Are feats selections too limited?

[Tovec]

The problem is not a wide selection of feats, the problem is "trap" options.

Make Quick draw and Run a single feat, for example.

Also, the "+2 to one skill/+2 to another" feats are worthless (so is skill focus). The bonus could be +15 and they would still suck.

Give me interesting options, like the monk style feats from ultimate combat.

Can you explain? How are they traps?

I've taken quick draw on any number of characters, Run too if I wanted that x5 option.

As far as skill focus - yep I use it on super-specialized characters just to get the +3/+6 bonus.
And as far as the +2 to Heal/+2 to Survival (for example) I have two players in my current game who have this feat.

What I wouldn't want to see is feats suddenly allowing me things like maneuvers and stances from book of 9 swords for example. I like that feats currently allow me to customize a character to be better at something, do something more easily or effiiciently and provide better options. I dislike when they give me completely new options or random power ups 'just because' they are better.

Beyond that, I would make certain higher level feats easier to take. If you happen to miss one of the pre-req feats at level 4 you can't take the 12th level feat. For me this seems like a big cop out. Isn't 12th level already a major limit that is not easily overcome? By 12th level you had better believe I could get better options than trying to get that last feat or two from low levels in order to qualify for the 12th level feat.
It is like if you wanted to get the disintegrate spell you had to have fireball, shatter and invisibility. Chances are you HAVE all those, but if you happened not to pick up shatter then you are screwed until next level. At least with magic you get new spells every level, as opposed to every two.

 

[Ramaster]

Can you explain? How are they traps?

I've taken quick draw on any number of characters, Run too if I wanted that x5 option.

As far as skill focus - yep I use it on super-specialized characters just to get the +3/+6 bonus.
And as far as the +2 to Heal/+2 to Survival (for example) I have two players in my current game who have this feat.

What I wouldn't want to see is feats suddenly allowing me things like maneuvers and stances from book of 9 swords for example. I like that feats currently allow me to customize a character to be better at something, do something more easily or effiiciently and provide better options. I dislike when they give me completely new options or random power ups 'just because' they are better.

Beyond that, I would make certain higher level feats easier to take. If you happen to miss one of the pre-req feats at level 4 you can't take the 12th level feat. For me this seems like a big cop out. Isn't 12th level already a major limit that is not easily overcome? By 12th level you had better believe I could get better options than trying to get that last feat or two from low levels in order to qualify for the 12th level feat.
It is like if you wanted to get the disintegrate spell you had to have fireball, shatter and invisibility. Chances are you HAVE all those, but if you happened not to pick up shatter then you are screwed until next level. At least with magic you get new spells every level, as opposed to every two.

A "Trap" option is one that seems super-awesome-cool, but in practice is not that good. Like dual wielding (compared to using a single 2 handed weapon). Regarding feats, Whirlwind attack is not that good and asks for a lot of specialized feats (like Mobility, Spring attack and Dodge, all of them sub-par combat feats). Cleave lets you do something very similar and the prereq is Power attack (an awesome feat in and on intself). Greater Cleave is another good option. "Yeah, I get to use cleave multiple times" while in practize you will very rarely be adjacent to 3 foes who are also adjacent to each other.

 

[Matthias]

Beyond that, I would make certain higher level feats easier to take. If you happen to miss one of the pre-req feats at level 4 you can't take the 12th level feat. For me this seems like a big cop out. Isn't 12th level already a major limit that is not easily overcome? By 12th level you had better believe I could get better options than trying to get that last feat or two from low levels in order to qualify for the 12th level feat.
It is like if you wanted to get the disintegrate spell you had to have fireball, shatter and invisibility. Chances are you HAVE all those, but if you happened not to pick up shatter then you are screwed until next level. At least with magic you get new spells every level, as opposed to every two.

One often plans ahead for the feats one wishes to take...

 

[Tovec]

One often plans ahead for the feats one wishes to take...

If one is looking to get into a prestige class that is based on those feats certainly I'll agree with that.

But there are certainly times when it isn't so. Like when you are new to DnD and not too familiar with feats. Or when you are trying out a completely new style of character. Or when you just don't know what feat to take next.

There are definitely advantages to planning ahead but not all characters do. What happens when a character decides to play flavourly and goes in a new direction. In those cases I would like to see the prerequisites on feats opened up a little.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I really disliked the design decision of making the game purposefully imbalanced to promote system mastery as a game factor.
This was a decision made back with the design of 3.0e, when WotC took over.

There was never any design decision to make the game "purposefully imbalanced." That is a misunderstanding of what Monte Cook was writing about in his infamous "Ivory Tower Game Design" article. I won't try to explain what he was saying, because anyone who really wants to know can Google the subject themselves, but I roll my eyes every time I see this misrepresentation echoed.

Personally, I think Pathfinder has only a small number of feats that are really worthwhile. I seem to be in the minority, in that I like the idea of feats and think that only the worst excesses of 3E feats needed to be "fixed." As with Pathfinder in general, I think the "fixing" of feats went too far...but as I said, I seem to be in the minority on this issue.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

And here I've been picking feats based on what I'd like to try or based on my character concept, without worrying about power levels and system mastery and "traps."

I must have been doing it wrong this entire time.

 

[cgraph]

And here I've been picking feats based on what I'd like to try or based on my character concept, without worrying about power levels and system mastery and "traps."

I must have been doing it wrong this entire time.

In some campaigns, yeah-- now pathfinder/d&D isn't quite as bad as say, Exalted, in this area, but depending on teh group or DM, a non-optimized build can sometimes be a major handicap.

 

[Matthias]

In some campaigns, yeah-- now pathfinder/d&D isn't quite as bad as say, Exalted, in this area, but depending on teh group or DM, a non-optimized build can sometimes be a major handicap.

What does it mean to have a "non-optimized build" and how does it become a handicap?

 

[IronWolf]

And here I've been picking feats based on what I'd like to try or based on my character concept, without worrying about power levels and system mastery and "traps."

I must have been doing it wrong this entire time.

I think you are putting meaning to some of these posts that isn't intended. No one here is saying anyone is doing it wrong.

EDIT: Okay, since it looks like cgraph might be saying you are doing it wrong , let me clarify and say by no means am I trying to say anyone is playing this game wrong.

 

[IronWolf]

What does it mean to have a "non-optimized build" and how does it become a handicap?

Non-optimized would mean to me not the mechanically best it could be. There are certain feats that for certain roles will result in a more mechanically powerful character. One that has a greater chance of hitting, does more damage and is harder to get hit themselves. Certain feat choices and choices during character generation and leveling will lead to a variety in power amongst characters.

Example, if I build a fighter and choose a traditional combat oriented feat line with focus on increasing my chance to hit and damage, I will be more optimized than the character that chooses feats to boost skills, reflect character history, etc. My fighter would be more optimized.

It can become a handicap because sometimes the person playing the character that made feat choices based on fluff and feel will end up doing less damage in a fight or receiving more damage while the more optimized character will contribute more to an encounter.

When one fighter is doing 30+ damage per hit and another fighter is just breaking into mid-teens that can cause a character to feel handicapped depending on the player.

Now that is not to say that there is a right way or wrong way to do things. So much depends on the group you play with, how other people play their characters and how you as a player react to any power differences.

So again, I am not here to say someone is playing the game wrong, but there are optimized and non-optimized players in this game. Both can work and both do work.