Are the core (PHB) feats enough?

[Seonaid]

So it's a TWF fighting feat that doesn't make you any better at fighting with two weapons.

Tessarael: I think that was my problem also.

 

[Seonaid]

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.

Okay, I never got into rules and mechanics in 3E. Just recently I've interested myself in all of that, and I mostly play 3.5 now, so I actually didn't consider, in any of this, the change from 3 to 3.5. I agree with you now.

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).

I don't like the idea of sneak attacks with two being the same as with one. I don't know how I feel regarding balance, but it seems to *make sense* that if you sneak attack in the same moment (basically) with two weapons, you'd get both. (I'm very much about making D&D *sensible*, to the greatest extent possible in a fantasy game.)

How does the +2 damage work if you're wielding the weapon in your off hand? My understanding of what you said is that you can designate at the moment of attack which weapon gets the +2. What if that weapon is not your primary? You can't switch hands en route to an attack (not easily anyway). Does that merely help offset the off-hand penalty?

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.

Okay, I don't know enough about the non-standard attacks. I'll take your word for it, and agree that applying the AoO to the grapple (etc.) makes sense, and that it's ridiculous to have feats stacking to counter each other.

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.)

I'm honestly not sure what bothers me about them. It makes sense (there's that phrase again) that if someone is coming near you and not paying attention to you that you should be able to at least try to hit them. Still, I'm uneasy about it. Perhaps I should take it up in the House Rules forum.

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.)

You're right; in theory, I agree with you. However, in an ideal world, there would be no classes as such. In an ideal world (to me), you'd have a list of "features" that can be assigned point values and chosen by any character upon creation, as long as there is a reasonable amount of points allocated for creation. That way, you can have whatever character you want and are not restricted to classes or whatnot. I'm sure there are arguments against that, but I am one of those players who take half-elf regularly for flavor reasons.

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.

When you put it that way, of course it's silly (and see my above comment about the change from 3 to 3.5). What was the reasoning behind making this feat? Is there some balance issue they were working on? Do certain character types/classes benefit from this more than others?

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).

Interesting. I'd like to see this in practice. Do you use this in your campaigns? If so, how is it working out? I like the idea, but I wonder how it would work in play. Would it be stackable?

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

Yes, thank you very much. I hope I'm not boring you with my questions. I am *not* well-versed in the mechanics, so I could be bringing up ridiculous points. Feel free to just say to me, "Go read your PHB and DMG, you lazy slug!"

 

[Seonaid]

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)

If tumble is taken out of combat, Mobility might need a little boost.

As for tumble being unbalanced, perhaps it was only my particular campaigns and fellow characters that make me feel that way. I seem to always have that one person who tumbles in and out of ridiculous situations. I suppose it could just be a case of certain classes and skills being more useful, in general, but it's still frustrating to have characters who seem much better at everything than others.

 

[ph0rk]

If tumble is taken out of combat, Mobility might need a little boost.

like +8 to ac?

As for tumble being unbalanced, perhaps it was only my particular campaigns and fellow characters that make me feel that way. I seem to always have that one person who tumbles in and out of ridiculous situations. I suppose it could just be a case of certain classes and skills being more useful, in general, but it's still frustrating to have characters who seem much better at everything than others.

Remember that when tumbling you can only move 1/2 your movement; and must make a check for each enemy, w/ a +2 to the dc for each successive enemy.

The base classes that get tumble as a class skill are usually on or near the front lines, with weak hit points. If tumble is nerfed too badly it would be useless as a cross-class skill (and as is, takes several levels and a good dex bonus to be of any use a a CC skill)

 

[Spatula]

3. Get rid of Combat Expertise. Make this a standard rule that anyone in combat can use.

Anyone in combat can use "Fighting Defensively" and "Total Defense".

4. Get rid of Mobility, or get rid of Tumble affecting combat. They overlap - should only have one of them.

Tumble can only be used in light or no armor and is only a class skill for the lightly-armored combat types (rogue, monk, etc.). Mobility is for more heavily-armored characters.

5. Combine Cleave and Great Cleave. Cleave is good vs. mooks, but Great Cleave is useful even less often.

Great Cleave is only good vs. mooks. Cleave is just good, since it gives you free attacks and doesn't require one-hit kills like Great Cleave does.

6. Get rid of Rapid Shot and Manyshot. They break standard mechanics for combat

That's what combat feats do...

 

[The_Gneech]

If tumble is taken out of combat, Mobility might need a little boost.

As for tumble being unbalanced, perhaps it was only my particular campaigns and fellow characters that make me feel that way. I seem to always have that one person who tumbles in and out of ridiculous situations. I suppose it could just be a case of certain classes and skills being more useful, in general, but it's still frustrating to have characters who seem much better at everything than others.

I use tumble constantly, to the point of buying it as a cross-class skill for my fighter or whomever if necessary. I love tumble to death!

I'm the only one in my group who uses it tho ... nobody else bothers. Including the rogue.

Go fig.

If it were so seriously unbalanced, you'd think everybody would do it, wouldn't you?

-The Gneech

 

[Staffan]

3. Get rid of Combat Expertise. Make this a standard rule that anyone in combat can use.

I kinda like that someone can train in order to increase their ability to fight defensively. Everyone already has access to a weaker version of Combat Expertise: -4 to hit for +2 AC.

Though I could see an argument for the Combat Expertise thing being the default, and the feat instead allowing +2 AC for -1 to hit or something like that.

10. Get rid of Track. Allow anyone with Survival to track all DCs. Increase DC on tracking if you like, and give Rangers a bonus (e.g. +4 by 20th level).

I do something similar to that. I've increased the DC for tracking by 5, and instead of making Track a requirement for tracking it gives +5.

 

[Tessarael]

Seonaid, there is an Arcana Unearthed feat that gives +10' to your ground speed (Fleet of Foot). I believe one or two other splat books or d20 products have done this too - I haven't heard anyone yelling it is broken. The Run feat was in the 3E PHB, but unless I missed something, in 3E you did get your DEX bonus when running ... I think they decided to make the Run feat better by making everyone who didn't have it worse, blech.
[I don't think stackable +10' movement bonus for the cost of a feat will be a big issue - it is far weaker than many combat feats. There is also an Epic feat that gives +30' movement.]

Various people asked about the Two-Weapon Fighting variant. Let me give an example, then explain reasoning a little more ...

Fighter with BAB +6/+1, has say 3 main combat options:

1. Longsword and Heavy Shield, two attacks at +6/+1, average damage 4.5 + modifiers with Longsword; +2 AC from the Heavy Shield.

2. Using a Greatsword two-handed, two attacks at +6/+1, average damage 7 + modifiers. No AC bonus.

3. Using say Longsword and Dagger, he can choose to use Longsword as primary weapon (damage 4.5 on average) or Dagger as primary weapon (damage 2.5 on average), and then gets a bonus +2 damage for using two weapons. So normally he'd choose Longsword as primary and do 6.5 average damage + modifiers, with two attacks at +6/+1. Then there's a feat or two if you want to increase your AC. The end result is very similar to option 2.

Many people like the fact that you get more Sneak Attack damage with more attacks from using two weapons. However, D&D uses an abstract combat system - already, we don't model every feint, attack, riposte, deflection, etc. i.e. The number of attacks per round where you get a chance to do damage is fewer attacks that you might attempt (or probe your opponent's defenses) in a real melee.

For most characters that don't have Sneak Attack or other big damage bonuses on each weapon, using a two-handed weapon is always better than using two weapons. For Rogues who gets lots of Sneak Attack damage, wielding two weapons is often better. This seems strange - why is a Rogue better with two weapons than a Fighter with high DEX? So we fix that, by getting rid of the extra attacks from using two weapons, and give a damage bonus instead to make it still a good offensive option.

The other thing we fixed was the long chain of feats needed to make two-weapon fighting effective. That's one of the reasons why two-handed weapons are generally better - you don't have to spend 4 feats to get all your attacks!

Combat Expertise vs. Fighting Defensively ...

Yes. You can already fight defensively, and it gives some defense bonus, but not as good as Combat Expertise. One of the problems with Combat Expertise is that offense is often better than defense, so there's less point in get a small defense bonus (extra +1 AC if you have 5 ranks in Tumble and get +3 AC from -4 to hit when fighting defensively). Instead, I would make a feat that gives +1 AC (perhaps with Dodge as a prerequisite, or make Dodge this feat). That feat is more useful than Combat Expertise (it works all the time), but still less useful than Weapon Focus (offense is better than defense).

Mobility vs. Tumble ...

Unless you have to move more than half your move distance, tumbling is always the best option. If you fail your Tumble check, you can still use Mobility if you have it, and Tumble can guarantee that you'll always evade one opponent (DC 15 - dead easy to get at high levels - my 19th level Rogue makes DC 28 tumble checks automatically thanks to Skill Mastery). Removing Tumble from combat, I wouldn't object to making Mobility +6 AC or +8 AC vs. those attacks of opportunity ... whatever works and seems balanced basically.

Gneech, how often do fighters in your group reposition themselves on the battlefield? Unless you have high AC, it is essential. I do think people underrate tumbling (it takes a bit to build to DC 15, and in armor you're taking a hefty penalty to Tumble - as Spatula pointed out). Once you can make DC 15 (hey you can do this 25% of the time at a skill score of 0!), it is worthwhile, but people forget to role for it if it's not on their list where they allocated skill points.

As phOrk said, Tumble (or Mobility) is essential for Rogues to avoid getting hit too often in combat. I think Combat Reflexes can help fill that hole. (Or alternatively, let Tumble fill that hole and get rid of Combat Reflexes - why do we have two mechanics for the same thing??)

Cleave ... Spatula, I agree. Cleave is better than Great Cleave. Great Cleave is a somewhat weak feat, the only time I would have used it is versus hordes of Cranium Rats (i.e. versus mooks). So because I think Great Cleave is fairly weak, I would combine the two.

Rapid Shot and Manyshot ...

Sean Reynolds had a nice rant on these feats on his boards recently. Manyshot can allow you to do about as much damage on a standard action as you would do on a full round action with a bow - now that's a serious game mechanic problem.

Rapid Shot is less of an issue, but Improved Rapid Shot from Complete Warrior gets rid of the -2 penalty, you would always get the extra attack. I don't want someone being able to get an extra full BAB attack per round. Especially when it will stack with Haste. Now if it didn't stack with Haste, and was some sort of supernatural ability with limited duration, then I'd say ok, you're mimicking the haste spell and acting as if you had a Speed weapon for a bit, no problems.

In general, the 3E PHB feats are not over-powered. (Some are very weak though, e.g. 3E Endurance - which is a good reason to cull some feats) The problem comes when you add additional splat book feats that break mechanics (e.g. Improved Grapple, Improved Rapid Shot, Manyshot). In particular, feats in combination with other things can become too good: Haste + Improved Rapid Shot; Keen Rapier + Improved Critical + Weaponmaster; etc.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I think the selection in the PHB is just fine. Oh, sure. I'll use more, but I seldom go looking outside the PHB for anything. And while I don't discourage my players for doing so, I also don't encourage them.

 

[ph0rk]

Gneech, how often do fighters in your group reposition themselves on the battlefield? Unless you have high AC, it is essential. I do think people underrate tumbling (it takes a bit to build to DC 15, and in armor you're taking a hefty penalty to Tumble - as Spatula pointed out). Once you can make DC 15 (hey you can do this 25% of the time at a skill score of 0!), it is worthwhile, but people forget to role for it if it's not on their list where they allocated skill points.

Actually, you can't tumble untrained.

The reason the dc to avoid AoO's is lowish (though I wouldn't call 15 low. try playing with a moderate pointbuy system and you'll see what I mean) is so that classes for whom tumble is cross-class, but need it desperately (wizard, sorceror) can eventually be able to succeed reliably at it. Yes, yes, making the dc all the time is no fun, but few would try to tumble to avoid an AoO (if they can just stand still instead) with a skill check of 1, now are they?

Tumbling about has its own issues of course; multiple enemies make things tougher. I personally would prefer a DC of 10+bab to avoid an AoO, but thats just because I can't see a well-trained fighter getting duped by the backflipping rogue more than once.

Even if the rogue is able to tumble about; that doesn't prevent the baddies from getting annoyed and charging him on their round - those rogue hitpoints go quick.

As phOrk said, Tumble (or Combat Reflexes) is essential for Rogues to avoid getting hit too often in combat. I think Combat Reflexes can help fill that hole. (Or alternatively, let Tumble fill that hole and get rid of Combat Reflexes - why do we have two mechanics for the same thing??)

How can combat reflexes replace tumbling to avoid an AoO? Combat reflexes grants extra AoO's, it doesn't avoid them.