Feat Problems With PHB II

[Lorehead]

Andy Collins, as quoted by Shade (do you have the link)?

On the "these feats are too powerful" issue, consider this:

I think the vast majority of the feats in D&D are too weak, too boring, or both.

Historically, we've been way too conservative about creating exciting, potent feats. We've spent way too much ink printing feats that give you a small numerical bonus (often only applying in a corner-case game situation), and not nearly enough creating new equivalents of Cleave and Spring Attack. PH2 represents an intentional shift in that mentality.

The other tricky issue is that unlike, say, spells, feats don't have an easy ranking system to compare them against one another. If Spring Attack were a "4th-level feat" and Toughness were a "0-level feat," it'd be easier to see how much better the former is supposed to be compared to the latter. PH2 has a lot of feats that, due to their high prereqs, are effectively "high-level" feats, and thus are very much intended to be more powerful than those that've come before.

Some folks will freak out when they see what's available in PH2. I think that's just flat-out a good thing--it's about time folks got excited about a new D&D book

I remain unconvinced that a feat more than three times better than other feats available at the same level is balanced. If the designers know how much power creep this represents and are doing it on purpose, I suppose we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt. (Most of the other feats in the book look great to me so far.) The idea that single- and multi-classed fighters need such a large boost in power isn't absurd.

 

[Sejs]

To add to this, an unbalanced feat is an unbalanced feat regardless.

Balanced against what? It's a three feat chain, one of which is a throw-away, and it's comparable to Slippery Mind/Follow the Guide. Slightly better becuase it doesn't have the one round delay built in, but it comes with an otherwise hefty opportunity cost of two of your other feats. If you're a barbarian, that means you'll have to be 9th level before you're able to Power Attack, if you're a fighter it means all your feats until 8th have to come off the fighter bonus feats list.

I don't mind this feat. It gives classes that are otherwise hosed by debilitating will saves to at least stand a chance, if they're willing to grit their teeth and pay the piper.

 

[Grog]

Third level Fighter with Wisdom 10 has +1 to Will saves. Against a third level Cleric with a 16 Wisdom and Hold Person, he saves 35% of the time. If he takes Indomitable Will, he saves 69.75% of the time. Effectively, he just got a +7 to his save, +5 more than taking Iron Will alone, the equivalent of a +5 magic item for a feat.

And it's even worse when you're talking about Hold spells. The opportunity to break the spell comes on the creature's turn, so if you take the simplest situation of single combat, a fighter with Indomitable Will effectively gets four saving throws against the same spell. That's ridiculous. The chance of immobilizing even the crappiest Will save fighter with this feat for just one round is practically nil.

 

[SidusLupus]

Okay so the fighter is better at resisting will saves. He's missing out on taking Spring Attack, or any of the new weapon mastery feats or other things. He spent 3 feats to shore up a lousy defense against will saves. He doesn't get to do super awesome things in other areas.

 

[Grog]

He only misses out on the other things for a few levels. Or, hell, he takes Spring Attack first and then takes Indomitable Will.

And while we're at it, why did only Enchantment specialists get screwed? Necros, Evokers, etc. aren't affected by this at all. Where's the feat to give my rogue two saves against that Finger of Death? Where's the feat to give my wizard two saves against that Fireball?

Why pick on Enchanters? They had enough problems to begin with.

 

[FireLance]

Why pick on Enchanters? They had enough problems to begin with.

Because for a player, having your character charmed, held, or dominated is usually not fun. You don't get your turn in combat, and there could also be an additional pang similar to that of seeing your prized car taken for a joyride by somone else.

Now, you may not agree with this philosophy of play, and that's fine. Your players may see the threat of being occasionally charmed or dominated as an additional challenge and enjoy it. If that's the case, just don't use this feat.

 

[Votan]

He only misses out on the other things for a few levels. Or, hell, he takes Spring Attack first and then takes Indomitable Will.

And while we're at it, why did only Enchantment specialists get screwed? Necros, Evokers, etc. aren't affected by this at all. Where's the feat to give my rogue two saves against that Finger of Death? Where's the feat to give my wizard two saves against that Fireball?

Why pick on Enchanters? They had enough problems to begin with.

I'm going to defend this feat. It takes 3 feats to get this ability which is not trvial. it emans that a player put a lot of effort into shoring up a weak spot. I appreciate being able to do it via feat instead of dipping into Occult Slayer or taking soem other strange multi-class. I like the way that it makes it possible for a Fighter or Barbarian to be hard to control -- that weak point was just too obvious.

Plus, you can't defend agaisnt everything. There are other feats that do nice things to protect against rare but crippling problems such as close quaters fighting or Prone Attack. I see it as a good thing that figthers have more options to do cool things.

In some ways, this could be the book in which fighters finally come into their own!

 

[Grog]

Because for a player, having your character charmed, held, or dominated is usually not fun. You don't get your turn in combat, and there could also be an additional pang similar to that of seeing your prized car taken for a joyride by somone else.

It's also usually not fun to have your character instakilled by a Finger of Death or a Wail of the Banshee spell. So where's the feat to give an extra saving throw against those effects?

And I know I have the option not to use the feat, however, that's only true in games where I DM. In someone else's game, I don't get to decide whether or not it gets used. Plus, there are also things like published adventures to consider.

I see it as a good thing that figthers have more options to do cool things.

I guess I'm just wondering why "cool things" in this instance is a nerf to one (and only one) specific school of magic. Doesn't seem particularly fair to players who have specialized in that school, especially considering that it was nerfed already in the 3.5 revision.

 

[Votan]

I guess I'm just wondering why "cool things" in this instance is a nerf to one (and only one) specific school of magic. Doesn't seem particularly fair to players who have specialized in that school.

Just ask an evoker who likes fireballs what he thinks about evasion and improved evasion. I agree that it is annoyign when specific schools and tactics get nerfed and I wonder how much od this was the release of the Beguiler vs. cocnerns about the wizard who specialized in enhantment?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Third level Fighter with Wisdom 10 has +1 to Will saves. Against a third level Cleric with a 16 Wisdom and Hold Person, he saves 35% of the time. If he takes Indomitable Will, he saves 69.75% of the time. Effectively, he just got a +7 to his save, +5 more than taking Iron Will alone, the equivalent of a +5 magic item for a feat.

Fuzzy math. Indomitable Will isn't increasing his liklihood from 35% to 69.75%. Indomitable Will + Iron Will (+ Endurance) is increasing his save from 35% to 69.75%. No, I don't have a point, but it's worth pointing out.

By the way, combine Indomitable Will with the feat that lets you use Con for Will saves with your barbarian and you've got one hard to charm guy. Of course, he can't do much else, but dang, he's chosing those ineffectual actions himself! *tongue planted in cheek*