Feat Points

[Sylrae]

A little. Because if you start introducing systems to give away small benefits outside the normal class based system, then I'm rather courious where it stops.

Well, now you know.

I'm still not understanding you.

You're running away from me. Your base speed is 30, and my base speed is 30. You have a 10' lead and you run 120' on your turn, putting you 130' away. On my turn, I take the run action. Because I have the Run feat, I can go 150'. On my turn I run into your square and perform an overrun. If I win the strength contest, you go prone and are subject to attack in the following rounds. If on the other hand you had the Run feat, and I didn't, then you'd run away and I couldn't catch you.

And in any event, a feat point system doesn't fix the complaint. The real problem is that chasing someone down is harder than it should be. We need better rules for tackling, armed overruns, etc. - not a feat point system.

I was just saying that with the system as is, if both people have the same speed, they'll never catch eachother. Combined with the difficulty of chasing someone to begin with, I was just saying that the feat is less useful than it should be, because of the issues you outlined.

With a chase system, such as in the Tome of Secrets(Adamant Entertainment), run becomes more useful, and would be worth a feat.

It is if the game is only going to go 3 or so levels. That's the whole idea of scalability. The feat is fairly balanced at 1st level, but not so much at 10th or 20th. If the game is only going 1 level, then toughness is one of the best feats in the game. You can demonstrate this by pitting 3rd level 'gladiators' against each other and trying to figure out whose feats add the most utility. And for a 1st level wizard or sorcerer, even the 3 hp of toughness are very very welcome.

I'm not understanding why you are disagreeing with me here. Didn't I say that the feat should scale? The point of this conversation is to demonstrate that by and large, feat points wouldn't be needed to resolve the problem of weak feats. That virtually everyone agrees that the feat should scale I take as evidence of this.

I'm open to other suggestions, I was just saying that there are weak feats, and the issue should be dealt with somehow.

Err... so? Naturally you'd love to have what is further down a feat chain. Naturally, I'd love to have Spring Attack at first level and without buying what came before it. Feat chains should have big rewards at the end of them. There are other considerations here. Feat chains/trees exist because the ability to do Y implies skill with X, so X is considered a prerequiste of Y (like point blank shot as the basis of ranged feats). Also feat chains exist to limit some feats to exceptional characters, like spring attack rewards 13 dex by way of dodge. Also, you might want to push some abilities out to higher levels.

I don't have a problem with feats having prerequisites, or level requirements, or requiring feats whose capabilities are obviously required to perform the NEW capability. Such is not always the case though. Cleave doesnt require power attack. Once you have cleave, you dont have ot use both at the same time. I agree with giving it a BAB requirement or a Strength requirement or something. That would be fine.

And I see no indication that a feat points system addresses the complaint I'm seeing here. Power Attack is a great feat. Just because you have a build in which it is not optimal doesn't mean it should be priced less.

Having seen the math behind power attack, it often results in you doing LESS damage, because of the difference in likelihood to hit.

No it isn't. But even more importantly than the wands, the wizard really needs defensive items. If the bracers of defence, rings of protection, and amulets of natural armor aren't available from your local walmart, you'll probably consider making them.
The fighter can get by at low levels without alot of magic. It's only at high levels that the fighter really starts needing magical defenses. With the wizard, it's quite the reverse.
I've never seen wizards (or clerics) become the weapons manufacturer for the whole party, but I have seen them spend alot of time crafting minor items for themselves.

I've seen players opt to not use magic gear in the case that they couldnt buy it because XP is to precious a commodity since the more they fall behind the party, the more they fall behind the party. You may have gotten your magic armor at a low level. Now youre a higher level, theyre not very useful, and youre also far behind the group. Youre equally squishy because the others are level 17 and youre level 14. (Example > you'd have to do a fair amount of crafting at lower levels to have this happen.. I'm in class and can't look at the books right now to do the math to know exactly how much youd have to do).

Most importantly, if this was really a problem, the solution would be reducing the XP required to craft items, not a feat point buy system that would fail to alleviate the complaints you have AND introduce greater complexity.

Alright. Feat points may not be the solution. The problem is still there. Which is what the feat points were supposed to address (But don't do so successfully).

This makes no sense. Feats are options. What's wrong with making the new options feats? Why do we have to invent a new category for options beyond the one we already have? What could you possibly want to add that couldn't be a feat?

Fighter feats are a limited resource. i was saying they need a buff and greater utility that does not take away from the stuff they already have.

 

[CAFargo]

Metamagic Feats: I'm already paying for this once, by buying the feat. Usually, it's not worth the effort to even take these, because the higher spell slot makes the spell less useful, and because you had to know you needed it in advance. If metamagic feats were spontaneous to everyone, they would be useful.
The only time theyre worth taking is if you either find some VERY specialized combination (quickened silence as a counterspell), if youre constantly being whacked in the face by silence, constantly being constrained, or actually know exactly what youre up against.

For a few REALLY good combinations that make spells great, quickened spells make some spells free actions or move actions, which means you can cast multiple spells in one round. PWRFUL!

Prestige classes that focus on one spell (such as the one in Dragon Compendium that specializes with magic missile) are good for feats like maximize or other spells that increase damage.

Heighten spell isn't really that useful unless your an enchanter. It really only increases the DC of a spell...

I'm sure that Complete Arcane has a bunch of useful things like this, but all I can remember is one that knocks an opponent back. Prepare ONE of these, then watch the magic happen as you manage to use it to push the CR your level +100 lich off of the dramatic-looking cliff into the even-more-dramatic-looking boiling lava beneath it. Trust me, it hurts!

 

[Celebrim]

I was just saying that with the system as is, if both people have the same speed, they'll never catch eachother.

Right. And I'm say that the Run feet changes your effective speed.

I'm open to other suggestions, I was just saying that there are weak feats, and the issue should be dealt with somehow.

In some cases it can be. In other cases, the problem isn't with the feat, but with how people typically play the game or with a lack of support in the rules or some other subsystem entirely. Feats don't live in isolation. There are only a few feat like 'Toughness' where the problem is obvious and easily resolved. There were alot of attempts to make metamagic cooler in 3.X, but the problem with metamagic turns out to be that either its situational and of limited use or else its so good that you always do it when you can.

I don't have a problem with feats having prerequisites, or level requirements, or requiring feats whose capabilities are obviously required to perform the NEW capability. Such is not always the case though. Cleave doesnt require power attack. Once you have cleave, you dont have ot use both at the same time.

You don't have to use and probably wouldn't use point blank shot and far shot at the same time either. I'm not sure exactly what your complaint is about gateway feats. The idea is to simulate a particularly refined skill in something. Cleaving clear through something requires you to be able to make stout blows. What's the problem here?

Having seen the math behind power attack, it often results in you doing LESS damage, because of the difference in likelihood to hit.

I'm aware of the math. I'm also aware that are alot of relatively low AC creatures with lots of hit points, and that there gets to be a point where its in your best interest to convert any circumstantial modifiers you have 'to hit' over to damage - especially at times you can't or don't want to full attack. There is a fairly wide range of circumstances where Power Attack is better than Weapon Specialization, and if you use some of the broken 3.5 content it goes from being merely really good to possibly the best feat in the game.

It's also really nice for when you really have to break an inanimate object.

I've seen players opt to not use magic gear in the case that they couldnt buy it because XP is to precious a commodity since the more they fall behind the party, the more they fall behind the party. You may have gotten your magic armor at a low level. Now youre a higher level, theyre not very useful, and youre also far behind the group. Youre equally squishy because the others are level 17 and youre level 14.

You'd have to do an insane amount of crafting to fall 50,000 XP behind the rest of the party. I'd be really surprised to see anyone more than a single level behind.

Fighter feats are a limited resource. i was saying they need a buff and greater utility that does not take away from the stuff they already have.

I think the problem is that fighter feats are too limited of a resource. I see no reason to give them another resource instead of just boosting what they have. I don't see a reason to not make the fighter bonus feat progression something like : 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 (x2), 20 (x2). That not only adds feats but gives a stronger reason to go all 20 levels. An even more intense bonus feat schedule is possible if that doesn't bring some parity.

 

[Kerrick]

Latecomer to this discussion, since I don't stop by as often as I used to.

I have tried to do a feat valuation system a couple times myself (I think I even mentioned it to you, Syl), but every time I gave up because a) the PHB feats are, by and large, pretty well balanced; and b) it's a PITA to do. I was thinking about this earlier, though, and I think the problem I had is that I was trying to compare all feats to each other, instead of dividing them up by category, naming a "benchmark" feat for each, and comparing them to that - similar to what SKR did. You can't compare, frex, Weapon Focus to Silent Spell or Run to Forge Ring - it just doesn't work.

One thing you'll have to watch if you're going to value feats from other systems - the feats will have a much different effect in, say, Pathfinder than 3.5, even if they're exactly the same. Like Celebrim said, feats don't exist in a vacuum. Metamagic is going to be a LOT more useful if spontaneous casters don't suffer the full-round casting penalty for using it. Since most of the class HD in Pathfinder were adjusted, Toughness is relatively balanced (maybe a bit weak); in Project Phoenix, it's more powerful than in 3.5, even though mine and PF's versions are more or less the same, because I didn't change anyone's HD except for the sorcerer.

As far as item creation... it's a huge waste of time, IMO. I changed it to work off the Craft skill and ditched all the IC feats.

Re: fighters: Feats are not class abilities. Every other class (except the cleric and sorcerer) get class abilities (and really, it can be argued that domain powers are class abilities; certainly spells are), but all the fighter gets are feats. Boooring. What fighters need are class abilities, in addition to their feats. If you think it's too much, cut back the number of bonus feats they get to, say, 1/4 levels - that's still 5 feats. Take a look at my fighter - I kept the normal bonus feats and added combat styles every 4 levels and weapon feats every 5. Now fighters are truly fighters, not "some guy who swings a sword and has lots of feats".

 

[Celebrim]

Re: fighters: Feats are not class abilities. Every other class (except the cleric and sorcerer) get class abilities (and really, it can be argued that domain powers are class abilities; certainly spells are), but all the fighter gets are feats. Boooring.

On the contrary, class abilities are inelegant and booring because they stifle creativity. The fighter is the most elegant class because it gets to define all of its class abilities. Class abilities vary from being completely superflous to a bit of frosting for fighters. Feats are and should be the real meat of the class.

Looking at your Project Pheonix fighter, all you've done is forced the fighter to select between 5 or 6 feat trees that they must take and then lumped the bonus feats up at particular levels instead of spreading them out. Kudos for giving the fighter a large number of bonus feats (~24 bonus feats) and for making some powerful feats at the end of the feat chain, but I'm not particularly happy with the reduced flexibility.

Don't think that the combat styles are feat equivalent powers?

Example:

Imposing Size
You look big. Really big.
Prequisite: Str 13, Power Attack, Improved Offense, BAB +3
Benefit: The fighter can use his sheer size (and the threat of his huge weapon) to intimidate opponents. He can use his Strength bonus instead of Cha, if it is higher, when making Intimidate checks to demoralize opponents; he also gains a +4 bonus to Intimidate checks in general when wielding his weapon.

Oversized Weapon
If you've got it, flaunt it.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, Improved Offense, BAB +3
Benefit: The fighter can use a weapon of one size larger without penalty, due to his strength and proficiency with wielding large weapons.

Dazing Blow
Kapow!
Prerequites: Str 13, Power Attack, Improved Offense, Imposing Size, Oversized Weapon, BAB +7
If the character uses Power Attack to strike a foe and scores a hit, the target must make a Fort save (DC 10 + 1/2 damage) or be dazed for one round. This ability can be used once per round.

Mighty Strike
Take that!
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, Improved Offense, Imposing Size, Oversized Weapon, BAB +7
Once per day per +3 BAB, the character can declare a mighty strike. As a standard action, he can make a single attack at his highest base attack bonus, with a +4 bonus. If the attack hits, he deals double damage. If the attack scores a crit, the crit is applied first, then the damage is doubled. This ability can be used in conjunction with Power Attack.

And so forth. The level 4 feats would have like 8 feats as a prerequisite and a minimum BAB of like +15, and thus would be effectively limited to fighters.

There is no reason that feats should be boring, and there is no reason why feat equivalent class abilities shouldn't just be feats. One of the signficant advantages of this is that you don't need 50 base classes. I'd rewrite all your class abilities as feats and your fighter as something like:

1st +1 +2 +0 +0 Bonus feat
2nd +2 +3 +1 +1 Bonus feat
3rd +3 +3 +1 +1 Bonus feat
4th +4 +4 +2 +2 Bonus feat
5th +5 +4 +2 +2 Bonus feat
6th +6/+1 +5 +2 +2 Bonus feat
7th +7/+2 +5 +3 +3 Bonus feat
8th +8/+3 +6 +3 +3 Bonus feat
9th +9/+4 +6 +4 +4 Bonus feat
10th +10/+5 +7 +4 +4 Bonus feat, Bonus feat
11th +11/+6/+1 +7 +5 +5 Bonus feat
12th +12/+7/+2 +8 +5 +5 Bonus feat
13th +13/+8/+3 +8 +6 +6 Bonus feat
14th +14/+9/+4 +9 +6 +6 Bonus feat
15th +15/+10/+5 +9 +6 +6 Bonus feat, Bonus feat
16th +16/+11/+6/+1 +10 +7 +7 Bonus feat
17th +17/+12/+7/+2 +10 +7 +7 Bonus feat
18th +18/+13/+8/+3 +11 +8 +8 Bonus feat
19th +19/+14/+9/+4 +11 +8 +8 Bonus feat, Bonus feat
20th +20/+15/+10/+5 +12 +8 +8 Bonus feat, bonus feat

This would allow for example, a ranged combat focused fighter, or any number of other things - staff wielding fighters, boxers, spear experts, whatever. Though to be frank, I find all of your fighter combat abilities to boil down to 'does more damage in melee combat', which doesn't even come close to addressing the problems or fixing the fighter. The fighter does not need more offense. It does offense just fine. The fighter is lacking in defense, and by that I don't mean AC.

 

[Sylrae]

I'd say it's lacking in Utility. Mages are good at lots of different things. So are rogues, even Rangers. But Fighters just hit things.

 

[Ilja]

I'd say it's lacking in Utility. Mages are good at lots of different things. So are rogues, even Rangers. But Fighters just hit things.

One could make different "subtypes" for out-of-combat abilities, much like how rangers get fighting style and such, just the reverse. One "commander" line with charisma-based abilities and battlefield control. One "assassin" line with stealth skills and abilities (think drow warrior). One "adventurer" line with disable device and survival skills and so on. Sure, it might somewhat decrease the need of a rogue or charismatic character, but most other classes already have more than one focus (ranger and rogue are combat-stealth, clerics are healing-combat, druids are everyfrikkinthing and so on).

 

[Celebrim]

I'd say it's lacking in Utility. Mages are good at lots of different things. So are rogues, even Rangers. But Fighters just hit things.

"Hits things good" is a reasonable concept. In a point buy/skills based game it would be equivalent to making a character with almost all of their points invested in combat skills. There is nothing enherently wrong with that, and in a point by/skills based game usually at least one 'combat brute' is welcome in the party.

But the problem is that although fighter is probably the most powerful class in the game up to about 4th level, and can hold its own up to about 8th level, beyond that even though it can still theoretically 'hit things' well, in practice it has real trouble because the fighter according to the RAW has a weakness to magic comparable to Superman's vulnerability to kryptonite and by the high levels everything is magic.

Superman would be a real punk if every street crook was armed by green kryptonite handguns.

Approaching the problem with fighters as if the problem was they didn't have enough offense is like approaching the problem of Superman's vulnerability to kryptonite by making him stronger and faster.

 

[Celebrim]

One could make different "subtypes" for out-of-combat abilities, much like how rangers get fighting style and such, just the reverse. One "commander" line with charisma-based abilities and battlefield control.

This could just be a combination of skills - say 'Tactics' and 'Leadership' - that are on the Fighter skill list (but not both on any other list as class skills), and feats that work off high intelligence or charisma. Some such feats already exist in published works. More ideas easily occur with some thought. The trick is balancing them so that they are worthwhile but not so good that they become 'required'.

One "assassin" line with stealth skills and abilities (think drow warrior).

It's a Trait called 'Unusual Background'. Since all PC's are advantaged characters (at least as I envision them) they start with one free Trait (and one free Feat), so if you wanted to make a stealthy fighter you'd do something like:

'Unusual Background (Assassin): Add Hide, Move Silently, and Disguise to the fighter's class skill list'

And/or you could just multiclass and have your fighter splash Rogue or Hunter, making the usual trade off between raw power and versitility. Of course, you'd probably want to be playing either a human or a fighter with high intelligence to get enough skill points to make that worth your while, but ideally we find some ways to make an intelligent fighter worth your while.

One "adventurer" line with disable device and survival skills and so on.

Under my rules probably the easiest way to do this would be take 'Explorer' as your class, but Explorer gives up alot of damage potential of a fighter in exchance for that skillfulness. If you wanted to play a heavily armored adventurer who was second to none at arms, you'd probably take Unusual Background again:

'Unusual Background (Explorer): Add Search, Disable Device, and Survival to the fighter's class skill list'

Of course, you could just multiclass into Explorer and/or Hunter, or even Rogue if you were willing to sacrifice a few points of BAB.

Sure, it might somewhat decrease the need of a rogue or charismatic character...

That's a feature: not a bug. You don't want every party to be required to be built the same way. A rogue shouldn't be required in the party.

 

[Kerrick]

On the contrary, class abilities are inelegant and booring because they stifle creativity.

Not if you give the player a choice of abilities. That's the whole reason I went with varying paths. The monk, for example, has five different fighting styles, and several abilities in each. No two monks will be the same.

The fighter is the most elegant class because it gets to define all of its class abilities.

And my version can't because...?

Looking at your Project Pheonix fighter, all you've done is forced the fighter to select between 5 or 6 feat trees that they must take and then lumped the bonus feats up at particular levels instead of spreading them out.

They still get their normal bonus feats at every other level; all I did was add combat styles and bonus weapon feats. I don't get your complaint about reduced flexibility, though - they're gaining power and customization. For example: in 3.5, I can make a fast fighter/duelist by choosing Dodge, Mobility, etc., putting him in light armor, and giving him a rapier. Whoopee - I could do the same thing with a rogue, AND gain stuff like sneak attack. In PP, the same fighter can choose Cat Style, gain some weapon feats with that rapier, and become a master fencer/acrobat. Tell me how that's not better.

Don't think that the combat styles are feat equivalent powers?

You could reduce just about any class ability to a feat. What's your point?

This would allow for example, a ranged combat focused fighter, or any number of other things - staff wielding fighters, boxers, spear experts, whatever.

That's what the weapon feats are for, in part.

Though to be frank, I find all of your fighter combat abilities to boil down to 'does more damage in melee combat', which doesn't even come close to addressing the problems or fixing the fighter.

You apparently didn't read it well enough, then, because I see it as "do more cool stuff in melee combat, besides hit things." That's what fighters are lacking.

I'd say it's lacking in Utility. Mages are good at lots of different things. So are rogues, even Rangers. But Fighters just hit things.

Umm... fighters fight. That's their schtick. They hit things. Sure, they could use a little variety in that archetype, but when you get right down to it, that's what they do. You should be able to define every single class (even PrCs) in a short sentence. Hell, base classes could probably be defined in five words or less. If you can't, you did something wrong.