Feat Problems With PHB II

[BryonD]

Enchanter NPCs got screwed over if a PC takes the feat.

Effective enchanter bad guys don't target the PCs with their enchantments.

 

[Sejs]

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

That's not entirely true. Just looking at the feats alone there are a number of things from the ELH that are far from epic in their scope.

A feat that grants you a +1 natural armor bonus.
A feat that grants a cleric access to an additional domain from their deity's list.
A feat that lets you shoot a bow without incurring an AoO when threatened.
A feat that essentially gives you the Pounce ability if used on the 1st round of combat.
A third tier of Spell Focus.
A third tier of Spell Penetration.
An improved version of Skill Focus. Skill Focus!
A feat that extends your natural life span.

There are several more. Suffice it to say that while, granted, they should have reasonable pre-reqs, several epic feats just arn't.

 

[Roudi]

The concept of introducing feats that are more useful and potent than core rules feats is a bad idea.

I completely disagree with this statement.

Player Options books like the PHB II and countless others from Mongoose, TheLe Games, and various others are all a matter of taste. If a gamemaster wants to ramp up the "power" curve in a game, then introducing more "powerful" feats isn't a bad idea. Besides, not all of us enjoy spending our (sometimes rare) feat slots on incremental benefits or, in some cases, useless effects (usually because the feat is a prerequisite to other, better feats).

 

[Kerrick]

Ooh.. I found this when I was looking at the barbarian a little bit ago. Give Steadfast Determination to a 14th-level barbarian (he gets Indomitable Will, which grants +4 to save vs. enchantment spells in a rage). So, while raging the barbariang gets: +2 + (modified) Con bonus to all Will saves, and +4 vs. enchantment spells (most of which have... Will saves).

Or the ranger - they get Endurance for free at 3rd level, making this (SD) a no-brainer, basically free feat. They can also take Indomitable Soul for the cost of ONE feat (Iron Will), which is one they'd probably take anyway to shore up that low Will save.

I'll let you all come to your own conclusions.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ooh.. I found this when I was looking at the barbarian a little bit ago. Give Steadfast Determination to a 14th-level barbarian (he gets Indomitable Will, which grants +4 to save vs. enchantment spells in a rage). So, while raging the barbariang gets: +2 + (modified) Con bonus to all Will saves, and +4 vs. enchantment spells (most of which have... Will saves).

Or the ranger - they get Endurance for free at 3rd level, making this (SD) a no-brainer, basically free feat. They can also take Indomitable Soul for the cost of ONE feat (Iron Will), which is one they'd probably take anyway to shore up that low Will save.

I'll let you all come to your own conclusions.

No-Brainer? Only if all you care about is defending against a few spells. Especially characters that specialise a lot (something you basically need to do if you want to be effective in the things you can do) don't have so much liberty with their feats.

 

[Lorehead]

I'll let you all come to your own conclusions.

All right. My conclusion is that these feats look nowhere close to being overpowered, although I'd need to see them in play to be certain.

Offense generally trumps defense in D&D. It ends the fight sooner, meaning that you also take fewer hits and roll fewer saves. Add to this that these feats give you abilities which, like your favored enemy bonus, the DM decides how often you'll get to use. That's at least an active bonus; saving throws are passive. Many encounters won't involve Fortitude or Will saves at all, or will force you to roll at most one of them. Furthermore, many groups especially hate having PCs die meaningless deaths, for instance because some oil slick zaps you to prove how evil it is and you roll a natural 1.

What's the problem? I just don't see one. It can't be that the bonuses are too high, since they're entirely in line with what existing feats give. It can't be that they counter enchanters too well. A PC enchanter will face plenty of opponents who don't have them, and already faces plenty of others who will be completely (or effectively) immune. As for NPC enchanters, every defensive ability is great against someone; how effective were they before against PC clerics and druids?

 

[rowport]

...Or the ranger - they get Endurance for free at 3rd level, making this (SD) a no-brainer, basically free feat. They can also take Indomitable Soul for the cost of ONE feat (Iron Will), which is one they'd probably take anyway to shore up that low Will save.

I'll let you all come to your own conclusions.

My conclusion would be that the hypothetical Ranger player made some pretty weak feat choices. As few feats as Rangers get, if they put that many into shoring up Will saves they will be *very* weak in offensive combat. Your example uses *three* feats. Sure, Ranger X will never fail a Will save, but then Ranger Y is coming out with Improved Precise Shot, Greater Manyshot, etc. Personally, I would put my money on the strong offense; even from a defensive standpoint, improved Will saves are far less useful than Armor Class, for example. :/

 

[Vuron]

I concur that comparing this specific combo to an older Epic feat is not neccesarily a bad thing. Plenty of other "epic" feats have been brought into the core in 3.5 through various supplements. The idea of bringing something resembling that feat combo isn't a bad thing.

If I have any problems with PHB II feats it's that several of them have less than stellar wording of the rules that will require significant errata to spell out thier limitations.

 

[Ranes]

Water Splitting Stone

I've never played a monk. No player in one of my games has ever played a monk. I've read and re-read this feat. I've re-read ki strike and damage reduction. I just don't understand the benefit. Every time I read the benefit part of the feat entry, I keep thinking, there has to be either something missing or there's a superfluous word somewhere, because all I see is a contradiction. Any help would be appreciated. I'm unused to reading D&D rules and being confused (which is not, of course, the same as not being confused but being wrong). Still, first time for everything.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I've never played a monk. No player in one of my games has ever played a monk. I've read and re-read this feat. I've re-read ki strike and damage reduction. I just don't understand the benefit. Every time I read the benefit part of the feat entry, I keep thinking, there has to be either something missing or there's a superfluous word somewhere, because all I see is a contradiction. Any help would be appreciated. I'm unused to reading D&D rules and being confused (which is not, of course, the same as not being confused but being wrong). Still, first time for everything.

The way I read it is that if you are hitting something that has DR you can't bypass, you get an extra +4 damage to help overcome it.

Say you are hitting something that has DR 5/chaotic. Normally that would absorb the first 5 points of damage. But with this feat, the DR is effectively reduced to 1/chaotic. A minor speedbump.