3.5e - Has the Feats system been damaged?

[nikolai]

From what I've heard 3.5e has made some real improvements on parts of 3e where there were balance problems - and I've no complaints with the intent behind it. However, I do think there may be a couple of areas where things that worked perfectly fine before that might have been subjected to pointless tinkering with and damaged; in particular I'm concerned about the feats chapter.

There are a whole range of feats which worked fine which have been damaged (Spell Focus). A new selection of Uber-feats (Improved Specialisation, Weapon Focus, Feint & Precise Shot) which have a doubtful reason for existance. Unneeded powerups to feats which were perfectly okay starting points for feat chains (Dodge & Power Attack). +2/+2 feats have been canonised where previously they were always optional/region specific. Some other changes may also be questionable (Two Weapon Fighting), but it's too early to tell without looking at the entire revised rules set as a whole. I'm sure there are other examples that I've missed (and it'd be nice if someone better informed than me could collate them).

I'm also not suggesting the chapter had to stay the same as 3e. It could be improved simply by bringing in selections of balanced and playtested feats taken from the supplements, with some editing to make them internally consistent with the core rules. They have done this to some extent - and we don't know the alterations that have been made to those feats - but it's hard to make the case that the selection in there (particularly Manyshot/Eschew Materials/Augment Summoning/Improved Grapple & Shield Bash and Overrun) were the right ones to go for. I don't think (in the form I know them) they're sensible additions to make to the feat roster or the highlights of feat ideas we've seen since 3e.

I have real difficulty thinking this is all an improvement as far as feats are concerned, this may be conservatism on my part; but there again I've never had any complaints about the feat chapter - or felt that other people had this feeling - that mandated such a revision of and ill-conceived addition to the material that was there.

Thoughts?

nikolai.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

There are a whole range of feats which worked fine which have been damaged (Spell Focus).

This is a matter of opinion. IMO a wizard should take more than one spell to kill an opponent, otherwise they aren't spending resources. Hence the nerf.

A new selection of Uber-feats (Improved Specialisation, Weapon Focus, Feint & Precise Shot) which have a doubtful reason for existance.

Any or all might have been changed.

Unneeded powerups to feats which were perfectly okay starting points for feat chains (Dodge & Power Attack).

I haven't seen any confirmation that Dodge has changed.

There's an explanation for Power Attack, although not everyone might like it. IMO it's balanced for players, but I'm not sure I want to face a storm giant with a two-handed morningstar and Power Attack.

+2/+2 feats have been canonised where previously they were always optional/region specific.

Skill Focus was always intended to give a +3 bonus. Most of these +2/+2 feats are quite weak, anyway. +2 to Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft is not as impressive as boosting your save DCs, for instance.

Some other changes may also be questionable (Two Weapon Fighting), but it's too early to tell without looking at the entire revised rules set as a whole. I'm sure there are other examples that I've missed (and it'd be nice if someone better informed than me could collate them).

Heh. I am worried about TWF rogues. I hope TWF has a +2 BAB requirement, or something like that.

I'm also not suggesting the chapter had to stay the same as 3e. It could be improved simply by bringing in selections of balanced and playtested feats taken from the supplements, with some editing to make them internally consistent with the core rules. They have done this to some extent - and we don't know the alterations that have been made to those feats - but it's hard to make the case that the selection in there (particularly Manyshot/Eschew Materials/Augment Summoning/Improved Grapple & Shield Bash and Overrun) were the right ones to go for.

Some of us have never used these feats. What's wrong with them?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I have mostly positive opinions of the new feats, though I am entirely displeased with the lack of really high BAB requirement feats. I wanted a nice section of 16-20 BAB requirement feats, that were simply bad assed.

But greater weapon focus/spec i'm happy with, escew materials I'm extremely pleased with especially that its now a general feat.(now only if sorcerers gain it for free at 1st level). Some of the other new ones I'll have to rad to see since I know nothing about them. About the only one I might know about is augment summon, and hey its um flavorful if your like a summoner, but it firmly belongs in club wuss, so unless it has a major rewrite its not a worry.

Only negative thing I can think of off hand is spell focus, a +1 to a DC is a pathetic waste of a feat. Hell I wasn't motivated to take it at +2, mow at +1 I'm motivated to never take it unless I'm intentionally playing my charater as a moron. And there reason wow um spell focus is fine but greater focus was too much, and we had to like have greater focus in so the supplements with greater focus didn't unbalance things, oh yeah and despite not giving a crap up backwards compatability in any other section of the game like here it maters. So we wussified both of them. Yeah brilliant frickin plan, how about put spell focus in and add a freakin note on a side bar, "after further playtesting we determined that greater focus was unbalnced so we decided not to add it to the PH,a and don't intend to add it to future supplements, and for the purpose of conversion remove the feat and replace the feat on your character with another one."

 

[Numion]

Only negative thing I can think of off hand is spell focus, a +1 to a DC is a pathetic waste of a feat.

I think it is just a case of players not wanting to give up any power they've gained. In only 5% of spells cast is there a difference between the old and new Spell Focuses. Hardly worth the debates its caused.

This same bitching would occur if Weapon Focus had been +2 and was now made to +1.

I'm glad that WotC mostly had the nerve to steer away from power inflation in this revision. The splatbooks weren't a good sign of things to come, since they were rampant with small powerups - good that WotC cut back a little.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

How does that explain the people like me who never took it so aren't losing anyting and yet still say it sucks. You're not a fighter with a gazillion feats where you can take some sub par feats like focus to get the meat of specializaiton.

Virtually every other wizard feat in the game was a better choice IMO, because they actually did something. +2 to my dcs of one school or learn how to empower spells, or craft arms and armor etc. It just wasn't that good before, at +1 its a waste of space.

 

[Ranger REG]

Forgive me, but does the Spell Focus work on one spell you must, or any spell you can cast? If it's the former, can you take the feat multiple times, selecting a different spell?

If you ask me, the Spell's base DC formula needed improvement. I didn't like the following:

DC = 10 + Spell Level + Key Ability Modifier.

I much prefer to add the Caster's Level, rather than the level of the spell, but that is just me. I dubbed it as "Base Magic Bonus."

Fighters got BAB equal to their own level for physical combat, why not Wizards (for magical combat)?

Sorry for rambling...

 

[I'm A Banana]

The +2/+2 feats rub me the wrong way, with Skill Focus only being +3.

I mean, if a +2/+2 feat existed for, say, Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana), why take Skill Focus for either of them? A +1? To a skill? Talk about a pointless bonus....

I think skill focus IMC gives a +4 bonus...then, at least, even if there is a +2/+2 feat for it, it will still be considered...

 

[Benben]

A new selection of Uber-feats (Improved Specialisation, Weapon Focus, Feint & Precise Shot) which have a doubtful reason for existance.

I disagree. Giving fighters more options at the higher levels than the power attack and expertise chains is a good thing. Any feat that is balanced, and allows each fighter to be different has a reason for existance.

+2/+2 feats have been canonised where previously they were always optional/region specific.

I believe you're forgetting Alertness (+2 Spot & Listen) which really started the whole trend.

I don't think (in the form I know them) they're sensible additions to make to the feat roster or the highlights of feat ideas we've seen since 3e.

What would you suggest as the best feats to be brought forth from suppliments into the 3.5 core?

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't know. Can you stack bonuses from two feats if they're unnamed? Like say take Alertness feat for +2 to Spot and Listen and then take Skill Focus (Spot) for an additional +3?

IMHO, the many +2/+2 feats are getting way out of hand. It devalues the Skill Focus feat (if they can't stack) to the point of uselessness.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm glad that WotC mostly had the nerve to steer away from power inflation in this revision. The splatbooks weren't a good sign of things to come, since they were rampant with small powerups - good that WotC cut back a little.

You might want to rethink that thought.

Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus appear to have been reduced, but many things, like Power Attack, Dodge and specialist Evokers, Conjurors, and Transmuters in general have been powered up. Druids and Rangers have been beefed up.

WotC hasn't avoided powerups, they are just making powerups that are different from the ones that were present before.