Are the core (PHB) feats enough?

[Tessarael]

9. Combine Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus to give a flat +2 save DC for a magic school.

I agree in theory, but would that make a balance difference? If so, perhaps having a prerequisite would fix that.

Spell Focus +2 DC was the way it worked in 3E D&D. What happened was that a number of feats (e.g. Greater Spell Focus - another +2 DC in Tome and Blood) and prestige class features came out that gave further bonuses to save DC. To limit this, they changed the feats to what you see now in 3.5E D&D PHB. So I'm just suggesting going back to 3E and getting rid of the extra feat - and it worked on in 3E, before all the additional stacking save DC increases.

11. Make Two-Weapon Fighting work like using Two-Handed weapons.

I like the way this looks, but I'd have to see it in action before I could form a solid opinion. It seems like it might just complicate things (though that could be just that I'm used to the 3.5 system).

My DM and I designed this so it worked almost exactly the same as fighting with a two-handed weapon. It reduces Rogues sneak attacking with two weapons to the same as if they only had one weapon. (Why should two weapons for Rogues be better with than for a high DEX Fighter?) I think it's actually less complicated that the 3E and 3.5E two weapon rules: add +2 damage if you're wielding two weapons to whichever weapon you choose as primary (you can switch to take advantage of DR penetration materials for example). [Two-Handed weapons are still better in some respects - harder to disarm, can hold one-handed while spellcasting with somatic components (don't need to sheath), slightly higher damage.]

Maybe my DM and I just need to write a clearer explanation.

14. Get rid of Improved Grapple.

I'm not sure what to make of this. I have problems with the whole idea of an AoO, but I'm not sure if getting rid of these feats would make my problems less significant.

Here's my issue with the current system: monsters have Improved Grapple, so other combatants will need Close Quarters Fighting. You get feats and counter feats, and feats get progressively less useful. These non-standard attacks (grapple, sunder, trip, etc.) have benefits beyond a normal attack. To reduce their benefit, you take an attack of opportunity, and any damage from this penalizes your change to grapple/sunder/trip/disarm etc. I want the "standard ruling" to still allow someone to initiate a grapple after they've been hit by the attack of opportunity. Dammit, I got close and got hurt, let me try at least. Otherwise you force grapplers to take Improved Grapple, and the whole problem begins.

Attacks of opportunity seem to me to work ok as a balancing mechanic. Combatants will need to take Combat Reflexes and have some DEX bonus to being able to get multiple attacks of opportunity (e.g. I'll spend my BAB +15/+10/+5, 3 attacks, trying to grapple you.)

In game, I *really* like (Improved) Uncanny Dodge, but I'm not sure I like it in theory. I am tempted to say it should be gotten rid of, or at least Improved should be, but I don't know how to work it so the loss would be fair. I don't know, though, that I'd make them feats.

Well, I like the fact it helps you avoid being flanked. What don't you like about that? I also think Fighters et al., should be able to avoid flanking just as a Rogue does, at the price of a couple of feats. (Similarly, maybe Rogues should be able to take Weapon Specialization.)

2. Increased Move +10' enchancement bonus in light or no armour and not encumbered as a feat, and this replaces the Run feat - i.e. let anyone add their DEX bonus to dodging when running. (I wouldn't give Monks too many bonus feats to replace this.)

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Perhaps I'm just too unfamiliar with the rules and/or monks, but could you explain this again?

There was a 3E to 3.5E change in the rules regards running. In 3.5E D&D, if you run, and don't have the Run feat, you lose your DEX bonus to AC. I think that's silly.

Moreover, I'd like +10' movement to be a feat - and this is better than the Run feat, once everyone gets DEX bonus to AC when running. Barbarians get +10' move bonus (untyped) at 1st level. Monks get it every 3 levels (3rd, 6th, etc.). I wouldn't give Monks 6 bonus feats in lieu of +60' movement at 18th level - I'd either give them the movement increase as a class feature, or give them say 3 feats in exchange for this (more versatility).

Hope that helps explain where I'm coming from ...

 

[comrade raoul]

I mainly agree with people who say that the PH feats are sufficient for most purposes (that is, they're really all you'd need or want in a core-rules publication), but the list really does suffer from a paucity of high-level combat feats. Once fighters get Greater Weapon Specialization at 12th level, they've often chosen most or all of their "high-priority" feats, and thus spend the rest of their advancement getting increasingly less useful abilities from their class levels (while other high-level characters are getting better and better ones).

 

[ph0rk]

I mainly agree with people who say that the PH feats are sufficient for most purposes (that is, they're really all you'd need or want in a core-rules publication), but the list really does suffer from a paucity of high-level combat feats. Once fighters get Greater Weapon Specialization at 12th level, they've often chosen most or all of their "high-priority" feats, and thus spend the rest of their advancement getting increasingly less useful abilities from their class levels (while other high-level characters are getting better and better ones).

That is more an issue with the fighter class than with feats in PHB in general.

Looking back at some of the other posts, I can't fathom why people would remove some feats.

Improved Grapple? Please don't tell me everyone should be able to act as if they had this feat; dogpiles, anyone?

Tumble vs. Mobility: I don't see tumble as unbalanced; unless all your NPCs are loaded with combat reflexes you aren't op attacking for teh win1!!! anyway. Mobility does feel a bit underpowerd for a feat though (a-la endurance and combat casting)

I would shoehorn in all the feats from the XPH; but then I'd staple the XPH to the back of the PHB, too. Psionics are forever core in any game I run.


------


I am a bit curious though to know what concepts some of you are unable to recreate using the core rules in ther PHB though.

 

[comrade raoul]

That is more an issue with the fighter class than with feats in PHB in general.

To some extent I certainly agree with you -- to the point that I want to use this opportunity to pimp my "warrior" core class -- an overhauled, modular fighter that incorporates the light/heavy distinction from the AU unfettered and warmain classes and uses a wide array of abilities to effectively model numerous archetypical combat specialists!

But otherwise, though, this problem doesn't have to be an issue with the fighter class -- if you had a lot of really good high-level combat feats with lots of prerequisites, in practice you'd need to be a fighter to access any substantial number of them, which would in turn make the fighter more powerful compared to other classes (and you wouldn't have to change the fighter's class progression at all).

 

[ph0rk]

But otherwise, though, this problem doesn't have to be an issue with the fighter class -- if you had a lot of really good high-level combat feats with lots of prerequisites, in practice you'd need to be a fighter to access any substantial number of them, which would in turn make the fighter more powerful compared to other classes (and you wouldn't have to change the fighter's class progression at all).

I understand your idea; but why bother making a few high-level fighter only feats; why not add special abilities to the fighter (like rogues get from level 10 on). Fighters seem neat from 1-12, but from 13-20; why on earth aren't you taking barbarian, paladin, or ranger levels? The 4 feats the fighter gains in these levels just don't compete - power wise - to the abilities the other 4 warrior classes get in their first 8; much less the abilities any of the other core classes get from 13-20. I'd list examples; but I can hardly even imagine anyone disputing this.

I don't want to make this a fighter-whine thread, and I think any deficiency in feats in the PHB re fighters is more a problem with the fighter class than the feat lists. All the other classes are fine. (And fighters are probably okay at least up to level 10)


Ultimately I guess I'd like to see everything (spellcasting too) in feat-form, but that would take a total overhaul rather than adding more feats to the core rules.

 

[MacMathan]

I think the feats work fine as written in 3.5

For more experienced groups the additions from othe books work out however when pulling from different companies I find that one must be careful of overlap where one feat is badly overshadowed by another the does the same basic thing.

As far as complete warrior goes I like most of the feats there, however my own personal additon is a line of Shield feats that keep the AC of sword n board up with the improved AC from the TWF feats.

The jury is still out (for me) on Improved Rapid Shot.

 

[Deadguy]

I can understand why the choice of feats in the PHB is limited, and Ranger REG is right that they have had to place some pratical limits on the ones available. But I would be inclined to offer a few more feats designed specifically for high level characters (not necessarily just Fighters), just to offer some more options for higher level play.

Additionally I would like more non-combat options and some examples of setting-specific Feats, just to make the point that Feats, like PrCs, can be used to delineate a setting.

 

[Tessarael]

Looking back at some of the other posts, I can't fathom why people would remove some feats.

Improved Grapple? Please don't tell me everyone should be able to act as if they had this feat; dogpiles, anyone?

When I suggested removing Improved Grapple, I was advocating that everyone initiating a grapple would provoke an attack of opportunity. Then the damage done on that attack of opportunity would penalize the grapple attempt.

My problem with Improved Grapple is this: if I don't have Close Quarters Fighting and you're a grapple specialist with Improved Grapple, then you will definitely beat me. The possibility of other combatants having Improved Grapple forces a primary combatant to take Close Quarters Fighting as one of their feats (either that or a Ring of Freedom - way more expensive).

I really don't like feats that require counter feats. That breaks core mechanics. This is actually one of the problems with the 3.5E addition of Improved Grapple as a core feat in the PHB - they haven't included the counter feat in the PHB.

I wouldn't mind if Improved Grapple gave say a +4 bonus to grappling and no other benefits. That wouldn't force people to take the Close Quarters Fighting feat.

On a similar note, I would argue that Sneak Attack in Arcana Unearthed makes it very useful for primary combatants who aren't immune to criticals to take the Intuitive Sense and Improved Intuitive Sense feats (Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge). In the PHB, there are no such counter feats except for Rogues and Barbarians with the relevant class feature ... this too is a problem.

In a more general sense, I don't like abilities that are all or nothing. Either you can Sneak Attack or your opponent is immune to criticals/has Improved Uncanny Dodge. Either you can Improved Grapple (and either your opponent has Close Quarters Fighting or not) or your grapple attempts are much weaker. Along these lines, I'd prefer to see Rogues get BAB +1/level and reduce their Sneak Attack by 5d6.

Just my thoughts ...

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

11. Make Two-Weapon Fighting work like using Two-Handed weapons. For details see:
http://www.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/~knight/campaign/3edition/twoweapon.html
I would get rid of Greater Two Weapon Parry, but allow a Defender secondary weapon to add to AC. (Improved Shield Bash is now redundant - you use the shield as a shield, or as a secondary weapon to add to damage, but not both.)

That feat seems kinda weird. It says that it doesn't give extra attacks, and it doesn't say that it reduces penalties for TWF. So it's a TWF fighting feat that doesn't make you any better at fighting with two weapons. Am I just reading it wrong?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I certainly think there should be more feats. I understand that there's a reasonable limit to the number in the PH, but I would have trouble without feats from other books.

I have a list of the feats I use in my game, along with their sources. At the moment I have 442 feats from 20 sources (including my 35 custom feats, many of which are really just extensive revisions).