"What do you mean I can't...?"

[The Shaman]

I don't think feats should effectively limit combat tactics and weapon styles - only improve them.

For the most part I agree.

For example, TWF can be done by anyone, but the feat tree makes a a character more effective at two weapon attacks. In d20 Modern, any character can use autofire with a submachine gun but takes a -4 to hit unless s/he has Advanced Weapons Proficiency. The rules for supressing fire in Ultramodern Firearms work the same way IIRC - the feat eliminates a penalty for the action. My house rules for suppression and covering fire tie into BAB, with a feat for greater effectiveness.

On the other hand, one of the common complaints I hear from Modern players is that delivering a blast of bullets from a submchine gun or assault rifle on-target (as opposed to autofire which is an area attack) requires three feeats: Personal Weapons Proficiency, Advanced Weapons Proficiency, and Burst Fire. While players whine and moan about how they should be able to just level a Beretta 93R and cut loose, I believe the feat tree in this case makes sense, particularly given that it's possible for a 1st-level character to acquire all three feats if the player so desires.

I agree that encouraging combat maneuvers is a good idea - I like feat trees that expand on those maneuvers, from a game standpoint and in providing verisimilitude to reflect the characters' growing abilities.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Because if everyone could do it without investing in a feat, what's the point of being a fighter? The fighter's main class power comes from having the ability to build up those tactical skills and styles.

I'm playing a 4th level human fighter in which every feat (including twf, yes that was a cross rant contamination, about a feat being required for a less effective fighting style to be slightly effective) is an improvement on things she can do normally. She does things faster, better and more often than without the feats. I could remove every feat I'm complaining about and only increase her flexibility along with everyone elses - she'd still be hitting harder and more often.

If another character wants to try to do more damage with their weapon, why should they be allowed to do so? The game system already assumes they're doing the best they can with the weapon given the skills they already have ...

except power attack isn't doing the best you can, its doing not so well at hitting in the hopes that a hit that does land will do more damage. Does it require special training to swing more wildly?

Look at the example that started this side rant. My character could shoot at and hit a bumble bee, but she "lacks the skills" to aim at a demon's tail because she hasn't taken a feat? I prefer my games to make a little more sense. Feats should make things easier, better, faster and remove drawbacks. Only truely extraordinary or supernatural actions should be impossible to take without a feat. This can be accomplished without balance loss, or making feats worthless.

 

[Voadam]

Pick up a smaller opponent and hurl them.

Wanted to do this with a huge Glabrezou fighting a dwarf near a prismatic wall but the mechanics to execute such a maneuver are unclear and the dwarf had freedom of movement anyway so I didn't try to figure it out at the time.

 

[DonTadow]

not to pick on you specificly, but in many cases this means introducing new feats into the game (as wizards and 3rd parties love to do) restricts rather than opens up options. Say you've been playing with a moster character that flies, and worked up a rule for a diving charge that gave extra damage (which the PC also took some of depending on a check) for amount of distance traveled before the slam attack. Then Savage species comes out and you incorporate it into your game. Now that action is covered by a feat. Do you ignore it? Say you can still do it your way but the feat makes it easier/better? make the PC swap out a feat if they want to kep using the same tactic?

This actually happens with feats like ranged disarm or ranged pin, and to some extent I think Power Attack and Spring Attack (as well as ride by, et al) suffer from the same problem, but it was there to begin with so we don't see it as an issue most of the time.

I think if the creators had to do it over again they would. An average character gets 7 or 8 feats a lifetime and a lto of the feats are all pretty much unbalanced. It seems there was no pure definition on what a "feat actually was." And how is a feat different from a class ability. It seems there needed to be no set class abilities but have 4 levels of feats.

But I digress. Whereas I don't agree with you as I think Spring attack is a feat like maneuver (and i think ranged pin and ranged disarm can be done with negatives to the ranged weapon check), something like power attack which is essentially a fighter saying "i want to swing very hard but very wildly" shouldn't be much of a feat. Iron Heroes proved that as power attack is reduced to a combat maneuver.

 

[diaglo]

Pick up a smaller opponent and hurl them.

Wanted to do this with a huge Glabrezou fighting a dwarf near a prismatic wall but the mechanics to execute such a maneuver are unclear and the dwarf had freedom of movement anyway so I didn't try to figure it out at the time.

maybe try the throw anything feat

range increment 10 ft. max 50 ft.

 

[iwatt]

Roleplaying and tactics are what the game is based on. Let that mean something.

Kahuna, I feel your pain. As DonTadow mentioned, Iron Hereos introduces a lot of mechanics that deal with the issues that are bothering you (and that bothered me as well). Attack challenges, defense challenges, stunts, etc... They're easliy ported into a standard DnD game as well.

Feats are finite resourceWhen someone asks about how to execute a special maneuver, half the responses are to introduce a new feat. :\


With respect to spring attack: I consider it a special enough maneuver that it doesn't bother me as a feat. I could also see it handled as a full round action which provokes an AoO and the attacker takes a -4 penalty. Of course then I'd have to rename the feat Improved Spring attack

 

[Jupp]

Have you ever wanted your character to attempt some kind of combat maneuver only to have the DM respond, "You can't do that"? I could maybe see a DM getting away with this in previous editions but in 3.x there's rules for pretty much everything. So, fill in the blank. What's your PC been unable to do? And what happened after that?

I think we never heard a "can't do" in our game sessions (2e) when it comes to performing special combat moves. Well, we had it once or twice for things like " I try to jump up 4 meters, turn around in mid-air, decapitate the orc and when I touch the ground again I roll to the right and kill the two goblins", obvious stuff that just cannot work (except when playing Chinese Ghost Story RPGs) But otherwise we can try pretty much everything we want to. We just have to deal with the eventual Dex or Strenght check or a lower armor to hit. I don't see a reason why this shouldn't be a applicable to 3E as well. Just because there are lots of rules for combat doesnt mean that the DM shouldnt allow things that are not in the book. He's the DM after all, not a slave to the rules

 

[Henry]

As for the Power attack thing, I could see a "Hard Swing" maneuver, that was a weak power attack; does nothing for light weapons, with one-handed weapons every -2 was +1 damage, and for two-handed weapons every -1 was +1 damage. That way, when you REALLY want that extra oomph, you can get it, but it's still VERY worthwhile to get Power Attack, even by itself.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

As for the Power attack thing, I could see a "Hard Swing" maneuver, that was a weak power attack; does nothing for light weapons, with one-handed weapons every -2 was +1 damage, and for two-handed weapons every -1 was +1 damage. That way, when you REALLY want that extra oomph, you can get it, but it's still VERY worthwhile to get Power Attack, even by itself.

You beat me to it - I was thinking of the same thing...

 

[Mouseferatu]

should be a jump check followed by a grapple check and provoke an AoO if you don't have the right feat.

there's no facing in this edition. up, down, left, right, backwards, forwards... you threaten until obstructed.

Both of which would be true, if we were a strictly "by the rules" group. But all of us--myself as the DM, and my players--have a very strong narrative bent.

We'd rather make an ad hoc call and keep things moving, than to spend more than a minute or two looking up a rule. And we'd rather allow something because it makes sense, than to disallow it because the rules don't cover (or even, in some cases, don't allow it).

In the case of A, I thought of requiring an actual grapple, but it didn't make sense under the circumstances. She was jumping on the dragon from above, which means--lack of facing rules aside--the dragon had no prehensile limbs in a position to deal with her. On the flip side of the coin, she wasn't trying to grapple the dragon in any true sense of the word; just cling to it. It was both faster and easier to do it the way I did it, even though by the rules, you're right, a grapple would have been more appropriate.

In the case of B, the dragon was already flying past, and simply wanted to spin to slam its "rider" into one of the opponents on the ground. Again, no real facing rules, so I just had it twist and make that attack in place of one of its normal attacks, giving the character on its back a roll to hang on afterward.

In both cases, I'll happily admit up-front that we didn't stick 100% to the rules. But we had an exciting, fast-moving scene that allowed the characters to try what they wanted to, that was highly cinematic, and was far more interesting than a standard "exchange of blows" combat would have been.