Rumors from Player's Guide to Faerun
- Thread starter GakToid
- Start date
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
The popularity of a feat does not mean it is unbalanced. It can be a good indicator that something is wrong, but never should be a determining factor in deciding whether or not something is broken. I've seen many popular feats, spells, character concepts, etc that are not broken. People take a feat for many reasons. It could be that it fits their character concept. Very often it is because of the lack of other options. But to automatically assume that something is broken just because alot of players take it is ridiculous, IMHO. Measure the feat for what it does, and how it does it, not how many people have it written on their character sheet!
James McMurray
First Post
Popular != broken. Taken by everyone = broken. There's a difference. Popular feats (like combat reflexes and Weapon Finesse) are not taken by everyone, nor even all fighters. To us a previous example, Weapon Specialization at +6 or Spell Focus at +4 would be taken by everyone who could take them. If a feat becomes necessary in order to "kep up with the Joneses", that feat is almost gauranteed to be broken.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Not so.
In my time playing D&D, I've noticed that almost every fighter takes weapon focus and weapon specialization. That doesn't make it broken. It makes it an expected feature of a fighter. I've also noted that, whether in 3.0 or 3.5, nearly every offensively focussed wizard takes spell focus and spell penetration. That doesn't make those feats broken either. It just means that they're the kind of feats that most characters of a particular kind will take. There's nothing wrong with that. In 2e, it was assumed that most fighters would choose to specialize in one kind of weapon. That was a class ability rather than a feat. In 3e, fighters can exchange that class ability for a different one, wait longer than usual for it or choose not to take advantage of it at all. Nearly all do though. That doesn't make it broken.
The same is true of magic items. Nearly every PC wants a cloak or vest of resistance. Saves are too important to ignore. That doesn't make the item broken. It makes it a standard part of adventuring gear. Every warrior type wants a magic weapon. That doesn't make +1 weapons broken, it makes them a standard part of adventuring gear. Etc. Etc.
Weapon specialization at +6 and Spell Focus at +4 would be broken but not because everyone who used weapons or spells would take them. They would be broken because they would unbalance parts of the system. Saves would be more difficult to make than is generally fun. And fighters would deal so much damage that barbarians, rangers, paladins, and rogues would look weak in comparison (or, more likely would all take levels of fighter to keep up).
Again, everyone who can use it wanting a feat is a sign of potential brokenness but not prima facia evidence of brokenness. Brokenness is determined by its effect upon game balance and gameplay not popularity.
In my time playing D&D, I've noticed that almost every fighter takes weapon focus and weapon specialization. That doesn't make it broken. It makes it an expected feature of a fighter. I've also noted that, whether in 3.0 or 3.5, nearly every offensively focussed wizard takes spell focus and spell penetration. That doesn't make those feats broken either. It just means that they're the kind of feats that most characters of a particular kind will take. There's nothing wrong with that. In 2e, it was assumed that most fighters would choose to specialize in one kind of weapon. That was a class ability rather than a feat. In 3e, fighters can exchange that class ability for a different one, wait longer than usual for it or choose not to take advantage of it at all. Nearly all do though. That doesn't make it broken.
The same is true of magic items. Nearly every PC wants a cloak or vest of resistance. Saves are too important to ignore. That doesn't make the item broken. It makes it a standard part of adventuring gear. Every warrior type wants a magic weapon. That doesn't make +1 weapons broken, it makes them a standard part of adventuring gear. Etc. Etc.
Weapon specialization at +6 and Spell Focus at +4 would be broken but not because everyone who used weapons or spells would take them. They would be broken because they would unbalance parts of the system. Saves would be more difficult to make than is generally fun. And fighters would deal so much damage that barbarians, rangers, paladins, and rogues would look weak in comparison (or, more likely would all take levels of fighter to keep up).
Again, everyone who can use it wanting a feat is a sign of potential brokenness but not prima facia evidence of brokenness. Brokenness is determined by its effect upon game balance and gameplay not popularity.
James McMurray said:
James McMurray
First Post
That's odd, I've made and seen several spellcasters without spell focus and several fighters without weapon focus or weapon specialization. Heck, I've made epic fighters and spellcasters that don't take those routes, even though they've got feats practically falling out of their ears. I've also seen several characters without any sort of item of resistance.
As I said: popular != broken; "taken by all = broken." One person's experience does not equate to "chosen by all." It only equates to "chosen by all in that person's experience."
As I said: popular != broken; "taken by all = broken." One person's experience does not equate to "chosen by all." It only equates to "chosen by all in that person's experience."
uzagi_akimbo
First Post
hmmm, maybe "broken" should read 'obnoxiously stereotypical pick' - e.g. anyone interested in his/her character's sheer numerical prowess will pick it... Without it being a "key" or access feat.
The strange thing is - the FR-Players Guide shows a remarkable tendency to downgrade caster feats (such as "Persistent spell" or "Spellcasting Prodigy", which looses its meagre +1 to DC of caster's spells ) while beefing up melee-feats at the same time . Examples ?
"Luck of Heroes" now also give +1 luck bonus to AC; "Blooded" now also confers immunity to 'shaken'; "Ferocious charge" raises the charge bonus to attack from +2 to +4, there is a feat (name escapes me atm) that confers the ability to induce "shaken" into everyone within 20' of charged target, at will.... There is a +10' to base speed (!) regional feat ("Fleet of Foot") that stacks with the monk/barbarian bonus.
Which truly shifts the balance of power further towards melee types - because there is hardly any way to increase the save DC left to caster's nowadays through feats and class picks (unlike melees, who have a dozen or more tactical paths open to them...), and almost no way through items. While resistance items are still scot cheap ( 16000gp for a +4 to all saves resistance items is rather cheap, that's a mere 8000gp and 320xp if you whip it up yourself, according to the current - unchanged by GM fiat - rules ), and even some slight multiclassing will usually enhance one's saves even further.
The strange thing is - the FR-Players Guide shows a remarkable tendency to downgrade caster feats (such as "Persistent spell" or "Spellcasting Prodigy", which looses its meagre +1 to DC of caster's spells ) while beefing up melee-feats at the same time . Examples ?
"Luck of Heroes" now also give +1 luck bonus to AC; "Blooded" now also confers immunity to 'shaken'; "Ferocious charge" raises the charge bonus to attack from +2 to +4, there is a feat (name escapes me atm) that confers the ability to induce "shaken" into everyone within 20' of charged target, at will.... There is a +10' to base speed (!) regional feat ("Fleet of Foot") that stacks with the monk/barbarian bonus.
Which truly shifts the balance of power further towards melee types - because there is hardly any way to increase the save DC left to caster's nowadays through feats and class picks (unlike melees, who have a dozen or more tactical paths open to them...), and almost no way through items. While resistance items are still scot cheap ( 16000gp for a +4 to all saves resistance items is rather cheap, that's a mere 8000gp and 320xp if you whip it up yourself, according to the current - unchanged by GM fiat - rules ), and even some slight multiclassing will usually enhance one's saves even further.
Last edited:
Kae'Yoss
First Post
The rumor that Persistant is +6 now? That's in PGtF, I've just read it again.jgsugden said:
Flynn said:
No, sorry. The PGtF consists only of one page, which is the new Persistant Spell feat in really large letters
Sure, there's a lot of stuff. Both revised and new.
Personally, I like the list of all Domains and Spells from all FR-Products. It's a great reference thing. The new Character Region system also looks great. The FR-Cosmology is described in full - 27 pages AFAIK. And I like it, now that I have some more info than the meager fare from FRCS. They Incorporate Stuff from ELH, MoTP, PsiHB, BoVD and BOED into FR, which is also nice.
Similar Threads
D&D 5E (2024)
Cartographer May be Underrated. The Cheerleader A Build.
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (181) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027
