D&D 3E/3.5 3rd Edition Revisited - Better play with the power of hindsight?

[Yora]

Combat feats are to fighters are spells are to spellcasters and skills are to rogues (and maybe bards and rangers).
They are the classes main class features where you have freedom to put together your own preferred selection.

The feats that fighters can pick as their bonus feats seem to be designed to be Fighter Feats, or rather Fighter Abilities. But unlike Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus, it was not considered necessary to make them exclusive to only fighters. Other character can learn these feats if they want to. But they don't seem to be designed under the assumption that they would be attractive choices to non-fighters.

 

[James Gasik]

Ok, let's take a look at some Feats that are considered "bad". I'll start with Toughness.

So if you're a 1st level Wizard, 3 hit points represents a lot of staying power. Even if you're a 1st level Fighter, having 13+ hit points sure sounds better than 10. And that's 100% true.

But by the time your next Feat comes up, you realize that 3 hit points is a drop in the bucket, and it's unlikely that an attack that takes you to 0 will fail to do so by 1-3 points of damage. So the case of Toughness being bad comes down to the fact that it's a bad investment if you survive to higher levels.

There's an argument to be made that Toughness helps you survive, but other Feats may do a better job of this.

Next on our list is Mobility. I'm skipping over Dodge because, while +1 to AC* isn't exciting, if you already have a lot of AC, it's going to have an effect. If you have a lower AC, however, it's less thrilling, because enemies get really big attack bonuses, to the point that the chances of this actually helping may not be very common.

*because this is a Dodge bonus, it can be lost any time you would lose your Dexterity bonus, which is a not-infrequent thing to have happen. But on the plus side, it does add to touch AC, so there's that.

Mobility offers a large bonus to AC for doing something reckless- provoking an opportunity attack for moving. In most combats, you're not going to do this anyways, and some classes have access to Tumble, offering a way to avoid taking these hits in the first place. Most of the time, players don't provoke because it's just giving enemies a free attack. So you're getting a boost to AC for doing something you likely would only do in desperation, and there's always the chance, however small, that it won't do anything. Thus not only making it super situational, but the kind of Feat that, if you attempt an AoO thinking "hey, I got Mobility", and you get burned by being hit anyways, you're going to be less inclined to rely on it in the future. But it's even when you realize that AoO's can also be combat maneuvers, which can already ignore large parts of your AC (say, for example, Trip, which is a melee touch attack to initiate). Sure, you don't lose the +4 AC, but as the game goes on, that +4 is going to matter a lot less than the Armor and Natural Armor bonuses to AC characters accrue.

Combat Expertise gives you an alternate system for doing something everyone can do, that is, attack defensively. Now, -1 to hit for +1 AC is a better rate than -4 for +2 AC, granted, but the times and places you would want to lower your offense to increase your defense aren't super common. Worse is that you are limited to your BAB to a maximum of 5 (and, of course, characters with 5 ranks of Tumble get an additional +1 for fighting defensively only, which doesn't apply to the use of CE).

Basically this really only good for full BAB classes...but by level 6, you have an extra attack that really doesn't need any penalties to hit. You can stack fighting defensively with Combat Expertise, thus allowing you to replicate full defense and still have a chance to get an attack off (and still be able to make AoO's), but again, this is a very specialized Feat that isn't going to be used with regularity, especially in combats where you're not sure what the AC of opponents is.

And even if you can afford to give up a few points of attack, you can get better returns out of Power Attack.

Spring Attack does exactly what it says it does, it lets you split your move and make a single attack. You have to move at least 5' first, and you can't wear heavy armor, but you are protected from AoO's from the creature you attack. However, unless you have a lot of speed, most foes can easily charge back up to you and attack again. If your enemy has a lot of attacks, however, as long as they don't have reach, this might seem like a great idea...but not for a Fighter.

So in a game I had a Fighter with Spring Attack. Rather than make multiple attacks to deal more damage to foes, they would run in, make a single hit, and run away. This meant that monsters would live longer, for one, but also that the other melee characters would take more hits, and the Spring Attacker would be attacked less often.

Encounter design was therefore forcing these characters to be at more risk from combat than Mr. Spring Attack, taking heavier damage, being more prone to dropping to 0, and requiring more healing, simply because a character with a fairly chunky hit point pool was not taking their fair share of attacks, and not dealing as much damage as they could to enemies. It quickly turned into a fairly miserable experience.

Add to this the fact that Spring Attack only gives you AoO immunity from one foe, the one you attack, and you have to move before you make that attack- I didn't rule this way myself, but I played at a table where the DM rules that this meant that first 5' of movement did provoke, making this maneuver far riskier than it needed to be, especially when dealing with foes that had greater natural reach.

Finally, I'll end with Point-Blank Shot. A +1 to hit and damage is really nice for a Feat, especially if used with things that don't normally get damage bonuses. But the requirement of being within 30' of the target can negate the primary advantage of being a ranged character- ie, attacking from range so enemies can't easily get to you.

Worse still, the main reason anyone would take this Feat is that it's the keystone of far better ranged Feats...including the necessary one, Precise Shot. Because the instances where Precise Shot come up are super common, and a -4 on attack rolls is a pretty hefty penalty to deal with.

 

[Voadam]

Next on our list is Mobility. I'm skipping over Dodge because, while +1 to AC* isn't exciting, if you already have a lot of AC, it's going to have an effect. If you have a lower AC, however, it's less thrilling, because enemies get really big attack bonuses, to the point that the chances of this actually helping may not be very common.

Dodge bonuses also have the benefit of stacking with other dodge bonuses which almost nothing else can do (stack instead of overlap with same bonuses).

The big downside for me of the dodge feat is the each round designate one opponent to apply the dodge bonus to, so it is very fiddly and a bit of a speedbump every round of combat, only applies to one designated opponent, and for only for a 1 in 20 chance of turning a hit from that opponent into a miss. I quickly house ruled this to be a flat +1 dodge bonus instead.

Mobility offers a large bonus to AC for doing something reckless- provoking an opportunity attack for moving. In most combats, you're not going to do this anyways, and some classes have access to Tumble, offering a way to avoid taking these hits in the first place. Most of the time, players don't provoke because it's just giving enemies a free attack. So you're getting a boost to AC for doing something you likely would only do in desperation, and there's always the chance, however small, that it won't do anything. Thus not only making it super situational, but the kind of Feat that, if you attempt an AoO thinking "hey, I got Mobility", and you get burned by being hit anyways, you're going to be less inclined to rely on it in the future. But it's even when you realize that AoO's can also be combat maneuvers, which can already ignore large parts of your AC (say, for example, Trip, which is a melee touch attack to initiate). Sure, you don't lose the +4 AC, but as the game goes on, that +4 is going to matter a lot less than the Armor and Natural Armor bonuses to AC characters accrue.

Given reach melee fighters often had to suck up an AoO to close with large opponents, so it was an OK benefit for those situations. On the downside, it becomes an almost entirely wasted benefit once you get spring attack.

For me I think 3e combat feats would be a bit better if there were more powerful feats that fighters and other warriors could pick up with just BAB prerequisites so that they could do equivalents to gaining higher level spells without the huge build requirements of most combat feat chains. There is a lot of combat feat dual build in 3e, either have a basic feat, which incentivizes picking the best early and your later ones being secondary and third tier choices (which is diminishing returns for higher level characters), or specific feat chains which lock you hard into specific builds that take a while to execute. A wizard can just take chain lightning as a 6th level spell, a fighter has to work and build their character and advancement around getting whirlwind attack for abilities that are generally not as strong as spells for comparable level casters.

With stronger feats being available for BAB requirements fighters would not have to design themselves to be such one trick themed ponies (spiked chain improved trip whirlwind attack) with everything mapped out from level one.

 

[James Gasik]

Dodge bonuses also have the benefit of stacking with other dodge bonuses which almost nothing else can do (stack instead of overlap with same bonuses).

The big downside for me of the dodge feat is the each round designate one opponent to apply the dodge bonus to, so it is very fiddly and a bit of a speedbump every round of combat, only applies to one designated opponent, and for only for a 1 in 20 chance of turning a hit from that opponent into a miss. I quickly house ruled this to be a flat +1 dodge bonus instead.


Given reach melee fighters often had to suck up an AoO to close with large opponents, so it was an OK benefit for those situations. On the downside, it becomes an almost entirely wasted benefit once you get spring attack.

For me I think 3e combat feats would be a bit better if there were more powerful feats that fighters and other warriors could pick up with just BAB prerequisites so that they could do equivalents to gaining higher level spells without the huge build requirements of most combat feat chains. There is a lot of combat feat dual build in 3e, either have a basic feat, which incentivizes picking the best early and your later ones being secondary and third tier choices (which is diminishing returns for higher level characters), or specific feat chains which lock you hard into specific builds that take a while to execute. A wizard can just take chain lightning as a 6th level spell, a fighter has to work and build their character and advancement around getting whirlwind attack for abilities that are generally not as strong as spells for comparable level casters.

With stronger feats being available for BAB requirements fighters would not have to design themselves to be such one trick themed ponies (spiked chain improved trip whirlwind attack) with everything mapped out from level one.

I would have given Fighters less Feats, but instead "wild card" Feats. That is, a Feat that you have to qualify for, but that you can change out each day. So if you feel the need to have Improved Grapple one day, or Improved Trip the next.

I realize that some people would balk at that suggestion "how did you forget how to grapple good?" of course. Perhaps an equally good idea would be to give them fewer Feats, but let them cheat the prerequisites how the Ranger and Monk can, but with more flexibility in choices.

Again, I think the sheer number of bonus Combat Feats really put a spanner in how Combat Feats were designed.

As to Dodge, I'm too used to Pathfinder 1e, so I forgot the "choose a target each round to Dodge". Forget anything I said, Dodge is trash tier in 3e.

 

[Yora]

One thing I only noticed last week is that Combat Expertise does not replace defensive fighting, but you can do both and they stack. The PHB mentions it explicitly, but the SRD does not include that sentence. And it's not an errata change.

To me, this feels like an action you would take when you want to block a door, and don't mind that you are blocking your allies access to enemies on the other side too. It lets you buy time on one front, while the rest of the party is clearing up another front.

Or it might be useful in situations where you're getting close to the end of your hit points, but retreating behind your allies to let them shield you from further attacks is a bad option. (Though then again, if the enemy you're fighting then decides to walk over to your squishy wizard friend and attack him, your attack of opportunity against him probably isn't going to do anything.)

Defensive fighting and Combat Expertise seem like they would be more relevant if you make more situations happen where enemies are trying to come into the room through multiple narrow doorways. It still probably wouldn't motivate a player two take the feat who wasn't already planning on it, but defensive fighting might actually become an option to consider.

 

[James Gasik]

One thing I only noticed last week is that Combat Expertise does not replace defensive fighting, but you can do both and they stack. The PHB mentions it explicitly, but the SRD does not include that sentence. And it's not an errata change.

To me, this feels like an action you would take when you want to block a door, and don't mind that you are blocking your allies access to enemies on the other side too. It lets you buy time on one front, while the rest of the party is clearing up another front.

Or it might be useful in situations where you're getting close to the end of your hit points, but retreating behind your allies to let them shield you from further attacks is a bad option. (Though then again, if the enemy you're fighting then decides to walk over to your squishy wizard friend and attack him, your attack of opportunity against him probably isn't going to do anything.)

Defensive fighting and Combat Expertise seem like they would be more relevant if you make more situations happen where enemies are trying to come into the room through multiple narrow doorways. It still probably wouldn't motivate a player two take the feat who wasn't already planning on it, but defensive fighting might actually become an option to consider.

Well I look at it this way. By level 5, you could take a -9 to hit for +7 AC, which is superior to all-out defense's +4 AC by a good ways. But as you're very unlikely to hit the target, at this point, it might be better to make grapple and trip attempts as that opportunity attack isn't that dangerous and try to pull you out of the door, lol.

The +7 does help the touch AC, but again, without fear of reprisal, why not? Oh and Disarm would be really easy at this point, as it's an opposed attack roll. Not every foe will have the brains to try this, I'll grant, but if they do, it's a tactic that can be overcome and won't necessarily buy you much time.

Plus there are a lot of ways to boost attack accuracy which become less of a hassle when someone defangs themselves sufficiently- aid another or charge for example.

Again, it's not that Combat Expertise does nothing. It's that the "golden situation" where it's good is vanishingly rare, and there are better tactics one could use.

Or as my DM told a Sorcerer hiding behind 3.0 Shield (the one with +7 AC), "AC isn't everything".

 

[Orius]

Toughness I already know about, Monte Cook pointed that one out in his "Ivory Tower Game Design" essay. It was largely intended for low level characters, particularly wizards in one-shot games where you're not thinking long-term. I'd probably change Toughness to +1 hp/level though because I'm not running one-shots and thus the feat ends up being a waste.

Dodge I was already considering changing to the PF version more or less anyway. +1 AC to a designated foe for each round is clunky and unhelpful, while a flat +1 is better. And Dodge bonuses are supposed to be moderately rare anyway probably because they stack with each other. IIRC, there were no core spells or magic items that granted dodge bonuses, and this was deliberate, and I wouldn't allow any such magic in my game either.

The other feats seem to be more situational in nature and again this should be okay for the fighter, being trained to fight in different situations. One of the issues here seems to be that the conventional wisdom is to have the fighter stay put and try to lock down enemies rather than move around a lot, but the Dex oriented combat feats seems to involve a lot of moving around. OTOH, that might not necessarily be bad a for something like a fighter/rogue who's moving around to get sneak attacks while another fighter or other tank type is keeping an opponent in place.

Another issue is how multiple attacks in 3e have the attack bonus go down with each attack and I'm thinking of dropping that for at least character that have a full BAB bonus. That also does the fighter no favors at all.

I've even been considering restricting the fighter's bonus feats to classes that get the full BAB bonus (and changing the monk to full BAB which it probably needs) though that might mess things up in other places. For example Divine Might requires Power Attack, so that screws things up for clerics. But dumping feat taxes could be the solution here anyway.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Pathfinder 1E made many of the suggested edits to deal with design flaws.

 

[Alzrius]

Another issue is how multiple attacks in 3e have the attack bonus go down with each attack and I'm thinking of dropping that for at least character that have a full BAB bonus. That also does the fighter no favors at all.

I'm trying to remember where I read this (Trailblazer, I think?), but one alternative is to replace the iterative attack bonus with the following:

BAB +1 through +5: a full attack action gives you one attack at your full BAB.
BAB +6 through +10: a full attack action gives you two attacks at -2/-2 to your full BAB.
BAB +11 through +15: a full attack action gives you two attacks at -1/-1 to your full BAB.
BAB +16 through +20: a full attack action gives you two attacks at your full BAB.

Given how, using the normal iterative attack rules, the third and fourth attack are at -10 and -15, they're really only good for enemies where you have almost no chance to miss them, or when their AC is so high you're just trying to roll a 20. The method listed above (as I recall the book where I read this saying) results in fighters and other full-BAB martials actually hitting more often, despite having fewer total attacks.

 

[James Gasik]

Toughness I already know about, Monte Cook pointed that one out in his "Ivory Tower Game Design" essay. It was largely intended for low level characters, particularly wizards in one-shot games where you're not thinking long-term. I'd probably change Toughness to +1 hp/level though because I'm not running one-shots and thus the feat ends up being a waste.

Dodge I was already considering changing to the PF version more or less anyway. +1 AC to a designated foe for each round is clunky and unhelpful, while a flat +1 is better. And Dodge bonuses are supposed to be moderately rare anyway probably because they stack with each other. IIRC, there were no core spells or magic items that granted dodge bonuses, and this was deliberate, and I wouldn't allow any such magic in my game either.

The other feats seem to be more situational in nature and again this should be okay for the fighter, being trained to fight in different situations. One of the issues here seems to be that the conventional wisdom is to have the fighter stay put and try to lock down enemies rather than move around a lot, but the Dex oriented combat feats seems to involve a lot of moving around. OTOH, that might not necessarily be bad a for something like a fighter/rogue who's moving around to get sneak attacks while another fighter or other tank type is keeping an opponent in place.

Another issue is how multiple attacks in 3e have the attack bonus go down with each attack and I'm thinking of dropping that for at least character that have a full BAB bonus. That also does the fighter no favors at all.

I've even been considering restricting the fighter's bonus feats to classes that get the full BAB bonus (and changing the monk to full BAB which it probably needs) though that might mess things up in other places. For example Divine Might requires Power Attack, so that screws things up for clerics. But dumping feat taxes could be the solution here anyway.

My poster child for unnecessary Feats, btw, I touched on, but didn't really explain in detail. Point-Blank Shot.

Every ranged build, be it archer or even rays is going to want Precise Shot. The -4 penalty to attack someone engaged in melee is backbreaking at low levels even for a full BAB class. But, if you're not a Human or a Fighter, you have to wait til level 3 to get Precise Shot. Why? Are we saying only Fighters should engage in ranged combat? What about the Ranger, who gets Rapid Shot at level 2, but still has to wait til level 3 for Precise?

And again, for the purposes of using range, Point-Blank Shot is really bad. Sure maybe if your ray spell only has 30' range anyways, or you're a Rogue trying to get off a ranged sneak attack, but if I have a short range of 100', the last thing I want to do is get 30' away for a +1 to hit and damage.

Now I know what some people might be thinking "well, in most encounters, you can't shoot from 100' away". And you're not wrong. So it is a nice bonus if you're stuck being that close. But given the option, I'd rather not, tyvm.

And some people might say, "well, this is a good thing, characters shouldn't be able to shoot into melee- get into melee like everyone else!". But the game unfortunately makes melee combat bad for anyone who doesn't have good Strength. Dexterity to damage is not something easily attainable in 3.5. Non Strength-based classes really don't want to be in melee since most of them have terrible AC and hit points.

So something like Precise Shot being put out of the way for low level ranged characters is just terrible. And only letting a Fighter (or Fighter dip) let you get it at level 1 is kind of bonkers. You have a class with the best AC options and strong hit points being the best for sitting in the back and plinking away with a bow?*

*at least until until self-buffs or possibly the archery support Ranger spells in splatbooks enter the picture.

In my games I just swapped Precise and Point-Blank Shot's position in the feat trees. And nobody ever took Point-Blank Shot for some reason.