Herioc feats

[Kahuna Burger]

So the thread on Overcasting got me thinking about the general lack of heroic options in D&D. That is to say, you can't 'push' yourself beyond your limits in dire emergencies, you can't act out of turn even at a penalty, etc. So a few feats to allow dramatic, cinematic moments.

Just to be clear, these are for a certain flavor of game and should not be allowed within 40 feet of a serious powergamer. The secondary feats all require a use of heroism.

Heroism.
You react when needed.
You may take a partial action at any point in combat which is resolved as a readied action. After this action you are considered flat footed until your next action. (This is the case even if a special ability normally prevents you from being considered flat footed.) If the heroic action is taken before your normal initiative, your next action is the following round on your normal initiative. If you have already acted in the round you take your heroic action, you take no action the following round and act on your modified initiative the round after that. You may use heroism once per day, plus once for every two points of natural charisma modifier if positive. If you take this feat a second time you gain only one more use of heroism.

Flying leap. Prereq - heroism, speed 40 or less.
You move farther than you normally could for one action.
When executing a charge or partial charge, your base speed increases by 10 ft plus 5 ft for each point of Cha bonus, if positive. At the end of your action, you are prone until your next initiative even if you can stand from prone as a free action.

NOOOOO!!!! Prereq - heroism.
You interpose yourself between an ally and danger.
When an ally is struck by a melee, ranged or area attack which you are not also subject to, you may make a grapple attempt against the ally. If successful, the ally takes no damage from the attack and you take maximum damage.

Some others not fully worked out yet : Desperate plea - add +10 to a single dimplomacy or charisma check to influence an NPC or +15 if you are pleading on an ally's behalf. Overcasting - add metamagic feats to an already prepared spell at physical cost to the caster. It HAS to work - add your will save bonus to a single non knowlege skill check. (cannot take 10 or 20)

Thoughts? Additions? Scathing Dismissals?

Kahuna Burger

 

[las]

You know my additin.

Overcasting [Metamagic]

You know how to overcast your spells.

Prerequisites: Con 15+, Consentration 8+ ranks, Knowledge (arcna) 8+ ranks, Spellcraft 8+ ranks, any other metamagic feat.

Benefit: While casting a spell, you may increase the Spell Level with Metamagic effects beyond the highest level available to you. For instance, a 5th Level Wizard can cast a quickened fireball. This flexibility comes at a cost, however: For every Spell Level above your current maximum, you suffer 1 point of Temporary Constitution Damage.

Note: This Feat does not allow you to cast spells not normally available to you due to Level or your primary spellcasting Ability Score. You must have the spell memorized and be capable of casting it in order to use this Feat. Temporary Constitution points (such as from a Barbarian's Rage) cannot be used to pay the cost. Any con damage must be heal at the standered rate magic healing cant deal with the streas the caster puts on his body.

What do you think?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You know my additin.

Overcasting [Metamagic]

I'd prefer a variable damage from the overcasting. This allows it to be truely heroic "I don't know if I'll survive this or not" rather than accountant-ized. I do really like the idea of the damage having to be recovered normally.

I think it important that heroic feats be monitered by the DM to make sure they are not being used frivolously. (in a non D20 star wars rpg I played, characters had "force points" to boost their abilites on one shot deals. At the end of the campaign, the GM was supposed to judge the use you had put your force points to and decide if you got them back or not (or even got bonus ones) based on how appropriate your use of them had been.)

kahuna Burger

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

It seems strange to make up feats with (somewhat) detailed rules and limitations and then say "but don't let them get within 40 feet of a serious powergamer". Since these options are presented as feats, they have some very serious consequences for characters selecting them. Now, say a 6th level human sorceror used 1/4 of his feats to be able to be "heroic." How often is it reasonable that the character benefit from it? Should the feat come up every game session? Your answer seems to be something like "2 or 3 times per day". (That's what it works out to for a character with a mid to high natural charisma). So, should the character not use the feat when it's most advantageous (so as to prove he's not a power gamer)?

By creating a feat that you appear to think could be unbalanced in the wrong hands, it seems like you lock characters who select it into using it suboptimally so as to avoid the wrath of a vengeful DM.

 

[clark411]

My only qualm with this sort of thing is that the feats, rolls, etc are already a mechanic that acts as though pc's are working at 100% effort and efficiency. Unless you're players are opting to pull Black Masked Man left-handed weaponry tricks during combat, I wouldn't assume that they needed even more powers to make them seem like they're giving their all (and then some). A feat is a feat is a feat- an amazing act or ability. Featish feats or ultra-feats just diminish feats imo.

And yes, most of these seem to be "Must Keep Away from PowerGamer" feats- I've seen players who will take the "use only in emergencies" abilities their DM's give them and use them almost regularly if the cost seems even slightly less than the benefit. Few will resist or avoid the chance to work at 110% capacity, even avid non-powergaming number crunchers.

 

[Shirt Guy John]

Why feats?

I was just thinking that really, I don't think that "heroic" feats should be in the game. IMO, most general feats are heroic in some sense, or at least could be used in a heroic fashion, but that's beside the point really.

Personally, if I was the DM, I would allow some sort of "heroic" action only if it benefitted the progression of the story, or if it had a chance to change that progression in some way. I don't think that I would allow feats to do things like this. Once in a while, as dictated by the DM, and with the understanding of the player that a "heroic" action could have unforseen (to them at least) reprecussions, I would just allow "heroic" actions with no prerequisites.

Another thing you could do is to adopt a Hero Point system as I saw so many people used in the "What House Rules do You Use?" thread a while back. I've been thinking about adopting this system myself, as it seems it would work out just fine. f you wanna be strict about how the points could be used, make a definitive list up before adopting the system, and have your players contribute.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

So, should the character not use the feat when it's most advantageous (so as to prove he's not a power gamer)?

By creating a feat that you appear to think could be unbalanced in the wrong hands, it seems like you lock characters who select it into using it suboptimally so as to avoid the wrath of a vengeful DM.

No, the character should not use the feat when most advantageous, or "optimally". The character has the option of taking heroic, desperate actions, and should not be doing that at the most "advantageous" times from a metagaming standpoint. Thats why I classified these feats specifically as Heroic. They are meant to be used in a heroic, cinematic campaign. These are the slow mo moments, the role playing within combat. I want the feats to be powerful enough to occasionally make drama possible. I do not want "well, this is the last guy, that lightning bolt didn't quite take him out, and I know another one would do it and no one would be left to hit me while I'm flat footed and weak, so I'll take my "heroic" action to throw another bolt so he doesn't run off..."

Come to think of it, I can hear the powergamers just throwing it in as another classification of action. "I'll do X as a move equivelent action, Y as a standard action, Z for my hasted action, Q as a free action, and oh, take a heroic action to LMNOP."

I guess what it comes down to is that as with overcasting, as with Guildcraft or called shots or other 'crunchy flavor' bits, I like what roleplayed use of it could bring to a campaign. But I know that powergamed use of it could rapidly ruin a campaign. I deal with this dillemma by not playing with powergamers.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

My only qualm with this sort of thing is that the feats, rolls, etc are already a mechanic that acts as though pc's are working at 100% effort and efficiency. Unless you're players are opting to pull Black Masked Man left-handed weaponry tricks during combat, I wouldn't assume that they needed even more powers to make them seem like they're giving their all (and then some).

I disagree entirely. Characters are not "giving it their all." They are working optimumly. They move 30 ft and take a standard action. They charge 60 ft and lose a small AC amount due to "recklessness". But what if you want to go beyond reckless? What if you HAVE to get there and don't care if you're lying on the floor stunned and singed after you throw yourself between your frail loved one and the lightening bolt? What if you don't want to cast in the optimal safe way? What if you want that cool "I'm giving myself a nosebleed by overdoing my psionics" feeling?

"Giving 110%" is cheesy, yes, but if it has a real meaning, its hurting yourself to accomplish something. (this is why intelligent bosses won't ask for it, unless they are giving a nice long vacation after.) There is no way to do that in D&D, and based on some of the people I've gamed with, its a good thing. But a set of optional rules for players who will know when to use them, and use it to enhance roleplaying seems like fun to me.

Kahuna burger

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You obviously have a fairly clear idea of what a power gamer is and a set way of dealing with it. Fair enough.

From the other side of the gaming table, however, it doesn't seem at all clear what would be power gaming and what wouldn't. Some people think that any character with more than one class is power-gaming. I've seen people on this board who think that any character with a prestige class is obviously played by some kind of worthless power-gamer scum. Heck, I've even seen some people who seem to believe that any character whose feats, skills, and class abilities enable them to be effective in combat (for instance a fighter with a 16 strength, weapon focus, power attack, and cleave) is power-gaming. On the other hand, I've also played with people at conventions who thought that my 36 point buy Paladin 3/Cleric 3/Templar 3 with his cloak of charisma, adamantine fullplate of command, and vest of resistance was par for the course--not power gaming at all. Obviously, there are different definitions of power gaming at work in different games. And it's unclear where advantageous uses of synergies work into that formula too. Is it power gaming for a fighter/wizard with Expert Tactician to cast Blink? How about a Wizard/Rogue? Or is it power gaming for a fighter/wizard to cast true strike and then power attack? I don't think so although they're sometimes smart moves. Some people might think otherwise though.

With these feats (calling them heroic bothers me somewhat--it's as if a character without these super powers is incapable of heroism) however, a character is giving up something that they would use all the time. Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Point Blank Shot, Combat Reflexes or something else. The only kind of a character who might--and still, it's only a possibility--be able to take such a feat at negligable cost is a human fighter (and it would still interfere with some things the "I wanna be a weapon master" feat progression for instance). For an half-orc barbarian, they wouldn't have any other feats until third level. So, assuming that characters with "heroic" feats aren't supposed to be effectively characters with no feats, they have to be able to expect to use them fairly regularly. (The inclusion of uses/day formulas in the feat seems to indicate that this is a reasonable expectation).

According to you, however, these feats are different because characters aren't supposed to use them in a manner advantageous to them. It's a no-no to toss a second lightning bolt (or presumably a magic missile) to drop the last bad guy threatening you and your wounded companions before he finishes an unconscious character or runs off to sound the alarm--even if you collapse to the ground exhausted by the effort afterwards. So, is it also a no-no to use it in even more obviously advantageous cases? "'A balor? Die foul fiend!' Driven by rage at this blight on the face of the earth, my paladin takes a heroic action to cast holy sword on his lance then spurs his warhorse forward into a spirited charge at the fiend (smiting evil and power attacking for 10 too)." A character gets an awful lot more milage out of potentially dropping the Balor on turn 1 before it uses Destruction on the Wizard than dropping that last goblin.

That's the primary problem I see with these feats. The cases where the heroic action could really pay off and be worth the feat expended for it, the cases where a skilled powergamer (a different breed of powergamer than the one which wastes a heroic action on a goblin that would probably only do 1d6 points of damage if it did any at all) would use the ability, and the cases where heroic action is really called for in character (generally tough battles--although if I had this feat and we were averaging one battle per campaign day, I'd probably either be frustrated because I had a feat that I was rarely allowed to use or would use it even in non-climactic battles when it might be helpful) are all the same things. Because of that, I would be very leery about playing with any DM who told me "heroic feat x is available but don't use it to power-game."

Come to think of it, it seems like that's the same problem with allowing overcasting. If it were allowed, smart players wouldn't use it unless the risk was justified (ie unless it were a big battle or they were in trouble) and then (if it were worth doing at all) it would turn the tide of the battle. (If my 5th level PC can overcast and come up with a disintegrate, you better bet he'll try it when he's up against a 10th level half-fiend sorceror (and if he can take heroic action too, he'll do it twice (unless the first one works) as soon as he figures out that's what he's up against)--after all, if he can't do it then, why have the ability at all?)

I guess what it comes down to is that as with overcasting, as with Guildcraft or called shots or other 'crunchy flavor' bits, I like what roleplayed use of it could bring to a campaign. But I know that powergamed use of it could rapidly ruin a campaign. I deal with this dillemma by not playing with powergamers.

 

[Hashmalum]

Keep in mind that any sort of 'giving 110%' ability that gives some sort of advantage in exchange for a lasting penalty is going to benefit the PCs' enemies more than the PCs themselves. It is a well-known truism that a PC may find himself in dozens or hundreds of combats in the life of the character, while most NPCs are in only one: the one in which the PCs defeat them. With that in mind, an NPC generally has a lot less to lose by (say) blowing some Constitution points to hit the PCs twice in a round with a lightning bolt then a PC will.

This can potentially be a good thing if your PCs aren't being challenged enough. By giving a 'heroic' feat to an NPC, you can increase their power proportional to a PC of equal level without increasing their CR or giving them magical goodies that the PCs can 'liberate' from their smouldering corpse. However, if you choose to take this route, you may want to call these feats something other than 'heroic'...