it because having a barbarian or fighter with 16 or 18 Con at level 1 with Toughness makes you really really tanky against those threats, and getting +6 or +8 HP per level for free (not including level-up dice) is really really good. Stacks with temporarly or magical increases to your Con score (so Bear's Endurance gives you +4 HP per HD instead of +2 per HD, and a Barbarian's rage does the same). I haven't had any problems with it yet, so I think it's a good fix.

that seems like a good change. i like it.

[OgresAreCute]

In my games, I make Toughness grant 2x your Con modifier for each level. So if you have a 14 Con at level 3, you have +6 HP from con. With Toughness, you have +12 HP from Con. People (frontliners) actually take the feat and don't feel bad about it because having a barbarian or fighter with 16 or 18 Con at level 1 with Toughness makes you really really tanky against those threats, and getting +6 or +8 HP per level for free (not including level-up dice) is really really good. Stacks with temporarly or magical increases to your Con score (so Bear's Endurance gives you +4 HP per HD instead of +2 per HD, and a Barbarian's rage does the same). I haven't had any problems with it yet, so I think it's a good fix.

The Tarrasque has 6 toughness feats and a Con mod of +12 (35 Constitution), with this new version of toughness it goes from having 858 HP to having 4296 HP. :smallamused:

[Venger]

The Tarrasque has 6 toughness feats and a Con mod of +12 (35 Constitution), with this new version of toughness it goes from having 858 HP to having 4296 HP. :smallamused:

So what? Most of the more efficient ways of killing it ignore hp altogether, and if you're competent at dealing hp damage when he's an appropriate threat, that shouldn't make much of a difference. walls of hp aren't really challenging

[OgresAreCute]

So what? Most of the more efficient ways of killing it ignore hp altogether, and if you're competent at dealing hp damage when he's an appropriate threat, that shouldn't make much of a difference. walls of hp aren't really challenging

So nothing, it's just an amusingly big number.

[Venger]

So nothing, it's just an amusingly big number.

you got me there

[AnimeTheCat]

The Tarrasque has 6 toughness feats and a Con mod of +12 (35 Constitution), with this new version of toughness it goes from having 858 HP to having 4296 HP. :smallamused:

I mean... you can customize feats if walls of hp are too difficult

[MisterKaws]

I mean... you can customize feats if walls of hp are too difficult

They usual decent fighter 'kills' the tarrasque in 2-3 rounds, not to mention Warblades and Uberchargers. That wall of HP actually looks better unless your players are newbies.

[AnimeTheCat]

So nothing, it's just an amusingly big number.


They usual decent fighter 'kills' the tarrasque in 2-3 rounds, not to mention Warblades and Uberchargers. That wall of HP actually looks better unless your players are newbies.

I was on mobile, so I couldn't respond with the same emoji OgresAreCute used in their original post. Their post above was kind of my sentiments too.

[liquidformat]

They usual decent fighter 'kills' the tarrasque in 2-3 rounds, not to mention Warblades and Uberchargers. That wall of HP actually looks better unless your players are newbies.

We were presented with a Tarrasque at level 4 and tricked it into running off a cliff into a tar pit...

[Venger]

We were presented with a Tarrasque at level 4 and tricked it into running off a cliff into a tar pit...

Hope the gm lifted the xp cap for that one.

[MisterKaws]

We were presented with a Tarrasque at level 4 and tricked it into running off a cliff into a tar pit...

I remember there being some kind of strategy to make a steakhouse out of the Tarrasque with a Wight at level 1, but I might be misremembering it.

[Psyren]

I remember there being some kind of strategy to make a steakhouse out of the Tarrasque with a Wight at level 1, but I might be misremembering it.

So kinda like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0326.html) then?

[MisterKaws]

So kinda like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0326.html) then?

Exactly like that, actually.

Edit: Okay, I went ahead and found it. I can't link to the site because it's pretty offensive and contains nsfw stuff as well, but you can probably find it easily enough. Also, it was an Allip, not a Wight.




No particular feats required.
No particular items required.
Be a wizard of level 3.
Put on your robe and wizard hat.
Cast Command Undead on an allip (it's a CR 3 monster, if you can't find any just learn to cast Summon Undead.)
Cast Silent Image in front of the Tarrasque or Invisibility on yourself.
Have the allip attack it. Every hit will take off 3 wisdom on average with no saving throw, and the Tarrasque has an abysmal touch AC, with no way to hit incorporeal targets.
Once at 0 wisdom, it'll be unconscious until its ability score is restored. Cast Unseen Servant and order it to shovel dirt into the nasal passages and sinuses of the disabled Tarrasque so it can't breathe.
Per the MM, regeneration does not restore HP lost from suffocation, so it will be stuck at negative hit points, at least until some fool unpacks the dirt from its sinuses.
Congratulations! For defeating the Tarrasque, you're now a level 4 wizard, with 1 XP away from level 5. Make some wealth by opening a Bar and Grill on its back.
For added hilarity, take the Precocious Apprentice feat and with some mildly lucky rolls do this at level 1.

[PraxisVetli]

I've been toying with the idea of getting rid of Combat Reflexes, and just making it a perk of a high Dex.
Anyone try anything like that before?
Obviously it might cause some technical issues, with classes like the Warder and others granting additional AoO's off of other stats, often Int.

[Psyren]

I think this is under the necromancy cutoff...


I've been toying with the idea of getting rid of Combat Reflexes, and just making it a perk of a high Dex.
Anyone try anything like that before?
Obviously it might cause some technical issues, with classes like the Warder and others granting additional AoO's off of other stats, often Int.

I'd be fine making Combat Reflexes baseline for everyone, yes. For the edge cases like Warder, the language could just be "Ability (Ex): # of AoOs use Dex or {other stat}, whichever is higher." If I were to restrict it, I might cause it to only work if you're using a weapon you're proficient with.

[PraxisVetli]

I think this is under the necromancy cutoff...



If I were to restrict it, I might cause it to only work if you're using a weapon you're proficient with.

Oof, you're right about the necromancy. I had the tab still open and didn't realize how much time had gone by.
What would cause someone to want to AoO with a nonproficient weapon? Just a general statement, or is there some weird trick I don't know?
Edit: Woo, I had a few days left, all's well.

[Psyren]

Oof, you're right about the necromancy. I had the tab still open and didn't realize how much time had gone by.
What would cause someone to want to AoO with a nonproficient weapon? Just a general statement, or is there some weird trick I don't know?
Edit: Woo, I had a few days left, all's well.

Just like most other cases where someone is using a nonproficient weapon, they might not have a choice. If you're not a monk and you're in a life or death scenario, swinging a sword you have no idea how to use is probably better than fighting bare-handed.

My point though is that if I'm giving Combat Reflexes to everyone for free (i.e. base rule is that you can AoO as many times as you have dex bonus without needing a feat) I would still want to bake that kind of technique into general training with the weapon itself, which is represented mechanically by proficiency.

[Mr Adventurer]

Combat Reflexes lets you make AoO while flat-footed too, which is a noticeable benefit especially if you are a character who cares about your AoO.

[PraxisVetli]

Combat Reflexes lets you make AoO while flat-footed too, which is a noticeable benefit especially if you are a character who cares about your AoO.
I never noticed that, good point.

Just like most other cases where someone is using a nonproficient weapon, they might not have a choice. If you're not a monk and you're in a life or death scenario, swinging a sword you have no idea how to use is probably better than fighting bare-handed.

My point though is that if I'm giving Combat Reflexes to everyone for free (i.e. base rule is that you can AoO as many times as you have dex bonus without needing a feat) I would still want to bake that kind of technique into general training with the weapon itself, which is represented mechanically by proficiency.
Oh I agree, it's just you know, with how wonky 3.5 is, some combo that lets you do a fistful of dice for damage but only if you AoO with a weapon you aren't proficient with is exactly the kind of thing I wouldn't be surprised exists.
But yes, if you're just flailing with something, then you shouldn't have the benefit.
If proficiency grants Combat Reflexes or the equivalent, would you then take it so far as nonproficiency takes away the ability to make AoO's at all?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I've been toying with the idea of getting rid of Combat Reflexes, and just making it a perk of a high Dex.
Anyone try anything like that before?
Obviously it might cause some technical issues, with classes like the Warder and others granting additional AoO's off of other stats, often Int.

4e just gave everyone 1 AoO per enemy turn, rather than per round, and that seemed to work well enough. I doubt making Combat Reflexes a bonus feat for everyone will break anything.

[Psyren]

Combat Reflexes lets you make AoO while flat-footed too, which is a noticeable benefit especially if you are a character who cares about your AoO.

Personally I'd still rather remove that feat, and make Uncanny Dodge into a feat instead (one that rogues and barbarians get for free.) That way monks can get it too (it never really sat right with me that they couldn't.)

[PraxisVetli]

My table's trying a houserule where creatures automatically pick up all Monstrous Feats as soon as they qualify.
It makes the creatures a little tougher, but it feels like most critters that rely on those tactics are they ones that need the bump.
Give abilities like Wingstorm, Snatch and Swallow, and Greater Mighty Roar just lets the mid- high CR brutes like a Tyrannosaurus and Purple Worm at least try to challenge appropriate parties.
Anyone ever try anything like that?

[DrMotives]

My table's trying a houserule where creatures automatically pick up all Monstrous Feats as soon as they qualify.
It makes the creatures a little tougher, but it feels like most critters that rely on those tactics are they ones that need the bump.
Give abilities like Wingstorm, Snatch and Swallow, and Greater Mighty Roar just lets the mid- high CR brutes like a Tyrannosaurus and Purple Worm at least try to challenge appropriate parties.
Anyone ever try anything like that?

"Everyone knows you finish off elementals with ranged attacks. See, they explode when you drop 'em"

[PraxisVetli]

"Everyone knows you finish off elementals with ranged attacks. See, they explode when you drop 'em"

That's definitely one of them, and boy oh boy was it a surprise the first time.

Though realistically, I would put most Elementals in the 'melee brute' category.
CR 11 for an Elder Fire Elemental?
Show me a scenario where that thing is remotely threatening to a level 9 party.

[Psyren]

My table's trying a houserule where creatures automatically pick up all Monstrous Feats as soon as they qualify.
It makes the creatures a little tougher, but it feels like most critters that rely on those tactics are they ones that need the bump.
Give abilities like Wingstorm, Snatch and Swallow, and Greater Mighty Roar just lets the mid- high CR brutes like a Tyrannosaurus and Purple Worm at least try to challenge appropriate parties.
Anyone ever try anything like that?

That sounds pretty fun to me. For some monsters it may warrant a CR bump.

[PraxisVetli]

That sounds pretty fun to me. For some monsters it may warrant a CR bump.
Some, sure, like Dragons.
But for a lot of creatures, if spending a full round doing Wingstorm is a decent tactic compared to anything else they could have done, maybe they need it, you know?

[Bohandas]

Etch Schema from Magic of Eberron. It's yet another rehash of potions, wands, and scrolls and the items you make with it are overpriced; they cost twice what they should considering that they're spell completion and require a feat. They seem to have either used the "use activated" pricing or else misapplied the "doesn't take up a body slot" multiplier, forgetting that schemas 1.) act like scrolls (which don't get the multiplier) and 2.) IIRC are held in hand

[JNAProductions]

Etch Schema from Magic of Eberron. It's yet another rehash of potions, wands, and scrolls and the items you make with it are overpriced; they cost twice what they should considering that they're spell completion and require a feat. They seem to have either used the "use activated" pricing or else misapplied the "doesn't take up a body slot" multiplier, forgetting that schemas 1.) act like scrolls (which don't get the multiplier) and 2.) IIRC are held in hand

Schemas are usable day-to-day, unlike scrolls, though. They're closer to Eternal Wands.

[Bohandas]

Schemas are usable day-to-day, unlike scrolls, though. They're closer to Eternal Wands.

Still, extrapolating from the SRD a 1/day spell completion item's cost should be

((spell level x caster level x 2000 ÷ 2) ÷ (5 ÷ 1)

or if you prefer

spell level x caster level x 25 x 40 x 1 ÷ 5

in either case based on the following lines

Single use, spell completion Spell level × caster level × 25 gp
Single use, use-activated Spell level × caster level × 50 gp
Use-activated or continuous Spell level × caster level × 2,000 gp
Charges per day Divide by (5 divided by charges per day)


use-activated ÷ single use, use-activated = 40
single use, spell completion x 40 = spell level x caster level x 1000 = spell completion
spell completion ÷ (5÷1) = spell completion x 1 ÷ 5 = spell completion ÷ 5 = spell level x caster level x 200

U= use activated P= Spell Completion S= single use discount C= Caster Level L= Spell Level D=Daily Uses V=Daily use discount divisor dividend Y=use per day discount

U=CxLx2000
SxU=CxLx50
U÷(SxU)=(CxLx2000)÷(CxLx50)=2000÷50=40=1÷S
S=1÷40
SxP=P÷40=CxLx25
CxLx25x40=P=CxLx1000
Y=1÷(V÷D)=D÷V
V=5
If D=1
then Y=1÷5
and
YP=CxLx1000÷5=CxLx200

Or in layman's terms, if a single use spell completion item costs one half of a single use use-activated item then a uses-per-day spell-completion item should cost one half of a uses-per-day use-activated item

[Vizzerdrix]

Has anyone mentioned that eberron feat that lets you look things up in a library yet? Thats pretty dumb.

[Mehangel]

I don't have the books on hand, but Ultimate Intrigue had a bunch of feats that should've been just expanded uses for various skills. Ultimate Wilderness had a feat that let you make animal noises (something that in my opinion should not require a feat).