Feat Problems With PHB II

[Votan]

I think the real problem is the Fighter. It's impossible to balance a powerful high prereq. feat when most classes will have to spend over 50% of their feats to get it, but Fighters have to spend around 20%. The feat tree is abysmally underwhelming when looked at from a straight class Barbarian standpoint, but throw a Fighter at it and suddenly its trivial to take.

But, I've had that problem for a long time now.

I will venture the opinion that it's not all bad for a Fighter to have the odd angle that looks pretty good. it's long been labelled a weak class and, at the levels that the cool stuff if operating, it still needs help to seriously compete with a cleric. SO I consider this to be an improvement, actually.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I will venture the opinion that it's not all bad for a Fighter to have the odd angle that looks pretty good. it's long been labelled a weak class and, at the levels that the cool stuff if operating, it still needs help to seriously compete with a cleric. SO I consider this to be an improvement, actually.

It's a double edged sword. If you make a powerful feat with a lot of prerequisites, people don't look at the classes as a whole to figure out if it is balanced, they just look at the fighter. It makes it a lot harder to create a balanced feat chain that will be accepted as such.

 

[Votan]

It's a double edged sword. If you make a powerful feat with a lot of prerequisites, people don't look at the classes as a whole to figure out if it is balanced, they just look at the fighter. It makes it a lot harder to create a balanced feat chain that will be accepted as such.

True, but if it is put in context then that is fine. So long as you put skill, BAB or some other level dependent pre-req on these feats they work fine. The ability of an 18th level fighte rot be really tricked out with feats is nifty so long as the 4th level fighter didn't make the rest of the party feel useless.

The major problem with non-scaling feats and feat chains is that there can come a point where the fighter feels that his increments are linear or a little less while the mage is exponentially more powerful with each level of spell. This causes the class to seem under-powered.

Cool utlity feats help as do feat that shore up classic class weaknesses. Both of these are really cool. Heck, the ability to not fail a massive damage save on a 1 is a major boost and something that the cleric won't have (or, if he does, he's not doing persistent divine metamagic all of the time).

 

[ThirdWizard]

Oh, I'm all for high level feats and the fighter. I just think the devs have to put up with a lot of flak because of it, and that's a shame. I wish there were some other way around it instead. Of course, I haven't thought of one.

 

[Lorehead]

You know, generally when you have to go epic to defend a combination then you can be sure that it is overpowered.

Don't be fatuous. First, what I said was that the benefit per feat is a lot closer to Iron Will than to Epic Will. Second, most feats should scale by level, and the first-level and epic feats provide good endpoints.

 

[FalcWP]

I honestly don't see any problem with Indomitable Soul. Iron Will, as has been stated, is a flat 10% increase. Endurance is extremely campaign and DM dependent; I've had games where things like sleeping in armor were ignored, and campaigns where they were penalized. And Indomitable Soul provides a 25% increase. Widely varying benefits from Endurance (again, DM dependent), and a 25% increase on certain (and, yes, important) Will Saves, for two feats. I really don't see any major problem with that.

Figure its two extra feats for Fighters to pick up. That's another four levels of fighter for that character to make up those feats. If he instead picked up 4 levels of cleric, wizard, or any other class with a good Will save, he would have gotten +4 to his Will saves. He'd never get more than +2 to his Will saves from 4 levels of Fighter, so the biggest increase in Will Saves he's really gotten is 15% (and, if he was going to leave after just 4 levels of fighter, its only a 10% increase). All things considered... its a useful feat. I don't think its at all an overpowered or broken one.

Steadfast Determination, on the other hand, I don't know if I'd allow. My major problem with that one is that Constitution begins to govern two saves *and* hit points. 1s not being an automatic failure honestly doesn't bother me that much; there are some feats in Complete Adventurer that change which ability governs a save, which don't have the bit about 1s not being an automatic failure, but they also don't have Endurance as a prerequisite.

 

[Seeten]

I think I might create a house rule feat that gives you the ability to not fail any save on a 1 alone. Governing all 3 saves, with a level prereq.

Something like, "I Shall Overcome"
Cr 10, or Level 12 Minimum

Your sheer determination and will to survive overcomes all minor obstacles. You soldier on through the harshest of circumstances. You do not fail any saving throw on a 1, unless your total save bonus is less than the DC.

 

[FireLance]

I ran this by my DM, and he said, "No. I would never allow this combination." I agreed wholeheartedly. (BTW, I'm reversing my earlier opinion on IS - it's broken.)

I find that I have to keep repeating the same advice. Gaming groups differ. Different DMs enjoy presenting the players with different types of challenges. What one group finds to be broken may add to the fun of the game in another. If you don't like it, don't use it.

The two rolls does not work on all Will saves, but it works on the ones where the character totally loses control which is what most Fighters are worried about: Fear, Domination, Confusion, etc.

Again, some groups will find this to be a bug. Others will consider it a feature.

 

[Kerrick]

I think I might create a house rule feat that gives you the ability to not fail any save on a 1 alone. Governing all 3 saves, with a level prereq.

Why not just use the rule in the ELH - if you roll a 1, subtract -10 from the roll instead of ruling an autofailure. Same thing for a 20 - add 10. If you roll another 1 or 20, repeat as necessary.

 

[glass]

Why not just use the rule in the ELH - if you roll a 1, subtract -10 from the roll instead of ruling an autofailure. Same thing for a 20 - add 10. If you roll another 1 or 20, repeat as necessary.

Is that in the ELH? I thought that was a DMG variant.


glass.