Feats That Shouldn’t Be Feats

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.)

Heighten is niche enough that in all my years of 3.x gaming, I never saw it used. Not once.

Like you say, there's usually a spell that's 'the same, except better.' And typically if a caster knows one, he'll know the other too. Add to this the fact that matching a spell's DC to the spell slot you cast it with is such a...banal 'ability,' I just think it's something any caster should be able to do.

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.

Ah, I'm detecting a "Let's reign casters in" house rule. Mind briefly describing it?

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.

Call Power Attack a wild swing, then. Whatever works for you. What concerns me is that the game expects PCs to trade AB for damage at higher levels, but charges a feat tax to do it.

I should say though, that I don't exactly give PA away for free -- I simply say that anyone can trade AB for damage on a 1-for-1 basis. Described as a wild swing, a long-pull shot, etc.

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

It's an improvement over the RAW.

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.

Dex a god stat? As I understand it, pretty much every power-gamed non-caster maxes out Str because it's the best way to max your dpr. Even rogues and other stereotypically finesse-y types. (Except for archers, who don't have the luxury of attack-and-damage-in-one-stat.) Besides, if Dex were a god stat, Weapon Finesse would be a god feat.

I'm curious why you're concerned about balance when it comes to Dex, but you don't seem to be concerned with stuff like HP inflation and AB outpacing AC.

Also still curious why you say that Stunning Fist is magical!

 

[Celebrim]

Wait, it's magical?

Of course it is.

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

It's quite clear from the description of the feat and its association with the Monk that the feat is derived from the Eastern magical tradition of 'chi'. This is reinforced by the fact that it only works a certain number of times per day. If it was simply that you were a heavy puncher, it wouldn't have such an arbitrary restriction. Rather, from the context we can tell that the stunning punch occurs by striking something and channeling your 'chi/ki' into it. This is the idea it is derived from and mechanically reproduces.

'Chi' is the basis of Chinese magic and similar concepts underly many other eastern mystic traditions. That you don't have to be a miracle worker* in the ordinary sense to channel your chi is not proof that it isn't magic. Indeed, traditional chinese martial arts contain a strong magical/mystical/shamanistic tradition (partially wiped out in the last 100 or so years, but easily seen in its more archaic practice in something like the Boxer Rebellion).

Defining wizard outside the narrow highly modern Western magical tradition that the D&D Wizard is based on is a very problimatic affair. Defining magic or spell is equally problimatic. D&D has had a long history of simply adopting a dictionary or theasurus approach to every mythic or fantasy concept, and producing for any given word a mechanical representation. So, for any given concept, if you translate that word into a different langauge than English, D&D tends to treat it as if it were a wholly different concept. Hense, Samurii and Knight almost invariably end up being treated as different classes, and 'magic' and 'psionics' are treated as being two different mechanical systems. Clerics and shamans are treated as somehow distinctly different from wizards and so forth. While some of this might serve a purpose, fundamentally everything that is magical is magic.

 

[Celebrim]

Like you say, there's usually a spell that's 'the same, except better.' And typically if a caster knows one, he'll know the other too. Add to this the fact that matching a spell's DC to the spell slot you cast it with is such a...banal 'ability,' I just think it's something any caster should be able to do.

That way lies madness. The exact same argument could be made with ANY metamagic feat? Still, silent, shape, empowered, etc. Why don't casters get all metamagic feats? There are multiple answers, but its enough to suggest that the more options a character gets the more powerful they tend to be in effect. Also, if everyone gets everything, then no one can be characterized by what they do. So, you come up with more things 'to do', and then you're faced with the problem that the same argument can be applied to those things to do. "If I'm a wizard, then I'm supposed to be able to do these things. These are ordinary abilities of a wizard implied by the concept, ergo I ought to be able to do that." There is really no end to that argument, so you just arbitrarily have to cut it off somewhere.

Ah, I'm detecting a "Let's reign casters in" house rule. Mind briefly describing it?

Nothing could be more brief: spell level is not added to the save DC when determining the DC to save versus a spell. So far this has been a remarkably effective "let's reign casters in" house rule, and while its not sufficient on its own, it does solve the problem of save DC's outstriping save bonuses.

Call Power Attack a wild swing, then. Whatever works for you. What concerns me is that the game expects PCs to trade AB for damage at higher levels, but charges a feat tax to do it.

I'm not sure that that is true. Trading AB for damage can be a very effective strategy, perhaps the only effective strategy for a given rules set, but I'm not at all certain that the game 'expects' that nor am I at all comfortable with the now (as I see it) all to lightly used term 'feat tax'.

I should say though, that I don't exactly give PA away for free -- I simply say that anyone can trade AB for damage on a 1-for-1 basis. Described as a wild swing, a long-pull shot, etc.

Which is effectively giving away power attack for free in a large percentage of situations.

Dex a god stat? As I understand it, pretty much every power-gamed non-caster maxes out Str because it's the best way to max your dpr. Even rogues and other stereotypically finesse-y types. (Except for archers, who don't have the luxury of attack-and-damage-in-one-stat.) Besides, if Dex were a god stat, Weapon Finesse would be a god feat.

How much experience do you have with other RPG systems? In D&D, if you have decided to max out your DPR via strength then you've chosen the easy route to high damage and that is how it should be. But you've also chosen to at least partially give up high initiative, high AC (especially touch dexterity), the most effective missile attacks, and a wide variaty of skills with useful combat abilities - tumble and escape artist for example. You are also choosing to, if you want high AC, to equip yourself with bulky and heavy armor which further limits your options in mobility, stealth, and evasion. All of this may be worth it, because hitting things with a stick is such a versital and effective strategy, but imagine for a second if you could easily match strength in DPR with dexterity while still taking advantage of all these other benefits?

I'm curious why you're concerned about balance when it comes to Dex, but you don't seem to be concerned with stuff like HP inflation and AB outpacing AC.

How can you say from my silence on something whether I'm concerned with it or not. It's hard enough to stick to the topic without ranging around top topics like how much hit points a monster should have, or what the AC should be. Let's just say that I'm very concerned with combats lasting an appropriate length - not so short that you have very few decisions to make within them and the initiative check can be considered midc-combat, but not so long that they become redundant. Personally, I consider AB outpacing AC to be - at least in the general case - ideal. The basis for me saying that is comparing how D&D plays out to games in which AC tends to outstrip hit points or attack bonuses. Many dice pool or wound based games are like that. The problem with that is that on most rounds, nothing really happens. Most rounds you narrate to the player simply a 'whiff', and in even a greater percentage of rounds the monsters make no progress either. (Star Wars d6 and its infamous case of stock Storm Troopers being literally unable to hit PC's is a case in point, however true it may be to the movies.) There is no obvious marker to progress in such a system, and the combat generally hinges on an early lucky roll by one side or the other seemingly coming out of nowhere.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It's quite clear from the description of the feat ...

Oh, I see. You're going by the feat fluff. Fair enough.

That way lies madness. The exact same argument could be made with ANY metamagic feat? Still, silent, shape, empowered, etc. Why don't casters get all metamagic feats? There are multiple answers, but its enough to suggest that the more options a character gets the more powerful they tend to be in effect. Also, if everyone gets everything, then no one can be characterized by what they do. So, you come up with more things 'to do', and then you're faced with the problem that the same argument can be applied to those things to do. "If I'm a wizard, then I'm supposed to be able to do these things. These are ordinary abilities of a wizard implied by the concept, ergo I ought to be able to do that." There is really no end to that argument, so you just arbitrarily have to cut it off somewhere.

Yes, a similar argument could be made for virtually any feat. What makes Heighten Spell different, in my eyes? It's granting an 'ability' that's almost written right into the rules: "DC = 10 + spell level + stat" is almost equivalent to "DC = 10 + spell slot level + stat."

I suspect that the decision to use the former formula rather than the latter, if it was even a conscious decision at all, was the result of saving marginal page space. Heighten spell was likely the result of someone asking "Hey, why didn't we choose the second DC formula, again?" And Monte replying "Page space. Make a metamagic feat with it. We need more!"

Nothing could be more brief: spell level is not added to the save DC when determining the DC to save versus a spell. So far this has been a remarkably effective "let's reign casters in" house rule, and while its not sufficient on its own, it does solve the problem of save DC's outstriping save bonuses.

I see how Heighten would be quite awesome in your game.

I'm not sure that that is true. Trading AB for damage can be a very effective strategy, perhaps the only effective strategy for a given rules set, but I'm not at all certain that the game 'expects' that nor am I at all comfortable with the now (as I see it) all to lightly used term 'feat tax'.

You're entitled to your doubt, but let me ask you this: given that HPs increase geometrically as CR/levels go up, and further that AB outpaces AC as CR/levels go up -- rather than remaining relatively matched -- do you not see a probable connection? Specifically, that as you gain levels, AC becomes less hit-prevention and more an overwhelming-damage-deterrent. That is, the purpose of AC becomes preventing your enemies from dumping everything they've got into PA and hitting you on a nat 2.

For evidence, take a look at any MM: how many high CR brutes don't have Power Attack? Heck, in later MMs they started calculating PA right into attack and damage numbers.

Which is effectively giving away power attack for free in a large percentage of situations.

Yeah. The only noteworthy difference regards two-hand fighter types, who gain a lot more benefit from PA than others do. Oh, and my rule is usable with finesse-able and ranged weapons.

How much experience do you have with other RPG systems? In D&D, if you have decided to max out your DPR via strength then you've chosen the easy route to high damage and that is how it should be. But you've also chosen to at least partially give up high initiative, high AC (especially touch dexterity), the most effective missile attacks, and a wide variaty of skills with useful combat abilities - tumble and escape artist for example. You are also choosing to, if you want high AC, to equip yourself with bulky and heavy armor which further limits your options in mobility, stealth, and evasion. All of this may be worth it, because hitting things with a stick is such a versital and effective strategy, but imagine for a second if you could easily match strength in DPR with dexterity while still taking advantage of all these other benefits?

You still have to use Str for damage, even with Weapon Finesse.

How can you say from my silence on something whether I'm concerned with it or not.

Because silence generally means a lack of concern, or interest. You don't want to get into it, that's cool. I just figured with how vociferous you are, you'd be happy as a clam to go on a few tangents. It tends to happen with forum threads, anyway.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes, a similar argument could be made for virtually any feat.

Yes, it could. Which is why I only think something shouldn't be a feat when it gives a, "No." answer to something that ordinary untrained people could unambigiously try. Heighten Spell is not something that intuitively, a 5 year old could try on the playground, ergo, it could be a feat. Proving something should or shouldn't be a feat is harder, because more things go into that calculation, but its a base line. I see nothing immediately in Heighten Spell that says it shouldn't be a feat.

Yeah. The only noteworthy difference regards two-hand fighter types, who gain a lot more benefit from PA than others do. Oh, and my rule is usable with finesse-able and ranged weapons.

I use the 3.0 power attack, so its usuable on light weapons and doesn't grant significantly more advantage to two-handed weapon wielders.

You still have to use Str for damage, even with Weapon Finesse.

Not if you can also power attack. Then you can translate any spare to hit bonus from any source into a damage bonus.

Because silence generally means a lack of concern, or interest. You don't want to get into it, that's cool. I just figured with how vociferous you are, you'd be happy as a clam to go on a few tangents. It tends to happen with forum threads, anyway.

Ok fine. My basic problem is that I think that there are lots of good reasons for having the math work like that even if power attack doesn't exist. I don't believe that the game was designed around power attack or that power attack is essential for the game. For example, one of the most important reasons that AB outstrips AC over time is so that 3/4 BAB bonus classes will still be able to contribute to melee. Over time, the 1/1 BAB bonus classes get a larger and larger gap on the 3/4 BAB bonus classes. At first level, a fighter's BAB is only 1 larger than even the wizard, and so he only has a marginally better chance to hit things than other classes. But by higher levels, the gap has gotten huge. If AC kept up with the fighter's to hit bonus progression, then quickly no non-fighter class could hit the foe. But that isn't to say that AC is only useful at high levels for resisting power attack. The increasing difficulty of iterative attacks means that each additional attack is increasingly likely to miss and decreasingly likely to generate a confirmed critical. Successful attacks are easier ways of generating damage than power attack, so that trade an increased 25% chance to miss on each attack (and a decreased chance to confirm criticals) for +10 damage might not always be a good idea. Power attack is really only a no brainer when you are making single attacks against low AC foes. But not every class needs power attack to generate damage. Rogues for example are perfectly capable of generating massive amounts of damage through sneak attack, so trading a missed hit for a small bonus to damage just doesn't usually make sense. Other strategies might be generating additional attacks on the enemy, or maximizing the chances for a critical, or using gear/spells/feats to generate lots of bonus damage, etc. Power Attack didn't become THE strategy really until 3.5 introduced the 2 for 1 trade with two handed weapons because they thought the math would be too hard for us. Power Attack is critical at high levels for straight forward melee builds only because WotC has done a bad job of giving fighters balanced and interesting options at higher levels. That feeds directly into your observation about almost all brutes taking Power Attack. Well, exactly what would their core options be anyway? Even if Power Attack didn't fit the flavor, it's not like there are solid options in core in a Constitution based feat tree or a 'one man gang' sort of feat tree.

 

[Trance-Zg]

Weapon finesse removed: works automatic with light weapons.

Power full throw aoutomatic with one handed weapons.

heightened spell removed: works automatic

pointblank shot and precise shot molded into one feat.

Far shot extends point blank range(sneak attack etc) to 60 feat in addition to adding 50% overall range.

weapon focus add +1 damage also.

Natural spell removed: added fast wild shape instead(free action once per round).

Two weapon fighting is attack action not full round action.(improved, greater, superior, epic, godly TWF removed. they are automatic with high enough high level as full attack action, as all itterativ attacks.)

Rapid shot is attack action not full round action.

Oversized TWF adds full str mod to off hand damage.

Spell DC's are all half caster level instead of spell level, that leads to:

Spell focus: increases caster level by 2 in selected school, damage limit remains.

Greater spell focus: increases CL by additional 2, damage limit remains.

Spell penetration: +4 to caster levels for beating spell resistance,

Greater spell penetration removed.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yes, it could. Which is why I only think something shouldn't be a feat when it gives a, "No." answer to something that ordinary untrained people could unambigiously try. Heighten Spell is not something that intuitively, a 5 year old could try on the playground, ergo, it could be a feat. Proving something should or shouldn't be a feat is harder, because more things go into that calculation, but its a base line. I see nothing immediately in Heighten Spell that says it shouldn't be a feat.

I see nothing immediately, or after discussion, that says Heighten should be a feat. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Not if you can also power attack. Then you can translate any spare to hit bonus from any source into a damage bonus.

What I'm trying to point out is that Dex PCs have one way to boost damage, while Str PCs have two. Dex: PA. Str: PA and the default Str-to-damage bonus. Which means if you want to deal lots o' damage, Str is still your best option.

Ok fine.

Whoa, wall o' text! No offense, but I don't want to get into a tangent that much. Especially one that starts with "Ok fine." I'm keeping this casual.

 

[Celebrim]

I see nothing immediately, or after discussion, that says Heighten should be a feat. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ok, sure. But, I'll note that earlier when someone encouraged a move toward a freeform magic system, you immediately noted several problems so I think you can see the problem in a larger sense. It probably doesn't make a big deal one way or the other in a game largely based on core if you make Heighten Spell a feat or a class feature. As we both agree, it's utility in core is marginal so where you put it is not important on those grounds.

What I'm trying to point out is that Dex PCs have one way to boost damage, while Str PCs have two. Dex: PA. Str: PA and the default Str-to-damage bonus. Which means if you want to deal lots o' damage, Str is still your best option.

But that is in my opinion as it should be. Strength really doesn't have much going for it in the RAW other than adding to damage.

Whoa, wall o' text! No offense, but I don't want to get into a tangent that much. Especially one that starts with "Ok fine." I'm keeping this casual.

Sure. But it basically comes down to this; do you notice how most people in this thread have been listing a lot of useful core feats that people often take - things like combat expertise, power attack, weapon finesse, far shot, spell focus, etc. - and are sayin that they shouldn't be a feat because you should get them for free. This is fundamentally power creep. The same thing applies to metamagic feats like Heighten Spell. Sure, on one level, you could argue that magic ought to be more freeform and hense all spellcasters ought to get some, most, or all metamagic feats for free. But, fundamentally that's just power creep. Players always argue that they need more stuff. But more stuff increases the games complexity and curves the power level up. Maybe compressing the less powerful feats into single more powerful feats addresses an issue of power disparity between non-casters and casters (though I don't think doing this with entry feats is a good idea), but surely we can agree that casters don't inherently need more stuff?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Ok, sure. But, I'll note that earlier when someone encouraged a move toward a freeform magic system, you immediately noted several problems so I think you can see the problem in a larger sense. It probably doesn't make a big deal one way or the other in a game largely based on core if you make Heighten Spell a feat or a class feature. As we both agree, it's utility in core is marginal so where you put it is not important on those grounds.

Agreed. As an aside, the problems I see with jefgorbach's wish for a freeform magic system all relate to basing magic on a skill. (Skills are easily power gamed.) Theoretically, the freeform aspect of it could be more balanced than vancian, if attached to say caster level rather than a skill.

Not coincidentally, that's how I fix truenamers.

But that is in my opinion as it should be. Strength really doesn't have much going for it in the RAW other than adding to damage.

This is how it is, with Weapon Finesse. Str is the damage stat, period.

And like I've mentioned before, if you think giving Weapon Finesse away makes Dex too good, you must think that WF is an overpowered feat. After all, it's same difference aside from the lost feat slot.

Sure. But it basically comes down to this; do you notice how most people in this thread have been listing a lot of useful core feats that people often take - things like combat expertise, power attack, weapon finesse, far shot, spell focus, etc. - and are sayin that they shouldn't be a feat because you should get them for free. This is fundamentally power creep.

We're having a fundamental disconnect here. You're not making a judgment about how the rules should be. You see people saying "these feats should be free!" and you see power creep. And sometimes that's the case. (I certainly don't agree with every suggestion that's been made in this thread.)

But I'm making judgments about how things should be. From my PoV, handing out certain feats isn't power creep for the same reason that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't 'freedom creep.' In other words, I'm just giving stuff that should have been there in the first place. For example, the right to use Dex for AB rather than Str -- because I believe that finesse-y types are expected by the game to have decent ABs. (This is a game about killing things, after all.)

The same thing applies to metamagic feats like Heighten Spell. Sure, on one level, you could argue that magic ought to be more freeform and hense all spellcasters ought to get some, most, or all metamagic feats for free. But, fundamentally that's just power creep. Players always argue that they need more stuff. But more stuff increases the games complexity and curves the power level up. Maybe compressing the less powerful feats into single more powerful feats addresses an issue of power disparity between non-casters and casters (though I don't think doing this with entry feats is a good idea), but surely we can agree that casters don't inherently need more stuff?

Agreed. However, I didn't start this thread as a player. I'm often a DM, and there are certain things I think my players should have just for sitting down at the table. Heighten may be a slight power boost to a group of classes who don't need it, but I think it makes sense. And heck, maybe with everyone having it free I'll actually see it used some day.

 

[Samloyal23]

Weapon Focus should be based around a group of weapons, say all swords or spears, which in turn leads into a narrower focus on one weapon through Weapon Specialisation. You should be learning more and more about less and less as it were, gradually homing in on your preferred weapon...