Feats Not Created Equal

[Buttercup]

Remove the following feats
==========================
Acrobatic, Agile, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Armor Proficiency (Medium), Athletic, Brew Potion, Combat Casting, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Rod, Craft Staff, Craft Wand, Craft Wondrous Item, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Diligent, Endurance, Eschew Materials (see comments below), Forge Ring, Great Cleave, Improved Counterspell (see comments below), Improved Feint, Investigator, Magical Aptitude, Mounted Archery, Negotiator, Nimble Fingers, Persuasive, Power Attack (see comments below), Run (see comments below), Scribe Scroll, Self-Sufficient, Snatch Arrows, Stealthy, Toughness, Weapon Finesse (see comments below)

Evidently I'm in a small minority that likes the +2 to two skills feats. I have a dex based fighter who took Athletic and will probably at some point also take Skill Focus (Tumble). Combine that with Dodge, Mobility and Spring attack, and it's an essential part of her fighting style. I can imagine reasons to take every other one of the skills enhancing feats too.

1. Any character may use DEX modifier instead of STR modifier with light weapons (including natural weapons), rapier, whip, or spiked chain. Removed WEAPON FINESSE.

I disagree. I think taking it as a feat simulates the character having learned to do this.

5. Remove ESCHEW MATERIALS. This feat is seldom useful. However, if you don't have spell components you may use a higher level spell slot or two spell slots of the same level to cast the spell (mechanic from Laden Spell in Arcana Unearthed).

Hmm. Well, I give it automatically to all Sorcerers, so I wouldn't call it useless. Still, it could become a class feature.

CRAFT ITEM:
Benefit - You can make any magic item that you meet the prerequisites for.
Reason - making magic items already has XP + GP cost, and is not unbalanced.

I have yet to have a player wish to make a magic item, so I don't have an opinion. Your idea seems sound, though.

FLEET OF FOOT:
Benefit - As per Arcana Unearthed, gain +10' movement speed.
This stacks with magic items, and the class feature of Barbarians and Monks. You may only take this feat once.
Reason - Run was weak.

Consider this yoinked.

SMASHING BLOW:
Benefit - Get +2 damage when wielding a weapon two-handed.
Reason - Power Attack mechanic is difficult to optimize. This gives two-handed weapon wielders a real advantage over those using a weapon single-handed.

Again, consider this yoinked.

ARMOR PROFICIENCY (HEAVY):
Prerequisite - Armor Proficiency Light.
Benefit - gives proficiency in both medium and heavy armors.
Reason - medium armor only gives +1 armor bonus to AC vs. light armor.

Interesting point. Most players wear either light or heavy armor, so perhaps this makes sense.

CLEAVE:
Benefit - If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop, you get an extra immediate melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5' step before this attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and same attack bonus. You can use this ability once per round + once per round per 5 BAB (1/round at BAB 0-5, 2/round at BAB 6-10, 3/round at BAB 11-15, and 4/round at BAB 16-20).
Reason - Great Cleave is seldom useful, so merged it with Cleave.

Yoink!

DEFLECT ARROWS:
Benefit - 1/round when you would normally be hit with a ranged weapon you may deflect it and you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flatfooted.
If you have at least one hand free and holding nothing, you can choose to catch the ranged weapon that you avoided. If you catch the weapon you can use it on your next action (e.g. if it is a thrown weapon you could throw it).
Reason - Snatch Arrows and Deflect Arrows are weak, so combined, and also made more generic so could be used with hands full.

Works for me. Yoink!

DIEHARD:
Benefit - Gain +3 HP. When reduced to -1 to -9 HP you automatically stabilize. When reduce to negative HP you may choose to act as disabled rather than dying. If you make a standard action you take 1 point of damage. If you take a move action you do not injure yourself further.
Reason - Combined Diehard and Toughness as they are weak feats.

I think every Wizard and Sorcerer would take this at first level. Therefore, it's probably too powerful. Now if it could not be taken unless the subject had a CON of 13+, or perhaps at higher than 1st level, I'd buy it.

DODGE:
Benefit - Get +1 dodge bonus to AC. (This applies to all opponents.)
Reason - Simplifies use in combat, still not as good as Weapon Focus, as defensive rather than offensive feat.

In fact, I've been contemplating this change. I think it's a pretty common house rule.

EXOTIC WEAPON PROFICIENCY:
Benefit - as per Arcana Unearthed weapon groups. Choose Agile Exotic Weapons or Heavy Exotic Weapons.

Love that Arcana Unearthed!

IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE:
Benefit - You are considered armed even when unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage. The damage for your unarmed strike increases: from d2 to d3 for Small, d3 to d4 for Medium, d4 to d6 to Large (still worse than 1st level Monk).
Reason - Improved Unarmed Strike was somewhat weak.

Yoink!

MARTIAL WEAPON PROFICIENCY:
Benefit - as per Arcana Unearthed, you gain proficiency in all martial weapons.

ditto above.

MOBILITY:
Benefit - You get +4 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity when moving out of or within a threatened area. You also get +2 to Tumble checks to avoid attacks of opportunity.
Reason - Mobility otherwise provides no benefit to a lightly armored character with high Tumble, as Tumble can entirely negate the attacks of opportunity.

I love this! Now if only I could convince my DM to use it this way. (Wanders off to talk to Steve Creech....)

MOUNTED COMBAT:
Benefit - Halve the penalty for using a range weapon while mounted. 1/round if mount hit in combat, you may attempt Ride check to negate the hit, which succeeds if your Ride check is greater than the opponent's attack roll.
Reason - Mounted Archery and Mounted Combat are weak feats.

And here I thought it was just in my games that nobody bothered with these. Still, I can't think of many uses for mounted combat in the sort of games I run, so I don't much care. Sounds good though.

QUICK DRAW:
Benefit - You can draw a weapon as a free action, or a hidden weapon as a move action. You may throw weapons at your full normal rate of attacks. You may reload a hand or light crossbow as a free action, and you may reload a heavy crossbow as a move action. With a light or hand crossbow you may fire that weapon as many times in a full attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow.
Reason - Rapid Reload is weak.

Yoink!

SKILL FOCUS:
Benefit - Get 4 points to apply as an untyped bonus to any of your skills. You may spend at most 4 such points on a single skill, and you may take this feat multiple times. The total of your skill ranks plus this untyped bonus may exceed the maximum skill rank, but when exceeding maximum skill ranks the untyped bonus is halved (e.g. at most +2 if you have maximum rank in the skill).

+4 yes, penalty for exceeding maximum rank, no. Some people really *are* remarkably skilled. And if a PC wants to spend a feat on something like this, I don't think it's appropriate to screw 'em over for it. All hail roleplayers!

SPELL MASTERY:
Benefit - Choose 4 spells that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare the spells without other aids (such as a spellbook or holy symbol). You cast these spells at +1 caster level.
Reason - Spell Mastery was weak.

Yoink!

 

[drnuncheon]

MOBILITY:
Benefit - You get +4 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity when moving out of or within a threatened area. You also get +2 to Tumble checks to avoid attacks of opportunity.
Reason - Mobility otherwise provides no benefit to a lightly armored character with high Tumble, as Tumble can entirely negate the attacks of opportunity.

Even then, this feat becomes useless once you get enough tumble to ignore AoOs even on a '1' - your addition just makes that happen two levels earlier.

Perhaps a better solution is to use one of the Tumble variants that makes it an opposed roll vs. the opponent's attack roll. This doesn't necessitate any change to Mobility, since people will be more than happy to have that +4AC on the times when they fail...

J

 

[Tessarael]

Reducing the number of feats ...

Quote Buttercup, "Evidently I'm in a small minority that likes the +2 to two skills feats. [..] +4 yes, penalty for exceeding maximum rank, no. Some people really *are* remarkably skilled."

My aim was to remove the two skill affinity and Skill Focus feats and combine them into a single feat. I do agree that the reduction in bonus when exceeding maximum rank is mechanically unwieldy. That leaves us with this fix:

SKILL FOCUS:
Benefit - Get 4 points to apply as an untyped bonus to any of your skills. You may spend at most 4 such points on a single skill, and you may take this feat multiple times.

[Removing Weapon Finesse]
Quote Buttercup, "I disagree. I think taking it as a feat simulates the character having learned to do this."

I have a couple of issues with Weapon Finesse. Firstly, it has a BAB +1 requirement. Secondly, this results in many animals getting it as a bonus racial feat, because they can't otherwise take it.

Those problems aside, the question is: is a DEX-based fighter, who doesn't have to pay a feat for Weapon Finesse, better than a STR-based fighter? I think the answer is no. STR is better, because it increases damage, vs. DEX which increases AC - i.e. offense is better than defense usually. If you believe that a DEX-based fighter may be too good, then making them pay a feat is reasonable.

[Diehard: +3 HP and stabilize on -1 to -9 HP or keep operating]
Quote Buttercup, "I think every Wizard and Sorcerer would take this at first level. Therefore, it's probably too powerful. Now if it could not be taken unless the subject had a CON of 13+, or perhaps at higher than 1st level, I'd buy it."

It certainly is a feat worth taking if one has low CON. The question is whether it is better than other feats that one might take at 1st level. Keep in mind that it is a defensive feat, so it is somewhat limited in power. Compare it to Weapon Focus or Spell Focus, which increase offensive ability.

[Mobility: +4 AC, +2 to Tumble checks to avoid attacks of opportunity]
Quote drnuncheon, "Even then, this feat becomes useless once you get enough tumble to ignore AoOs even on a '1' - your addition just makes that happen two levels earlier. Perhaps a better solution is to use one of the Tumble variants that makes it an opposed roll vs. the opponent's attack roll. This doesn't necessitate any change to Mobility, since people will be more than happy to have that +4AC on the times when they fail..."

I have a high level Rogue-type character, with a Tumble score of 19 and skill mastery in Tumble. So DC 29 without any problems. The DC to tumble past someone is 15, but 25 if you want to do it at full speed. Thus it is very easy with terrain penalties or multiple opponents to not be able to do a full speed tumble ... i.e. increasing Tumble hasn't become useless yet, despite a high score.

I do have issues with skills affecting combat. One option would be to entirely remove Tumble affecting combat (combine the remaining skill ability with Balance), but to make Mobility a bonus feat for Rogue at an appropriate level - say at 6th level. I would also be tempted to increase the AC bonus on Mobility to +6.

In general, I agree with you. Mobility is a waste of a feat, if one can use Tumble. By the same token, if you use Tumble opposed by attack roll, then at high levels Tumble will be useless: high CR opponents have even higher attack bonus, as HD, BAB and STR all tend to scale faster than CR. It also complicates the mechanics, which is a good thing to avoid.

Quote Greylock,"[..] several of the feats you mention really aren't weak. The char I'm playing right now has, from your above list, Armor Proficiency Heavy (as yet unused), Dodge, Mobility, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, and Mounted Combat, among others."

Heavy Armor Proficiency is not weak. It gives you another +3 AC over Medium Armor Proficiency, if you have DEX 12 or lower.

Dodge is not that weak either, but it is a pain to remember the +1 AC bonus applies to only one opponent. It is much easier to factor it into your AC once, rather than for separate opponents. I do think that making it apply to all opponents increases its effectiveness, which helps bring it closer to par vs. Weapon Focus.

Mobility is okay, if you wear heavy armor and have low DEX. Otherwise, you should put some ranks into Tumble, and avoid wasting a feat. At high levels, this is even worthwhile if those ranks are cross-class - it's not like a Fighter has good skills to throw ranks at. This is a good reason for making Mobility a bit more useful for those who use Tumble, rather than just making it a crappy feat for a DEX-based combatant on the feat chain to Spring Attack.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency - again, it's okay, gives +1 damage ideally (e.g. Bastardsword vs. Longsword). The AU rules for heavy and light exotic weapons adds versatility, without making it otherwise more powerful. I think versatility is a good thing for flavor, especially with randomly generated treasure, which is why I would go with the AU rule.

Mounted Combat ... I've never seen a character make good use of these feats, and Sean Reynolds considers them weak, so I thought it was worth combining them. Sean's feat points are here (note I don't agree with all of his pricings, but they're a good point to start from when comparing the value of feats):
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html

 

[Solirion]

There are versions of the CLT that don't require either independence or identically distributed RVs. IIRC the most important requirement is that the 2nd moment is finite. If you have that, then with some additional, very broadly applicable assumptions, the result follows.

In any case, what Impeesa said has nothing to do with the CLT. Conceptually speaking, you can think of feats as potentially having a very wide range of power. The more feats you observe, the more likely you are to see some that are extremely low or high-powered, just due to random chance. This has nothing to do with mathematicalese, and everything to do with common sense.

On that I fully agree. Maybe I misread Impeesa's post, but it appeared to me that he tried to justify the simple observation of different power levels by applying probability theory. So, it was more the way the conclusion was presented than the validity of the conclusion itself that sparked my comment.

 

[Impeesa]

On that I fully agree. Maybe I misread Impeesa's post, but it appeared to me that he tried to justify the simple observation of different power levels by applying probability theory. So, it was more the way the conclusion was presented than the validity of the conclusion itself that sparked my comment.

I've been told I'm fairly good at explaining ideas, but I'm beginning to suspect that if this is true at all, it doesn't extend to articulating an argument.

--Impeesa--

 

[Greylock]

Dodge is not that weak either, but it is a pain to remember the +1 AC bonus applies to only one opponent. It is much easier to factor it into your AC once, rather than for separate opponents. I do think that making it apply to all opponents increases its effectiveness, which helps bring it closer to par vs. Weapon Focus.

Mobility is okay, if you wear heavy armor and have low DEX. Otherwise, you should put some ranks into Tumble, and avoid wasting a feat. At high levels, this is even worthwhile if those ranks are cross-class - it's not like a Fighter has good skills to throw ranks at. This is a good reason for making Mobility a bit more useful for those who use Tumble, rather than just making it a crappy feat for a DEX-based combatant on the feat chain to Spring Attack.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency - again, it's okay, gives +1 damage ideally (e.g. Bastardsword vs. Longsword). The AU rules for heavy and light exotic weapons adds versatility, without making it otherwise more powerful. I think versatility is a good thing for flavor, especially with randomly generated treasure, which is why I would go with the AU rule.

Mounted Combat ... I've never seen a character make good use of these feats, and Sean Reynolds considers them weak, so I thought it was worth combining them. Sean's feat points are here (note I don't agree with all of his pricings, but they're a good point to start from when comparing the value of feats):http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html

Points I hear and understand.

A remark I made last session which greatly pleased my DM was "My guy's a DEX fighter with his high stat in STR." He loved that. But it's true. I've completely imagined him as a light fighter, but his STR is high. I keep him in light armor, and focus on a few DEX skills. But he's not an idiot, and he uses his mighty arms to swing a bastard sword. I'm quite happ with how he's turned out.

And he is a Mounted Fighter in every way. So guess where his paltry lot in skill points goes. Go ahead, guess . He doesn't have a lot left over for cross class skills, and if he did, I'd put them in another rarely used area, Knowledge skills. CC, but in character. The guy is an explorer at heart.

 

[Fedifensor]

This isn't a new issue - people have foreseen it from the moment D&D 3.0 was launched.

Remember all the discussion on Track as a feat instead of a skill? That was the first step to the feat bloat we're currently experiencing. Eberron made it even worse - now you need a feat to investigate a scene of a crime, or research information in libraries.

At this rate, I expect D&D 4.0 to give out character feats every other level, if not more.

 

[billd91]

Well, of course there were going to be a lot of additional things accreting onto the system, whether prestige classes (or alternative base classes), feats, spells, whatever.
But I have to say that I don't mind it so much. Makes the game more interesting. I actually favor the use of relatively weak and oddball feats as prerequisites for prestige classes. I consider them weeders. If you aren't willing to spend the feat, then you must not be sufficiently commited to joining that prestige class. I don't much like the concept of prestige classes as just paths of increased specialization. Where's the 'prestige' in that? I want them to be things worth achieving and so I tend to allow them to be, level to level, a bit more laden with perks than regular base class levels. There should be a trade off for restricting the character's choices.

I will agree that most of the +2 to 2 skills feats can go. They can simply be consolidated under one feat called Talented and allow the player to choose the 2 skills (with the requirement that there be some underlying justifying theme between the choices).

 

[ares71]

I do think Track should certaintly be a skill, not a feat. Class skill for Ranger/Barbarian/Druid, Cross-Class for anyone else. I'd add a skill bonus to Ranger class that he can add his ranger level (besides taking ranks) to his Track check.

Speaking of Rangers, I think the "virtual feats" of combat style (that work exactly like the actual feats unless the ranger wears heavy armor is a tad silly). Why not just give the Ranger the actual feats. If he spends another feat on heavy armor prof., he wouldn't suddenly "forget" how to fight. I can only speculate this is more of a flavor thing in making the Ranger a lightly armored woodland guy. I think the 3.5 revision addressed the front-loading of the ranger and don't see the need to restrict the feats to virtual instead of actual.

 

[Tessarael]

I actually favor the use of relatively weak and oddball feats as prerequisites for prestige classes. I consider them weeders. If you aren't willing to spend the feat, then you must not be sufficiently commited to joining that prestige class.

Let me give you a stupid example from 3.0E D&D days with Song and Silence. Skill Focus (Bluff) gave +2 bonus to Bluff, and was a prerequisite for Spymaster. However, Song and Silence also had the feat Persuasive, which gives +2 to Bluff and Intimidate. Skill Focus (Bluff) is not a more specialized feat than Persuasive, it is plain worse. Spymaster has that prerequisite to make Spymaster a bit weaker prestige class. This is poor mechanic design in my opinion.

Prestige classes serve two primary purposes: (a) plugging mechanic holes in multi-classing (e.g. Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster), (b) representing specialization, as per organizations (e.g. Assassin, Red Wizard).

It makes sense that a character should fill certain mech prerequisites for (a), but there is no reason for these mech prerequisites to be weak (and in general, the 3.5E D&D flavor of these filler prestige classes do not have weak prerequisites, other than enforcing multi-classing before taking the prestige class).

For (b), the prerequisites really should be storyline and flavor. However, storyline should never be used to balance power, as some campaigns will ignore storyline. i.e. I think prestige classes shouldn't be balanced with storyline prerequisites.

If you want the Underwater Mages Guild in your world to have Skill Focus (Underwater Basket Weaving) that's fine. However, I don't think that should be a default balancing method when publishing prestige classes. As a DM, I should be able to waive or change prerequisites, without worrying that the class may be overpowered as a result - i.e. I would like published materials to provide me with balanced prestige classes.

In general, 3E lacks any mechanical way of balancing prestige classes. There is no method for directly pricing class features, figuring out if a class is front-loaded, or whether it gains too much over 10 levels. I would like to see a more modular 4E, where many abilities (spell-like or not) are priced out vs. character level that they can be gained (e.g. getting Magic Missile 1/day at 1st character level is much more useful than getting it at 10th character level), giving a better system for building and balancing prestige classes.