Feat Taxes, or, It's That Time of the Week Again

[Dannyalcatraz]

But doesn't that flavor text imply anyone should be able to take the feat?

Context matters, and it's the mechanics language that forms the context of the flavor text. It's the "Bouncer at the door", as it were.

IOW, if the feat has a prereq that limits who can take it, no. If no mechanics text limits who can take it, then yes.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm a lawyer.

My Wills prof, Stanley Johanssen (an Ichabod Crane body double) gave us a wonderful lesson on the evils of "legalese"*, and promised that if he ever heard of our work being like his "bad" example, he would hunt us down. Even if he were dead...

In my business law courses we learned that way back when, lawyers were literally paid by the word. This is what presumably led to legalese in the first place.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yep, yep- and when you add in the fact that unclear language can be used as a weapon...well, that was that, and legalese became king.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here's a gap-filling feat:

Plucky Side-Kick
You learn a lot from your more capable allies.
Prerequisite: You must be adventuring with at least one ally who has an attack bonus at least two higher than your own.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus to weapon attacks (if a qualifying ally uses a weapon) and/or implement attacks (if a qualifying ally uses an implement).


FREX: Pauline the Paladin has a STR 16, CHA 16 and uses a longsword for some of her powers and a holy symbol for others. Her bonus to hit with her longsword is +9, her bonus to hit with the holy symbol is +5. Her allies include Fritz the Fighter, 20 STR, greatsword, +12 to hit; and Wadsworth the Warlock, 18 CON, accurate rod, +7 to hit. When she takes the Plucky Side-Kick feat, Pauline gains a +1 to her attack rolls with both weapon and implement powers.

 

[Jhaelen]

Just define a hard cap for attack bonuses. Make it a general rule that your (static) attack bonus can never be higher than (level +x). Done.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Or make automatic misses on 1-4 instead of only at 1...

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Or this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A2FcpOt_v53rEwh8h7DWaV1o9YpAQIfGsxE0nyS-4yA/edit?hl=en&pli=1#

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don´t like the way you did your fixed bonus... for one thing, +5 is too much.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I don´t like the way you did your fixed bonus... for one thing, +5 is too much.

That's not my document - I only linked to it.

Further, the whole point of it is to remove a lot of optimization by assuming that every character is fully optimized, hence +5 (20 stat) for attacks, +3 (16 stat) secondary effects. There is another option out there for +4/+4 for classes that benefit more from having double 18s.

The net effect is supposed to be (as I understand it) that when fluff and mechanics are fully divorced, then you are more free to be creative with your concept. No more arbitrary limitations or tendency based on so-called 'optimal' combos.

And really, the fixed bonus can be set to whatever you want (within the design expectations of the game), so if you are more comfortable with lower-powered characters, going as low as +3/+1 or +2/+2 is fine too, since everyone is the same.

This document has its flaws, to be sure, but I really like the concept.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The net effect is supposed to be (as I understand it) that when fluff and mechanics are fully divorced, then you are more free to be creative with your concept. No more arbitrary limitations or tendency based on so-called 'optimal' combos.

And really, the fixed bonus can be set to whatever you want (within the design expectations of the game), so if you are more comfortable with lower-powered characters, going as low as +3/+1 or +2/+2 is fine too, since everyone is the same.

This document has its flaws, to be sure, but I really like the concept.

The problem I have is that it makes things more of thensame... Unless I can choose 2/2 or 3/1 but even then what about classes that don't need a second stat...