Feats That Shouldn’t Be Feats

[jefgorbach]

As you point out, Feats should customize the generic role in a broad way (much like the PrCs), not fill-in what would have been handled better as a general Skill and/or circumstantial modifier applicable to virtually everyone.

For instance, Personally I wish RAW had simplified the whole Magic system by making Spellcasting itself a skill then adopted McWod's freeform approach to magic where the Caster defines the spell's area, range, duration, &etc variabls during the casting process to determine how difficult the effect will be to cast and how many resources are needed to do so successfully; miscasting on a botched/poor roll.

The casting capability of different Classes could still be differentiated by both adjusting their base skill and by the number of spell points earned per level. Likewise, answers the question of why metalic objects can be enchanted if metal negates spellcasting by having armor incur a negative modifier (offsetably by skill, spell/item, or whatnot).

 

[Celebrim]

I pretty much disagree with the prior comments across the board. The closest I can come to agreement with you is on 'Track' and 'Trapfinding', but even there I don't agree strongly enough to do anything other than make Track and Trapfinding into easily acquired feats as well as class features.

To give a hypothetical example of what I could not consider an appropriate feat, consider this:

Allow Trip [General, Fighter]
You can trip foes.
Prerequisite: BAB +1
Benefit: You can use the trip combat manuever.

My basic rule in considering whether or not something should be a feat is whether an untrained person can attempt it. If anyone can do it, it should be a combat manuever, and there should be feats that make it more effective. Generally speaking, a feat should allow you to do something you can already do better, not allow you to do something you can't do otherwise.

Some examples of Feats that shouldn't be Feats:
Area Attach
Awesome Blow
Battle Jump
Craft Talisman
Deft Strike
Fling Enemy
Martial Throw
Mutilator

There are other feats that shouldn't be feats because what they do simply is to absolute in effect and reduces flavor. Indeed, part of what I don't like about most of the suggestions is that they fall into the category of making your choices matter less. For example, if you make weapon focus available as a characteristic of the weapon itself, then you are making Dex just that much more of a 'god stat' usuable for every aspect of combat.

Example:
Combat Archery
Deft Strike
Natural Spell

There are a lot of feats I just don't like because they are overly mechanical in implementation.

For example:
'Cornered Rat' - The purpose of this feat is fine, in the idea of someone who fights more ferociously when hurt is perfectly exceptable. But the mechanical implementation simply doesn't make sense however practical it may be in effect. Why should 'you fight more ferociously' translate to, "Your opponents take less care to avoid being hit"? 'Rage' is an example of 'more ferocious' mechanics that make some intuitive sense; 'Cornered Rat' is way too meta and too mechanically aware.

And there are feats that shouldn't exist because they are covering up for really dumb mechanical implementation in the first place:

For example:
Agile, Cat Burgler, Decietful, etc.
Craft Talisman
Dragon's Toughness

 

[Drowbane]

Natural Spell
1) it should not be at all, as some think it makes Druids too awesome.
2) it should be a class feature (perhaps Druids don't get a 6th level feat ).

I've never heard of a Druid (PC) 6+ who didn't have Natural Spell...

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I know games that assume Eschew Materials gets houseruled in, simply because the DM doesn't want to babysit the caster to make sure he's actively stocking up on each material component.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

For instance, Personally I wish RAW had simplified the whole Magic system by making Spellcasting itself a skill then adopted McWod's freeform approach to magic where the Caster defines the spell's area, range, duration, &etc variabls during the casting process to determine how difficult the effect will be to cast and how many resources are needed to do so successfully; miscasting on a botched/poor roll.

Sounds fun, but I suspect the key stat for the casting skill would determine everyone's go-to casting class. (If it's Int, 95% of casters would be wizards, for example.) Also, power gamers would have a field day getting their casting bonus into the stratosphere.

For example:
'Cornered Rat' - The purpose of this feat is fine, in the idea of someone who fights more ferociously when hurt is perfectly exceptable. But the mechanical implementation simply doesn't make sense however practical it may be in effect. Why should 'you fight more ferociously' translate to, "Your opponents take less care to avoid being hit"?

Not familiar with this one; what exactly does "Your opponents take less care to avoid being hit" mean, mechanically?

I've never heard of a Druid (PC) 6+ who didn't have Natural Spell...

Yeah, they're like sexy virgins that way.

The only reason not to take natural spell is if you're using the shapeshifting variant. Which not-so-coincidentally, I force on my players.

I know games that assume Eschew Materials gets houseruled in, simply because the DM doesn't want to babysit the caster to make sure he's actively stocking up on each material component.

Somewhere, the PHB says "Assume that casters always have all the non-costly components they need." I think it's in the equipment chapter.

Sorcerers getting EM is a common house rule, which I think makes sense.

 

[Celebrim]

Not familiar with this one; what exactly does "Your opponents take less care to avoid being hit" mean, mechanically?

It means that they are denied their DEX bonus to AC in response to a condition inflicted on someone else. Mechanically, this allows a rogue to sneak attack with every attack, getting a huge damage boost when he needs it the most. The problem with this is that a literal translation of this mechanic into something in the game postulates that either: a) in response to the rogue being injured, his foes suddenly lose mobility, nimbleness, and quickness and become leaden lumps on the battlefield, or b) in response to the rogue being seriously injured he suddenly gains new and hitherto unguessed levels of finese, cunning, intelligence, and treachery in his fighting style. But, it's one thing to imagine that someone who is injured enters some sort of beserk rage where they gain strength in exchange for a loss of rationality and rational self-protective instinct, and another thing to imagine that suddenly they are superhuman at feinting and have an instinct for getting around a foes defenses. I suppose you could kludge together some sort of justification, but the point is that its obviously post-hoc justification for a mechanically interesting effect. That annoys me, and so I'm similarly annoyed with feats like Monte's 'Book of Iron Might' that without real justification beyond the fact that it may be mechanically balanced to do so, the feat provides access to a manuever only usuable once per day.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It means that they are denied their DEX bonus to AC in response to a condition inflicted on someone else. Mechanically, this allows a rogue to sneak attack with every attack, getting a huge damage boost when he needs it the most. The problem with this is that a literal translation of this mechanic into something in the game postulates that either: a) in response to the rogue being injured, his foes suddenly lose mobility, nimbleness, and quickness and become leaden lumps on the battlefield, or b) in response to the rogue being seriously injured he suddenly gains new and hitherto unguessed levels of finese, cunning, intelligence, and treachery in his fighting style. But, it's one thing to imagine that someone who is injured enters some sort of beserk rage where they gain strength in exchange for a loss of rationality and rational self-protective instinct, and another thing to imagine that suddenly they are superhuman at feinting and have an instinct for getting around a foes defenses. I suppose you could kludge together some sort of justification, but the point is that its obviously post-hoc justification for a mechanically interesting effect. That annoys me, and so I'm similarly annoyed with feats like Monte's 'Book of Iron Might' that without real justification beyond the fact that it may be mechanically balanced to do so, the feat provides access to a manuever only usuable once per day.

I'm guessing you don't like stuff like Stunning Fist or Defensive Roll either?

 

[Celebrim]

I'm guessing you don't like stuff like Stunning Fist or Defensive Roll either?

Not particularly.

I don't like Monks to the extent of removing them from my game. As for 'Stunning Fist', you can sort of justify it on the grounds that it is 'magic' and hense doesnt' have to obey logical rules. Since it never provides absolute protection, Defensive Roll honestly would probably be fine as an at will ability. It's certainly not more important than Evasion, which lacks an equivalent restriction.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

As for 'Stunning Fist', you can sort of justify it on the grounds that it is 'magic' and hense doesn't have to obey logical rules.

Wait, it's magical? How so? It's a general feat that any mid-level muggle with the right stats can take.

 

[Celebrim]

Some feats are so mundane, or so essential that everyone should get them just for sitting down at the table.

Heighten Spell: If we imagine each wizard spell as a very specific effect with a very specific forcefulness, I guess I can see why wizards might not be able to just boost their DCs by using higher spell slots. But I could argue it both ways. For wizards. For other casters? If I want to blow a high level slot on a lower level spell, why shouldn't the DC be that much higher? Frankly, I don’t see the point in keeping this feat a feat just for the wizard.

I'm not sure I follow your arguement here. Heighten Spell isn't a bad metamagic feat even in the core. It's main problem isn't that it isn't useful per se, but that for any given spell there is usually already a higher level version of the same idea (mind control, battlefield control, direct damage, save or suck, etc.) that does much the same thing only 'better'. Thus, it's rare that you wouldn't use the higher level version instead. This makes the feat really niche. (The same basic problem applies to feats like Empower Spell and Maximize Spell as well.)

How niche I couldn't really say, because in my game you don't add spell level to the spell's DC automatically. So getting high DC's with even high level spells is quite hard, and indeed at high levels you expect your foes to make most saves. 'Heighten Spell', as it works in my game, is therefore quite useful as a way of boosting the DC of a spell (in exchange for a higher level spell slot). Thus, you have the choice of using a higher level spell which is easier to save against (but might have more gross effect if it works) or a lower level spell (heighted) that is more difficult to save against. This makes the feat much less niche.

Power Attack: [And sundry feats that effectively trade AB for damage.] This becomes a necessary feat at higher levels, due to HP inflation, and the way that AB outpaces AC. If you need an in-game reason to wrap your head around, well, anyone can take a reckless swing right? Right.

Yes, but is Power Attack really a reckless swing? Note that it doesn't reduce AC, which would be more to the definition of reckless. Rather, power attack is actually closer to the notion of a 'called shot'. I've considered moving it into a manuever on several grounds, including making it the called shot mechanic, but haven't done so because it so well occupies the entry level point on the strength feat tree and I can't think of a replacement I like better.

If you want to attack recklessly in my game, you take an 'offensive fighting stance' (the opposite of fighting defensively), available to everyone. If you want to make frentic attacks, you declare a 'flail' action - again, available to everyone. And of course, there are feats that make you better at those maneuvers. Thus, I have no pressing flavor need to share power attack around.

Trapfinding: Okay, not a feat, but still very much in the “shouldn’t be” category. Blowing two skill points per level to keep two skills maxed out isn’t enough to even attempt defeating any bizarre trap my DM might throw at me? I need a special class gimmick too? This is like if every monster of 5 HD or higher had “Damage Reduction: Must be a 1st level fighter to bypass.” It’s niche protection taken too far.

In my game it is a feat, so as to ensure that parties can be put together without a required rogue.

Weapon Finesse: I need special training just to aim with my...aim, rather than with brute force? With light weapons only? Get real. Get game! This isn’t a powerful feat; this is a necessary feat for many characters. At least PF doesn’t screw rogues out of WF for two levels, but it’s still a feat slot lost for no good reason.

My basis problem here I've mentioned earlier - you risk making Dexterity too good as a combat feat. You are increasingly allowing a player to dump stat strength for little cost, particular since you are now allowing everyone to essentially start with both Weapon Finesse (convert dexterity to melee to hit) AND Power Attack (convert melee to hit to damage), what do you really need strength for? I've seen people want to house rule again and again ways to make lightly armored high dexterity fighters equal in various respects to melee brutes, but if you do that then they are almost strictly better than melee brutes. You have to let people give up something just as much as you have to make options open.