Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kae'Yoss" data-source="post: 175346" data-attributes="member: 4134">@KarinsDad: There are some good points. But one at a time. Feats represent things that you usually cannot do. So you have to take a feat for some heroics, but you can't do it if you don't have it. Of course, a feat can be taken to far. (Spellfire Wielder for excample: should be no feat. Spellfire is supposed to be a overwhelmingly strong ability, way beyond the scope of a feat. Though it's up to the DM to allow it to anyone, it should be implemented in another way, maybe with a template)You're right, feats are in, and stay in, for better or worse. Although many things have been improved since former versions (e.g. multiclassing) I get it you aren't against feats on the whole, but against some certain feats. There's nothing wrong with that, there are feats I know that should be left out or done differently.Personally, I always thought anarchy was a good thing <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> No, seriously, Even though there are no hard rules for making them, there is always the DM that dicides what's in and what's out. Warriors know how to use weapons, wizards know how to use wands. But not every wizard knows how to create wands (or other magic items). Many are battle wizards or simply adventurers that are seldomly more than 2 days in the same place. So I think the Item creation feats are the right way to differ between those who always stay in their tower and create and those who only use. Wizards get the Scribe Scroll feat for free, since scrolls are important for wizards, since it's their main source for spells (Divine spellcasters just get all spells there are for them, and bards and sorcerers have a limited number of known spells that they recieve automatically).I agree, though, that they could be combined: Craft Magic Arms and Armor; Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll; Craft Rod, Staff or Wand; and Craft Wondrous Item (including Rings). Weapons and Armor are things you can use all the time, Potions and Scroll are one-use, rods, staffs and wands have uses per day or charges, and wondrous items and rings can both have uses per day or bestow their powers continuously. In order to have all those attacks, you have to kill many foes, so they have to be low in HP. It won't give you advantages over strong foes. Whirlwind Attack is similar, in that you also have one attack against many foes. Both feats make you even stronger against hordes of weak foes (but those should be not a great problem anyway), but that big bugger will still give you a hard time! At first, it's historical (fighers were always the ones that were able to spezialize). Also, fighters concentrate on fighting with weapons. And only on fighting with weapons. They won't be able to call upon the arcane art or a god's power. So they have to focus solely on weapon use. And that gives them the knack in fighting with those weapons.Also, it's about game balance, and logic has to step back sometimes (after all, D&D's a fantasy game about heroics)As I still play AD&D, I know those discussions whose classes get spezialization, and with how many weapons, and if they get it only with one, but not with any fighting stile, only to well, and I'm happy that they split the former specialization, gave everyone the possibility to get the attack bonus, but only fighters the ability to get the damage bonus. Making them use rage over and over again practically gives them a permanent increase of STR and CON. Barbarians are the only one's that can rage cause they are very near to nature in it's primal form, and know how to cross the line between anger and fury. Of course, others can get into rage, but they won't be able to use it to the full advantage (the barbarians have the knack for it, just with fighters and their specialization).Again, logic has to step aside and make way for balance. I never saw it in action, but if you make it an integral part of the game, you have to figure how many points of damage are necessary to knock you down, and your size and strength (and possibly, constitiution) have to be taken into consideration, and you have to rule when you're subject to being knocked down (if the dragon hits you with his claw, you should be knocked down, if you're subject to a cone of cold that freezes you lifeblood, you shouldn't, if the magic missiles hit you full frontal, you should, if you're hit with a horrid wilting spell, you shouldn't and so on.)But, as I said, I never saw it actually applied in-game, and so can't exactly say if I like how it's applied. I disagree, but not completely. I'd still allow it under certain circumstances: Tumble to avoid it makes sense: you know how to stay out of his reach, you confuse him and make a quick dash, so he'll head into the wrong direction and you can cross his territory quickly. Casting defensively let's you cast the spell without leaving yourself open for a quick AoO. But I'd always pose another obstacle you have to face instead of the AoO, or make the check to avoid the AoO hard: the variant tumble rules from the class guides makes a more agile enemy harder to tumble past, and casting Defensively alway incurs the possibility that you lose the spell.And skeletons really should not be able to sourround anyone before he can do something about it, that's right <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  I agree, evasion makes no sense if you've got nothing to hide behind. But, again, if you're standing in the open and the great red wyrm dicides to invite you to Bar-B-Q (with you as the meat), you should not be able to reduce the impact at all. But reflex half saving throws are an integral part of the game, and affect game balance, so I shouldn't be taken out, and evasion is also OK, in face of game balance (just another situation where balance beats logic, but I prefer dealing with things that are illogical over things that destroy the balance and fun factor of the game.) I agree, this time completely. I'll not say that using counterspell without feats like improved counterspell or reactive counterspell, especially to counter a spell with the very same spell, is useless, but it's not far from it. Though I like it that way: I'd hate combats where the wizards don't harm even a single enemy, cause they counter each other all the time, while the fighers slaughter everything! Smite evil doesn't only give you additional damage, but it also gives you an attack bonus (if you're high on CHA, but every respectable Paladin is.). This can be very important. Bisides, you'll deal this extra damage in a single round. If it's about dealing as much damage as possible, there is a difference. Skill focus can indeed need a little boosting (There is a far spread house rule that makes skill focus +3).Of course, the 3hp you get for toughness are useless for a Dwarven Fighter 20, but an Elven Wizard 1 can indeed find that feat useful (it could double his hit points). Toughness is for characters that are low on hitpoints (because they are low level and their class isn't to generous in that area). For higher level's, we have the additional Monster's Toughness feats from Masters of the Wild.Spellcasting Prodigy is on the powerful side, that's true. If it wasn't for the requisite that you have to take it at first level, I'd make a (near) useless feat prerequisite so you practically have to spend two feats to get your +2.Greater spell focus and penetration are OK as they are, as they actually cost two feats, since they won't stack with their respective prerequisite feats.Innate Spell is powerful, that's true, but you pay a high price: Being able to cast a 1st-level spell at will can be quite nice, but they'll be not that powerful when you can cast 9th-level spells, and you'll have one less of those now. Being able to cast magic missile once a round is nice, but it won't do much against that big monster, and you'd like to have another meteor swarm handy....That could be a little much, but 2 sound OK.  That's two different things (one of which is something only a ranger or druid can achive): Animal Empathy makes you influence an animal with your deeper knowledge of nature and a "spiritual connection", while handle animal lets you, well, handle an animal: teach it tricks, control it by sheer authority, and so on.But I'd consider combining handle animal and ride. Tracking (the feat) represents the ability to know what to look for. You can still track with a search check even when you don't have the feat, but all you can do is to look very hard. If you have the feat you'll know what to look for, and see clues that others would dismiss as unimportant. Serch is a deliberate looking for something (and is based on int, since a smart person knows how to search fast and efficient). Spot is percieve something visually (and is based on wis, since wis represents your perception). Spot and listen concern different senses. Your sight could be better than your hearing, or one could be impaired more than the other (by outer influences), or your adversary might be much better in moving silently than in hiding, and you'll only percieve him visually (or vice versa). Scrying's not something you could be naturally capable of, but something that is granted to you by a spell. You can use the scry skill only with the appropriate spells. If it would be a feat, you couldn't account on different levels of aptitude, as you'd either have the feat or not. But it's a skill, and so you can put ranks in it.What you could do is making a spot or search check when using scrying spells. You could make it an unmodified strength check, but that would not account for the training and experience you have with jumping (things like how to properly run up, how far, what leg you start with leading, and all that. It's been a while since I had athletics in school, but I think they told us such stuff) They are busy with themselves. They don't get all their magic power at once. They have to discover it, meditate, experiment with it.But sorcerers could use more skill points (see Monte Cook's alternate Sorcerer with d6 and 4+Int skill points) There are a couple of feat trees (like all the feats that base on dodge, expertise, or power attack).And the feats are open for everyone. You just have to multiclass properly. Same as with feats and abilities: just multiclass. Giving every class the opportunity to be able to become anithing and get every skill ability would eliminate the need for classes. You'd have something I like to call "eierlegende Wollmilchsau". But since I (and the overwhelming majority of D&D players) like the class concept, there have to be things exclusive to some classes. Cross-clas skills already cost twice as much in 2nd edition, and it has merit: As a cross class skill represents something you don't usually do, You have to learn harder: you'll need more time to grasp the idea of it, and you'll never be able to get as good in it as a person that does it all the time. If you'd reduce the cross-class skill cost to the same as class skill cost, that would mean that you'd be just as fast in learning how to pick a lock as a thief, but you may only train half as long as the thief does. That's true either way, if cross-class skills cost more or not. There are always improvements to be made. The game will never be perfect, and new ideas will arise all the time. But that doesn't mean the current incarnation can't be good (or even superb) I already made fun of many things about 2e before 3e was out. Of course there will be some that placate the 3e rules as BS when 4e will be out, but I will be among them only if 4e will be so much better than 3e as it was with 2e/3e. 3e was an important step in D&D (that's why they dropped the "Advanced"). They got the creed "tools, not rules" and eliminated many things that were stupid in 2e (such as a wizard can never learn how to use a long sword, wizards will never be able to cast spells in armor, you'll need certain ability scores high enough in order to play some characters, some classes are not open to all races [elves being unable to become bards was just rediculous!], multiclassing was a pain in the ass..........). If they manage to improve 4e in similar manners, they earm my utmost respect!</blockquote>

Verification