Feats

[Username17]

Feats suck my actual asshole. A 20th level Fighter could get an order of magnitude more bonus feats than he has, and a Pit Fiend would still slap him down every time.

That's 110 bonus feats instead of 11, and at 20th level it doesn't mean dick. So obviously Fighters need some class features that'll take them into meaning anything at high level.

But feats actually need a drastic revision in how they are thought of as well. Just the fact that there are 110 feats for a Fighter to spend bonus feats on should tell us that the whole paradigm of characters getting 4 feats at 10th level is bullshit. So I see two answers to this:

1. More Feats. Everyone gets 2 feats every level.
   
2. Better feats. We take all the bullshit feats like "greater two weapon fighting" and "mobility" and we just fold them into the basic feats. Once each feat is about twice as extensive as a tactical feat, we'll call it good.

Drastic, yes, but necessary. So what do people want? More feats, or good feats?

Discuss.

-Username17

[Oberoni]

Better feats. Less paperwork. (Plus, each feat will make you feel nice and tingly inside)

[dbb]

Better feats. This nonsense of selecting, essentially, the same feat 4 different times (two-weapon fighting, improved two-weapon fighting, greater two-weapon fighting, whatever the fourth one is) so that it continues to keep up with your BAB progression is absurd.

What's worse, it's actually impossible to keep track of. Your argument along these lines in the "new equipment system" thread was cogent and is equally well-applied here, too: no one can keep track of 40 feats, no one can remember 40 different abilities of other people's characters, and therefore it feels like a deus ex machina every damn time someone does anything at all.

6 or 7 or whatever player-selectable abilities over the life of the character is about the right amount for people to be able to keep track of. It's just the insulting nature of being asked to blow one of them on getting a +1 to hit with one weapon that sucks.

--d.

[Neeek]

Both. I want more feats (say, one a level) *and* each feat to be very good.

[Username17]

OK, on a similar note, if you were ot get an arbitrary bonus whenever you were attacking someone who had a lower BAB than you have, would you want it be called...

having the Edge
having the Upper Hand
having the Advantage
having the Lead
having Dominance
having Leverage
having Mastery
having Ascendancy
having Superiority

???

It doesn't make any difference, it's just a question of what you want to say every time you consider bullrushing or disarming a wizard or goblin mook.

-Username17

[Neeek]

The Edge. It's got pop.

[Draco_Argentum]

One at first and one at each even level sounds good. Then scrap the feats which are crap. The whole TWF line is about you having an ability called fighting with two weapons. Making people pay more feats so that it stays good is not cool.

OTOH the TWF line has another problem. Look at how many attacks you're expected to roll each round. Way too much game time to be a single feat. Imagine people having 7+ abilities like that plus their class abilities.

IMO a feat should be a neat ability that isn't class specific or a small boost to a class ability. Also fighters would need real class abilities that aren't bonus feats.

[Falgund]

I want better feats, and i like having the Upper Hand. (And maybe having Superiority if i have a lot more BaB than them)

[MrWaeseL]

Better feats, and Having The Advantage

[RandomCasualty]

1152075900[/unixtime]]Feats suck my actual asshole. A 20th level Fighter could get an order of magnitude more bonus feats than he has, and a Pit Fiend would still slap him down every time.

What kind of tactics is this pit fiend using? In my experience a properly equipped fighter type doesn't have that much trouble taking out a pit fiend, especially not with some of the feats from the PHB2. The hardest thing about taking on a pit fiend is breaching its DR. Beyond that I've never really seen fighters have too much of a problem. Or perhaps I've just never seen effective pit fiend tactics.

Overall, I think fighters mesh pretty well with the CR system. Obviously, they're weaker than casters, but casters can solo stuff 4+ CRs above them, so I don't know if "weaker than casters" is necessarily a damning point. It's also a lot easier to nerf casters than it is to buff fighters.

The main problem with fighters IMO isn't that they're not effective. It's that they're boring. A fighter is a big stack of bonuses, who is forced to simply try to "collect em all" when it comes to bonus abilities. WHile feats like melee weapon mastery and weapon specialization are boring, That's the crap that adds up to win combats. Coupled with feats that give additional attacks, like karmic strike and Combat reflexes, The fighter simply tries to achieve the best average damage. Usualy this involves some kind of gimmick from super efficient feats like Shock trooper or some game mechanic like reach whoring. In any case, in comparison to a caster who can do tons of things, the fighter seems dull in comparison.

And that's dull as hell, but given that we're using D&D's uncapped bonus and attack system, that's the way fighters have to play. And this means that there aren't many good tactics for fighters as their combat style is so simple.

This stuff applies to two handed fighters only. If you use TWF, you're going to get kicked right in the balls. But I blame the rogue for TWFs sucking.

I've always thought we could make fighters more exciting by giving them some kind ability that's useable X/day almost like spell slots, but something that lets them as an immediate action, pick up the ability to use a feat until their next action. So if you needed improved disarm for whatever reason you could use that ability and get improved disarm for a round. It'd make fighters a bit more cinematic and strategic doing that anyway.

[Fwib]

Hmmmm.... sounds like a good idea.. X/day 'until your next action' uses of any one fighter feat you qualify for, graduating up to either 1/round or multiple feats or lasting for more duration or several of those...

Too powerful? Just right?

[Username17]

What kind of tactics is this pit fiend using?

Many people play the Pit Fiend as a big dumb bruiser. It's not. It's a spellcaster. And a nasty one. it has powerwird: stun at will. It also has blasphemy at will, and mass hold monster at will.

The basic trick of a Pit Fiend is that it sits around invisible in a magic circle against good and then if it sees a bunch of enemies wandering around where they shouldn't be it flies to the middle and starts chain blasphemying until there's only oneenemy left. Then it either drops a DC 27 hold or a meteor swarm, and if its oppoent is still up, our Pit Fiend friend flies around the corner. If an opponent is held, the Pit Fiend then flies up and rips your face right off. If you are damaged enough by a meteor swarm it can just cast powerword:stun on you again and again giving you no damned save at all - taking attacks at his wim in the intermediary rounds while you woggle there.

If you are on your own home plane, the POit Fiend starts outside of true seeing range and summons a group of crappy monsters. It doesn't even matter what, and on the first round all they do is scatter. Then the Pit Fiend flies over and starts chain blasphemies, stunning you for 1 round every round with no save. Then the remaining summoned monsters run over and spend the next hour hoping for natural twenties as they tear you to shreds.

Really, a Pit Fiend killing a Fighter, or really any other 20th level character that doesn't have epic levels of Hide and Spot or layered contingent magical effects involves little or no risk on his part. He has spells that incapacitate enemies for 1 round with no save and have additional effects that he can use at will. Really, it's not even worth considering that the Pit Fiend wouldn't win.

-Username17

[Username17]

On a similar note: if a feat provided several bonuses, would you rather that it had specific names for these sub-abilities or not? Again, it's not important. It's really a question of whether you want to say "I have Point Blank Shot and a BAB of +5, so I don't provoke attacks of opportunity by shooting my bow." or "I have Point Blank Shot and a BAB of +5, so I have close combat shot."

Which is easier?

-Username17

[Boulie_98]

Close combat shot. For new uses it takes a moment for people to learn them but shortcuts are always better and acronyms trump even that. Hips all the way.

[User3]

1152118508[/unixtime]]On a similar note: if a feat provided several bonuses, would you rather that it had specific names for these sub-abilities or not? Again, it's not important. It's really a question of whether you want to say "I have Point Blank Shot and a BAB of +5, so I don't provoke attacks of opportunity by shooting my bow." or "I have Point Blank Shot and a BAB of +5, so I have close combat shot."

Which is easier?

-Username17

It probably isn't an issue for feats with names like that, but a real issue these days is how many feats have exactly the same or almost exactly the same name, but do totally different things.

Now imagine that you get just as many feats, but each feat grants two or three different abilities with similar names. Confusing, ne?

All the second name gives you is another way to refer the same ability. Which is just more crud to keep track of. I'd rather say, 'I don't take any AoOs from her because I have Point Blank Shot,' and, 'I hit him for 1d8+5, because of Pont Blank Shot.'

[Crissa]

[*]Better Feats. (Nothing you might not use this week)
[*]Scaling Feats. (Bonus == +1/4 your level; Maneuver == Spell Domain; etc)

I like Upper Hand, and I like the idea of a Feat containing a list of lesser abilities/maneuvers.

Fortuitous Toss: You may throw an item into the air during combat, and catch it at some point during the combat.

...That's a great Maneuver, and maybe you'll use it every combat... But it makes a terrible Feat, since a Fighter could have 110 Feats like this and the Balrog won't care.

-Crissa

(I still think a Fighter should be able to have his weapon hit as if it had a + and resist effects as if he had resistance just because he's Hard Core.)

[MrWaeseL]

The basic trick of a Pit Fiend is that it sits around invisible in a magic circle against good and then if it sees a bunch of enemies wandering around where they shouldn't be it flies to the middle and starts chain blasphemying until there's only oneenemy left. Then it either drops a DC 27 hold or a meteor swarm, and if its oppoent is still up, our Pit Fiend friend flies around the corner. If an opponent is held, the Pit Fiend then flies up and rips your face right off. If you are damaged enough by a meteor swarm it can just cast powerword:stun on you again and again giving you no damned save at all - taking attacks at his wim in the intermediary rounds while you woggle there.

If you are on your own home plane, the POit Fiend starts outside of true seeing range and summons a group of crappy monsters. It doesn't even matter what, and on the first round all they do is scatter. Then the Pit Fiend flies over and starts chain blasphemies, stunning you for 1 round every round with no save. Then the remaining summoned monsters run over and spend the next hour hoping for natural twenties as they tear you to shreds.

Really, a Pit Fiend killing a Fighter, or really any other 20th level character that doesn't have epic levels of Hide and Spot or layered contingent magical effects involves little or no risk on his part. He has spells that incapacitate enemies for 1 round with no save and have additional effects that he can use at will. Really, it's not even worth considering that the Pit Fiend wouldn't win.

-Username17

But to use Blasphemy it needs to get inside True Seeing range?

[Crissa]

Starts outsde of, WaeseL, then comes in and does the Blasphemy.

A Fighter should be Hard Core and cut through the Blasphemy with his (sword), though, wincing all the way as the power-waves lash about them and all. (You cannot stand before me, Parn!) (Parn! Help! Save me!) (I... *slash* won't *shudder* let *slash* you *shudder* win!)

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

Well, we could give fighters SR if we wanted them to be good against blasphemy. Though really blasphemy is kind of broken anyway, since the 1 round stun effect is way better than anything holy word or the other alignment spells can do. So I mean if we're saying the pit fiend can pwn a fighter solely because it can abuse one overpowered spell, then we might as well just nerf blasphemy and fix the problem at its true source.

[Draco_Argentum]

Names on subabilities, put my vote next to Catharz's.

[RandomCasualty]

As far as BaB and automatic abilities. I'd prefer that they were BaB comparitive, that way we don't have to worry abount having a huge long list of abilities at every BaB, most of which will probably be trivial.

I'd prefer something like. "If your BaB is 1 greater than the enemy, you get X", if it's 2 greater than the enemy, you get Y, and so on. Maybe up to a +5 advantage. That way it's much more likely fighters are getting the advantage than say clerics.

If we do it by saying "when you get BaB +6, you can now fire arrows in melee wtihout provoking AoOs" then eventualyl we're giving clerics that stuff.

If we say "If you have 3 more BaB than your opponent, he cannot take AoOs on you due to firing a ranged weapon in melee." that's going to scale well, and probably be a fighter only benefit in most cases, which is good.

[squirrelloid]

Of course, none of this stops the cleric with Divine Power cast from getting the bonuses either.

Anything which depends on BAB, either comparatively or absolutely, is going to require DP to be rewritten so that it gives "imaginary" BAB for the purposes of number of attacks only.

Also, the problem with the comparative method is that often monsters will out-BAB the fighter because they've got a boatload of HD for their CR and thus a boatload of BAB. Dragons get 1 BAB/level, but even things that gain BAB at 3/4 will exceed the fighter with better than 4/3 his HD, and that will probably be true a disturbing fraction of the time.

Also, it puts the fighters advantages totally at the DMs control (choosing monsters with lower BAB) rather than at the players control like all other classes (which spells they memorize that day, etc...).

[Draco_Argentum]

I'm pretty sure Frank is proposing that as part of Tome of War. The odds of Fra'n'K leaving DP as is are pretty slim.

[RandomCasualty]

1152149752[/unixtime]]
Also, the problem with the comparative method is that often monsters will out-BAB the fighter because they've got a boatload of HD for their CR and thus a boatload of BAB. Dragons get 1 BAB/level, but even things that gain BAB at 3/4 will exceed the fighter with better than 4/3 his HD, and that will probably be true a disturbing fraction of the time.

Yeah,. there are so many problems with monster design. Hit dice inflation, sole AC dependence on natural armor, no real guidelines for ability scores. And so on...

[User3]

1152168858[/unixtime]]

1152149752[/unixtime]]
Also, the problem with the comparative method is that often monsters will out-BAB the fighter because they've got a boatload of HD for their CR and thus a boatload of BAB. Dragons get 1 BAB/level, but even things that gain BAB at 3/4 will exceed the fighter with better than 4/3 his HD, and that will probably be true a disturbing fraction of the time.

Yeah,. there are so many problems with monster design. Hit dice inflation, sole AC dependence on natural armor, no real guidelines for ability scores. And so on...

A real problem is the use of types and subtypes. Types should just be used to determine anatomy (stuff like EQ slots). Basically Humanoid, Beast, Ooze, Swarm, and possibly Construct.

Subtypes should be things like "dragon," "demon," "fire," "undead," and so forth. In other words, types are like base creatures and subtypes act as templates. I'm not sure why there is a need for alignment subtypes when we already have an alignment system.

Just give everything d8 HD and 3/4 BAB unless you give it class levels, or something.

As it is we just have a random morass, with "dragon," "vermin," and "outsider" being types but "reptilian" and "fire" as subtypes.