Feat Problems With PHB II

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

When combined with Flanking and Sneak Attacks, ensuring that you hit is powerful.

Rogues often use a single attack in a round because Sneak Attack damage is only usable once per round. This allows them to nearly ensure a hit with it as well.

Apart from the SA error, your math still doesn't add up.

"Ensure a hit." If the rogue has tumbled into flanking position, then there's someone helping him flank. Thus, both the rogue and the fighter get +2 on their attack rolls.

Then, at the level this is available, a pure rogue is 3 points of BAB behind the fighter with whom he is flanking. With this feat, the rogue is at a total attack bonus of 1 higher than the fighter, making the leaping assumption of equal stat and magic bonuses.

In other words, this feat "ensures a hit" exactly as much as Weapon Focus ensures a hit - and in more limited circumstances, and the benefit over the equivalently-leveled fighter disappears at higher levels (when the difference in BAB is +4).

I agree that crossbows need improvement. But, a feat is not the way to do it.

Why not? Do you have the same criticism for Rapid Reload?

The way to do it is to give them a bonus to hit due to their stability and allow them to be Mighty just like other bows.

Apart from personal preference, why is the above the "correct" way to solve this problem? Why are your solution and the feat solution mutually exclusive?

It is a 5 foot step in the feat. So, how about if he moved before this in the current round?

Then you apply the specific rules ("You may take a 5' step when using this feat.") over the general rules ("You may not both move and take a 5' step."), and allow him to take a 5' step.

Spells are seriously crippled as Immediate Actions. These feats are not.

How are spell "seriously crippled" as Immediate actions? ANd why is opening up a particular rule subset (IAs) to people other than spellcasters a bad thing?

stupid.
...
stupid

Methinks you need a thesaurus. Or do you have a better criticism than "X is dumb!!!eleven!"?

I compared it to Skill Focus where it totally kicks butt. I really don't see how you could seriously argue against this.

Combat Casting gives a bigger bonus than Skill Focus (Concentration). It doesn't, however, grant that bonus to all Concentration checks.

Leap of the Clouds gives a bigger bonus than Skill Focus (Jump). It doesn't, however, grant that bonus to all Jump checks.

Moreover, haven't you, in the past, argued that CC is an underpowered feat? So, they fix the situational bonus provided by a feat, and you immediately scream overpowered.

Truly, if you give a gamer a donut, they will complain about the hole.

 

[FireLance]

Truly, if you give a gamer a donut, they will complain about the hole.

Hey, some gamers appreciate the donuts, thankyouverymuch!

 

[SidusLupus]

In your game people use Endurance. Great. In my game, they don't. Frankly, I think endurance is a really weak feat.

Enchanter NPCs got screwed over if a PC takes the feat. But then again, Protection from Alignment screws over enchanter NPCs or PCs tons already. It may not protect you from the enchantment effect sticking, but it does protect you from the control kicking in. Do you have problems with these spells?

A fighter who takes these feats invests a good amount of class resources to get the protection it offers. He can't do other stuff because of it. Other classes are ever more limited because they get so many less feats.

Personally I think the switch Con for Wisdom for will saves feats is silly. I won't allow it in my game. I think arcane consumption is somewhat insane, but I'll let a caster take it if he really wants to.

The feats in the PHB 2 by in large are cool. They're flavorful and give interesting bonuses. They are strong, but seem to be largely intended for mid to high levels, where such feats are needed.

Like someone else mentioned, these feats aren't used as requirements for any currently existing PrC. Taking these feats early on then delays folks getting into PrCs they may want to take. These PrCs are likely to have much stronger abilities than the feats grant. As such, your PCs are trading power off from one direction to another. That seems okay to me.

 

[Drowbane]

The "so what" is that Weapon Mastery encourages more Fighters to leave once they hit level 4 and go into another class or classes.

The intent of the "better Fighter feats" in PHB II was to encourage Fighters to remain Fighters. This feat does the opposite since it does not have a high Fighter level prereq and is better than GWF and GWS combined, one of the few reasons Fighters would stay Fighters.

Encourages to leave? Hows that? If they're interested in higher to hit and damage they're still going to want GWF and GWS... as well as more Fighter feats.

I might be the oddball here, but Fighter is one of the only Base classes I've taken past 8th level without multiclassing. By comparison I've never managed to stick with Barbarian past 1st... especially since Extra rage was released.

 

[glass]

"Not everyone's going to take it" isn't a defense. You can say that about ANY feat. It has no bearing on whether or not the feat itself is balanced.

'Not everyone will take it' is not a defence against 'this feat is unbalanced', but it is something of a defence againts 'enchanters will never cast a successful spell again'.

EDIT: I know you didn't actually say that; it was hyperbole on my part.


glass.

 

[KarinsDad]

There are plenty of other high-level fighter feats in PH2. Does it really matter that this one in particular is available to multiclased fighters?

Can you name any PHB II fighter feats which are better than these two at medium levels?

For that matter, how many other beyond 4th level fighter-only (or high-level fighter-only) feats are in PHB II? Which ones are they and what level do you get them?

I only see Weapon Specialization. One Feat achievable by 18th level Fighters only. I might just be missing this "plenty" list of yours.

I see quite a few feats that encourage a Fighter to leave after getting Weapon Specialization at fourth level. But, only one feat that encourages him to stay.

 

[MarkB]

Can you name any PHB II fighter feats which are better than these two at medium levels?

For that matter, how many other beyond 4th level fighter-only (or high-level fighter-only) feats are in PHB II? Which ones are they and what level do you get them?

I only see Weapon Specialization. One Feat achievable by 18th level Fighters only. I might just be missing this "plenty" list of yours.

I see quite a few feats that encourage a Fighter to leave after getting Weapon Specialization at fourth level. But, only one feat that encourages him to stay.

Why should the feats have to be fighter-only to encourage someone to stay a fighter? There are plenty of general feats in the PHBII that can be taken as fighter bonus feats, and the only way to take more than a handful of them throughout your character's career is to stick with Fighter for the bonus feats.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why should the feats have to be fighter-only to encourage someone to stay a fighter? There are plenty of general feats in the PHBII that can be taken as fighter bonus feats, and the only way to take more than a handful of them throughout your character's career is to stick with Fighter for the bonus feats.

If you want to specialise in a fighting style, multiclass your fighter. If you want to specialise in general combat, stay a fighter. That's the only way you can learn feats that in total help you in any situation.

 

[KarinsDad]

Apart from the SA error, your math still doesn't add up.

"Ensure a hit." If the rogue has tumbled into flanking position, then there's someone helping him flank. Thus, both the rogue and the fighter get +2 on their attack rolls.

Then, at the level this is available, a pure rogue is 3 points of BAB behind the fighter with whom he is flanking. With this feat, the rogue is at a total attack bonus of 1 higher than the fighter, making the leaping assumption of equal stat and magic bonuses.

In other words, this feat "ensures a hit" exactly as much as Weapon Focus ensures a hit - and in more limited circumstances, and the benefit over the equivalently-leveled fighter disappears at higher levels (when the difference in BAB is +4).

The Fighter and Rogue only both get the flank bonus if the order of initiative (either initially or contrived by Delay) is Opponent, Rogue, Fighter since the Rogue will be the one moving.

The Fighter is not guaranteed a flanking bonus. The Rogue is. Hence, the Rogue automatically gets +6 to hit and SA damage if successful when he uses this feat.

At higher levels, most Fighters hit the vast majority of the time (often 95% unless they Power Attack or Combat Expertise) with a single attack, an AoO, or the first attack of a full round attack. Now, the mid to high level Rogue can do that once per round plus practically (95% range for many opponents) guarantee (for appropriate foes) his SA damage as well for the cost of a single feat.

Practically guaranteeing once per round SA damage (with the proper type of foes) is not weak.

Then you apply the specific rules ("You may take a 5' step when using this feat.") over the general rules ("You may not both move and take a 5' step."), and allow him to take a 5' step.

No, you do not. The specific rule only overrides the general rule if it explicitly states that it does.

The general rule is no 5' step in the same round as any other movement. Hence, if you moved at all on your turn in the round, you cannot take a 5' step with this feat. If your turn has not yet come up and you 5' step with this feat, then you cannot move or 5' step when your turn comes up.

Now, as we start getting more IA feats and special abilities, new arguments will start over which IA rule overrides or does not override the core rules. This area of the game was not part of the original design, hence, there are no core rules (or really other rules) to handle all of the cans of worms it can open once IAs are part of many different action types.

It's bad enough that they became part of spells. In fact, there is a "Adjudicating Immediate Actions" question on the forum right now due to it not being clear.

How are spell "seriously crippled" as Immediate actions? ANd why is opening up a particular rule subset (IAs) to people other than spellcasters a bad thing?

Most of the immediate action spells have a duration of one round. A one round spell is crippled compared to a normal spell.

As to why it is a bad thing, it further opens up the can of worms of disintegrating the order of combat actions that Immediate actions did in the first place. Eventually, the game will devolve into arguments about whose Immediate Action occurs first once feats and PrC special abilities start showing up where most characters get Immediate Actions. So, WotC will start adding rules and dice rolls to determine whose Immediate Actions go first, etc.

Effectively, Immediate Actions disrupt the original action design. It's a bandaid and like all bandaids, it is not part of the original design and hence, typically has (or will have if we keep adding IAs to the game) mechanics issues.

Methinks you need a thesaurus. Or do you have a better criticism than "X is dumb!!!eleven!"?

No need to get snarky. Don't you know the rules around here?

Moreover, haven't you, in the past, argued that CC is an underpowered feat? So, they fix the situational bonus provided by a feat, and you immediately scream overpowered.

Actually, you are confusing me with someone else. To my knowledge, I've never discussed CC. But, it makes sense to take Skill Focus Concentration before ever taking CC.

 

[Shadeus]

I can't remember the name of the feat, but I thought there was a new feat that had a pre-req of Endurance and gave you:

1. you can succeed on Fort saves with a 1
2. you use your Con instead of Wis for Will saves.

Anyone else hear the melee classes jumping for joy?

Can someone help me out with the name too?