[Pathfinder] What...What The Hell...

[Fax Celestis]

This, here, is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've seen out of Pathfinder to date.

Spoiler

Show

Achievement Feats
Inspired by a variety of video games and board games that utilize similar conventions, achievement feats require the cooperation of the player and the GM to make the transition into the world of pen-and-paper RPGs. Players who seek to qualify for an achievement feat should tell their GM early so he can begin noting the PC’s progress toward the feat’s requirement, or be aware that the player is tracking his character’s accomplishments with this goal in mind. Although they require more bookkeeping to attain than typical feats, these feats are custom-designed to reward players of Legacy of Fire and should help PCs feel like they’ve accomplished something pertinent to the campaign’s goals. GMs who don’t think achievement feats are for their game can ignore this section with no detriment to their campaign, but for those who do test them out, we’d love to hear your stories and playtest experiences on our messageboards at pazio.com/traits.

Spoiler

Show

All Gnolls Must Die [Achievement]
Your name is whispered by black lips throughout the Uwaga Highlands as a bringer of death and pain—few are the gnolls who don’t quake when they hear stories of your deeds.
Requirement: Deliver the killing blow to 20 gnolls,
hyenas, dire hyenas, werehyenas, jackalweres, or minions of Lamashtu.
Benefit: As long as you carry some sort of trophy harvested from a gnoll (a necklace of ears, a set of teeth, a magic weapon taken from a chieftain, etc.), you gain a +2 morale bonus on all Will saves. You also gain a +2 competence bonus on attack rolls and weapon damage rolls against gnolls, hyenas, dire hyenas, werehyenas, jackalweres, and minions of Lamashtu.

Flame-Tested Survivor [Achievement]
You have burned in the hottest flames, and your flesh bears the proof—fire holds little fear for you anymore.
Requirement: Knocked unconscious or killed by fire damage at least 10 times.
Benefit: Your history with fire has attracted the attention of a powerful but mysterious guardian spirit from the Elemental Plane of Water. This spirit grants you fire resistance 5, and you gain a +2 bonus on all saving throws made to resist fire effects.

Gifted Mesmerist [Achievement]
Your magic knows the pathways of the mind, and you have become so skilled at casting a certain mind-affecting spell that you can cast it as a spell-like ability.
Requirement: Successfully affect 25 different targets with charm or compulsion spells.
Benefit: Choose any one charm or compulsion spell you can cast. You can use this spell once per day as a spell-like ability. Your caster level and DC for this spell-like ability is the same as if you were casting the spell. Each time you gain a level in a spellcasting class, you may replace your current charm or compulsion spell-like ability with a new one.

Graverisen [Achievement]
Death is no stranger to you, for you have risen from the grave to continue your quest many times.
Requirement: Die and be brought back at least twice.
Benefit: You gain a single-use supernatural ability to save yourself from death. The next time you would be killed, you may use this ability, leaving you alive and otherwise unaffected by the attack that would have killed you, even against effects with no saving throw. This does not require an action, and works even if you are helpless or unconscious. If you die and are brought back to life, you gain another single use of this ability. You can only have one use of this ability unspent at any time; any others you might accrue beyond the first are lost.

Healer’s Touch [Achievement]
The magic of life flows through your body like a river.
Requirement: Cure a cumulative total of 1,000 points of damage for other creatures using healing spells. Dealing damage slows progress toward this goal achievement; for every 1 point of damage you deal to another creature, reduce your cumulative healing total by 2.
Benefit: When you cast a healing spell to heal a target other than yourself, the spell is maximized as though using the Maximize Spell effect. This does not increase your casting time for the spell. When you cast a healing spell to damage a target, the spell is not maximized but its saving throw DC increases by +4.
Note: There may be an opposite version of this feat allowing casters using negative energy to heal undead.

History of Scars [Achievement]
Your scars bear witness to countless battles.
Requirement: Take a cumulative total of 1,000 points of damage. Magical healing offsets this running total; for every 5 points of magical healing you receive, reduce your cumulative damage total by 1.
Benefit: Your thick scars impart a –2 penalty on all Charisma-based skill checks, but increase your natural armor bonus by +2.

Relentless Butcher [Achievement]
You revel in the glory of dismemberment and maiming.
Requirement: Confirm at least 50 critical hits.
Benefit: When you confirm a critical hit, that opponent must make a Fortitude save (DC = 10 + your Strength or Dexterity modifier) or be stunned for 1 round.

^{All OGL, don't worry.}

I have no problems with achievement-based feats, believe you me--it's something I've been contemplating myself. But this is the wrong way to do it. You know all those people who're crying "ZOMG D&D R BEKUM VIDJA GAME"? Well, this proves them exactly right.

Achievement-based feats should be based on player achievements, but not on measuring stuff like 50 confirmed criticals or 20 gnolls killed. It should be measured as "killed a creature with CR at least two higher than your ECL when at or below 1/4 HP."

So I suppose that's it: achievements are not measured; they're accomplished. The character does something epic, so they then qualify for a certain set of feats. Feats like these merely require you to grind out numbers for a while before you qualify, and frankly I'd rather keep my grinding in my coffee maker.

[Arbitrarity]

Even individual achievements are video game similar (take some TF2 achievements like Fall Classic [kill an enemy pushing them into an environmental hazard]).

But really, farmable achievements? What. Yes, let's base the feat off of doing something mundane over, and over, and over again. Yes, that's how we should make characters interesting. Not with Crowning Moments of Awesome, but with grind.

[Cainen]

I'm pretty sure that the the absolute worst part of this is that the designers assume that you'll be repeating the same actions over and over and over. Against the same enemies, too.

[TempusCCK]

I don't think that this necessarily contributes to grind, it seems to me that if used properly these feats could help reflect the character more openly with the world.

It's up to the GM to say "Alright, now you're just seeking out Gnolls to get the feat, and you have no in character reason to do this, I'm disallowing the feat."

For for a pacifist healer who spends most of his combat time casting healing spells, that Achievement feat is an awesome bonus that really helps to reflect his characters traits. Someone so dedicated to healing WOULD be really good at it.

I think it's all a matter of how you use it, this could lead to grind, but the GM needs to put a stop to that. It's certainly not fair to put a blanket assumption on the idea, and it is an optional rule.

[Cainen]

I don't think that this necessarily contributes to grind, it seems to me that if used properly these feats could help reflect the character more openly with the world.

How on Earth do you plan on giving 20 gnoll kills to the one person in the party that might be able to -use- the feat?

[Zeful]

What's really sad is most of those achievement feats are really easy to get. "Play the game once" easy. Stuff like this is what disappoints me with achievements in general: You haven't Achieved anything. This things should be hard, and freaking custom made (you know like prestige classes were supposed to be).

I can kind of agree with the concept, because of Important thing X you get Y. But easy ones like the Gnoll one should be a +2 to Intimidate checks to Gnolls as long as you have the trophy. And really things like this were covered under Good DMing (The players have killed 3 tribes of Gnolls, all those tribes Allies are afraid of the PCs and the next couple of generations will get a -2 to sense motive vs. and intimidate to anyone who resembles the party.) not solid game mechanics (All Gnolls fear me because I have X feat.)

Overall if it's something that should be permanent and unilaterally applied, I have no problems awarding a Blessing (I'm not calling it an Achievement feat, the name is just stupid) to the player. But if it's territorial, then no, it's a circumstance mod I apply as plot dictates.

[Alleine]

Wow... I... I'm not sure what to say. On the one hand it looks kinda cool, but on the other hand I can imagine getting the sound clip from the xbox for unlocking achievements and a cardboard cut-out with "Achievement Unlocked!" on it and using those every time.

I think the implementation could definitely have been better.

[sonofzeal]

Fred punches Sam in the arm, and Binder Bob (Bob's bound Buer) heals Sam. Repeat ad nauseum. Now Sam has +2 NA, Fred's probably got Relentless Butcher, and all Bob's healing is maximized for free. Fun times.

[Myatar_Panwar]

This is some seriously... just dumb stuff.

I think that the achievements could be worked quite differently into a nice manner, but its the fact that the player chooses an achievement to work at which irks me. Or that they are given concrete rules, for that matter.

In my opinion, if you want to give players these achievement bonuses, do so subtly. Maybe one player has been kicking some serious ass against gnolls in the latest adventure, by the luck of the dice or what have you. Good for him, go ahead and give him that feat for will saves and damage, it will give his character some natural flavor. He will be able to look back at his character and say "Yeah that guy really knew how to kick gnoll ass"

But in my opinion, as soon as the player starts grinding those gnolls purposefully for the bonus, it becomes less about character flavor and past history than just getting minor bonuses.

[revolver kobold]

I think this is an idea that has merit, but has just been implemented in a very bad way.

I like the idea behind some of the feats, Graverisen and Flametested Survivor especially. But I really think they should be for the GM to give out when he sees fit, rather than the player going "Ok, I've been hit by 10 fireballs now. Give me my fire resistance".

[Zeful]

This is some seriously... just dumb stuff.

I think that the achievements could be worked quite differently into a nice manner, but its the fact that the player chooses an achievement to work at which irks me. Or that they are given concrete rules, for that matter.

Having concreate rules for some benefit like this wouldn't be bad, especially for things that are so left field from what you expect that some benefit is needed so the guy looks at his character sheet and remembers that awesome moment.

In my opinion, if you want to give players these achievement bonuses, do so subtly. Maybe one player has been kicking some serious ass against gnolls in the latest adventure, by the luck of the dice or what have you. Good for him, go ahead and give him that feat for will saves and damage, it will give his character some natural flavor. He will be able to look back at his character and say "Yeah that guy really knew how to kick gnoll ass"

But in my opinion, as soon as the player starts grinding those gnolls purposefully for the bonus, it becomes less about character flavor and past history than just getting minor bonuses.

A system like this can really make a party more real. Jon's character walked through lava and then killed a dragon, yeah he's called the "Master of Fire" now. It's a way to give meaning to a title certain players might otherwise ignore. It also sounds like a good way to get a Roll-player to think a smidge more toward Role-playing.

All in all, good idea. Really, really stupid implementation.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Jeez, and people gave 4E guff for being like a videogame

The basic flaw with this idea is about what Achievements mean. In a video game, the game world is barely mutable; it has a definite structure and can only change so much. Game designers started adding in Achievements to mark the "cool things" people have always tried to do to games. In a pen-and-paper game, the world is endlessly mutable - if the player does something cool, the DM can alter the world to reflect it.

Did you single-handedly slay the demon-empowered Gnoll Champion? Perhaps after the party Bard spreads that around, people will start whispering about "Arthex the Gnoll Slayer" and, who knows, maybe other gnolls start spreading tales of horror about you. Bam! You achieved something, and it shows!

[Dienekes]

Actually, I don't see much of a problem with them as long as the GM isn't an idiot.

If you allow your players to stand back allowing someone to go gnoll killing simply for the feat you're an idiot. You shouldn't be GMing.

However the problem is of course keeping track and bean counting every time you crit, and every time you are killed by fire or whatever.

Actually, I have to hand it to Pathfinder for doing something like this. I'm assuming it's in some kind of splatbook or another, it's completely optional and allows people to test out an idea many say they have been thinking of before.

Now, the only one I'm really confused about (and I'm assuming there's more than just these 7) is Gnoll Killer. Are gnolls really that popular? Or maybe it should have been ____ Killer. Where you just are proficient at killing any sort of creature.

[Crow]

Now, the only one I'm really confused about (and I'm assuming there's more than just these 7) is Gnoll Killer. Are gnolls really that popular? Or maybe it should have been ____ Killer. Where you just are proficient at killing any sort of creature.

Favored Enemy:___________

[FatR]

And Pathfinder crew demonstrates once again how much they suck at writing game mechanics.

[Tempest Fennac]

I agree about this being a really stupid idea due to how abusable it is. (I know I'm heavily bias against the All Gnolls Must Die one due to liking Gnolls a lot anyway, but the fact that these feats require you to do the same things over and over would really bore me).

[doliest]

You know this is just what I needed, now when people ask me why I'm not shelling out the money for 4th edition books I can point at this and say that I preferred it on WoW.

[Nightson]

You know this is just what I needed, now when people ask me why I'm not shelling out the money for 4th edition books I can point at this and say that I preferred it on WoW.

And when they point out that this has nothing to do with 4th edition?

[doliest]

And when they point out that this has nothing to do with 4th edition?

Then I'll say, "FOOLED JU!"

[BobVosh]

What's really sad is most of those achievement feats are really easy to get. "Play the game once" easy. Stuff like this is what disappoints me with achievements in general: You haven't Achieved anything. This things should be hard, and freaking custom made (you know like prestige classes were supposed to be).

I can kind of agree with the concept, because of Important thing X you get Y. But easy ones like the Gnoll one should be a +2 to Intimidate checks to Gnolls as long as you have the trophy. And really things like this were covered under Good DMing (The players have killed 3 tribes of Gnolls, all those tribes Allies are afraid of the PCs and the next couple of generations will get a -2 to sense motive vs. and intimidate to anyone who resembles the party.) not solid game mechanics (All Gnolls fear me because I have X feat.)

Overall if it's something that should be permanent and unilaterally applied, I have no problems awarding a Blessing (I'm not calling it an Achievement feat, the name is just stupid) to the player. But if it's territorial, then no, it's a circumstance mod I apply as plot dictates.

QFT

I like pathfinder, definitly like what they did to skills, but some of thier implementation leaves something to be desired. Their modules rock also.

As most people say, give a bonus with out a feat. I personally liked the reputation that is in wheel of time, and various other games.

[Kurald Galain]

Oh noes! They're turning D&D into a video game!

Oh wait, we've already done that. Seriously though, I find this rule extremely stupid. It's fun if a DM creates a character-tailored benefit after (say) being hit by fire a lot; but it's very wrong if a character starts seeking out fire to be hit by, because he knows that the rulebook has a standard feat that can help if he does. It takes all the specialness out.

[Tempest Fennac]

I've been in a couple of games where I've been given a bonus feat or an extra ability of the DM's choice because it fitted with the plot, but these were always surprises, so it was more interresting.

[Stephen_E]

Hmmm, I'm assuming you still have to have a feat slot.

Otherwise I quite like them.

I have a Orc Barb/Fighter/Tribal Protector from a old campaign who played as a NG Paladin who hated followers of Grumash, he was a follower of Corellion himself.

I can really see him going for a Grumash variant of Gnoll-Killer.

As for "grinding", to be honest I know people who track their kills for the fun of it. I do think some like the Gnoll-killer need a "killed "x" gnolls and a Gnoll Hero/Leader" and obviously a reasonable amount of RP is expected. The PC should be playing the rage, hatred or whatever they have for type "y".

Stephen E

[Dragonmuncher]

I don't think that this necessarily contributes to grind, it seems to me that if used properly these feats could help reflect the character more openly with the world.

It's up to the GM to say "Alright, now you're just seeking out Gnolls to get the feat, and you have no in character reason to do this, I'm disallowing the feat."

I agree with this, but I'd add that its this idea that makes the whole "Achievement Feat" concept unnecessary.

There are ALREADY feats like this! Some are more obvious about it than others, but there are definitely feats and abilities that imply you've been doing some action in the world, as a sort of meta-prereq. Hmm... spelltouched feats, certainly. One could argue that a heritage feat should be roleplayed beforehand, instead of just randomly going "Oh by the way, my grandma boinked a fairy" at level-up time. Heck, even something like multiclassing to a wizard could fall under this.


I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you want to have feats have some sort of gameplay prerequisite, it's better to have it be an RP one. Saying "Prerequisite: Has killed 50 gnolls" is not nearly as cool as "You have spent much time and effort in fighting the legions of gnolls that infest your world. Through many battles, you have come to understand their tactics, their weaknesses, and their psychology."

Both are (almost) the same thing, but the second one is (IMO) much better.

[Abstruse]

I don't think that this necessarily contributes to grind, it seems to me that if used properly these feats could help reflect the character more openly with the world.

It's up to the GM to say "Alright, now you're just seeking out Gnolls to get the feat, and you have no in character reason to do this, I'm disallowing the feat.

So just don't tell the PCs the feats are in play until, by you-as-DM-estimation, one of them has crossed a goal line of it. Then it makes it less grinding out a required number (since they have no idea there IS a number) and more a roleplaying thing. I'm not all that familiar with the Pathfinder rules as yet, but isn't this the kind of thing a ranger might take relating to their favored enemy, at least going through 3.5?

[Tsotha-lanti]

Excellent concept, poor execution. That's Pathfinder all over, I guess?

[Myrmex]

How on Earth do you plan on giving 20 gnoll kills to the one person in the party that might be able to -use- the feat?

Not just gnolls:

Requirement: Deliver the killing blow to 20 gnolls,
hyenas, dire hyenas, werehyenas, jackalweres, or minions of Lamashtu.

[Morty]

This is dumbtarded. But it's also an amazing coincidence, as lately I've been thinking about what I dislike in video games nowadays and that achievements are one of those things.
Anyway, some of those feats are too easy to get while others are too hard. History of Scars is weak considering what you have to do in order to get it, while Gifted Mesmerizer might not be too strong, but using a charm or compulsion on 25 different targets comes by itself for any enchantment-focused spellcaster.

[Crow]

After thinking about this for a while, I have decided that this would be a good idea as part of a campaign arc. Anything like this would be better though if the players didn't really know about them until they reached the achievment.

As a general game mechanic though, the idea is not so good. However, with a good DM, I can see this being a flavorful addition to the game. Besides, you can't really blame the game mechanics if the players decide to turn the game into an endless grind because they want a specific achievement. Maybe the problem is less about the mechanics, and more about certain types of players.

Of course I would hate to deal with the book-keeping related to some of these feats.

[LoopyZebra]

It's actually a pretty good idea to give players a mechanical bonus to reflect what they have done, but I agree that the implementation of these is wrong. The first problem is that they'd be a pain to track - the DM would have to take notes steadily for all of these. This is especially true if you take out the part about players telling the DM that they are working towards these, meaning the DM would have to track all of them at all times. It seems like the idea might be better if the DM handed out these at the end of a series of adventures to reflect what the players have been doing. For example, had they fought gnolls for a few sessions, give them the gnoll-killer achievement/bonus.