Epic Feats at a lower level

[JonSetanta]

In reading through the variety of practically subpar-to-average feats in the SRD, I thought... Would class/encounter balance be thrown off if the criteria for being considered "Epic" were reduced to, say, levels 10-15 at earliest?

I'm talking about feats like Blinding Speed, which just casts Haste for 5 rounds, down to the usual "+x attack bonus for one weapon", or... Wow... "+1 Natural Armor", but also practical noncasters things that add fun reactive options such as Exceptional Deflection that allows the deflection of even ranged spells!

Ignore the spellcaster feats like Epic Spellcasting, which are just fine where they are, beyond level 20.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm

[deaddmwalking]

The game breaks ~level 12, so really there is no difference between saying 'you get epic feats 3 levels after the game has broken' versus 'you get epic feats 8 levels after the game has broken'.

The conceit of D&D is that you grow in power and so does your opposition. Giving power FASTER to players isn't inherently a problem - but if you don't also enhance the opposition some of the fun associated with overcoming obstacles is eroded. For example, lots of people have experimented with Gestalt characters and the consensus is that non-caster gestalts like a Fighter/Rogue don't break the game. Obviously such a character is BETTER than a single-class character, but they're not as good as TWO such characters; they're still limited by a single hit point pool and the action economy.

[Kaelik]

At the point in which you are individually evaluating epic feats to decide if they qualify for your "actually you can take epic feats before level 20" rule why are you doing this at all?

If you think you need more feats, write more feats. Write feats based on the epic feat ideas you think are good ideas, but like, more interesting. Some of them are +16 abilities in Combat feats already!

What is truly gained by adding 50 more trash options and like 2 good things to the list of stuff PCs sort through and then the DM still has to spot review anyway?

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

What is truly gained by adding 50 more trash options and like 2 good things to the list of stuff PCs sort through and then the DM still has to spot review anyway?

Well, generally you publish the trash and make a couple bucks off it. If you're releasing the trash for free... then yeah, what's the point?

[JonSetanta]

Well, I didn't mean MORE feats, but instead retconned SRD options that almost no one uses because like 1% of playgroups use Epic rules, which is sad because... To be hyperfocal on one feat... I really like the concept of a high level noncaster backhanding aside an Orb of Force slung in their direction while the Wizard whinges about their wasted spell slot.

Yeah, it will require some Tome rereading to make sure I don't reinvent the wheel when it comes to new combat feats, but I believe there are some hidden gems in the Epic selection, even among Epic class abilities, that should be brought down to reasonable levels of play.

[JonSetanta]

Crap. I should have named this thread "Make It A Feat!" because now I'll have to pester FBMF for a retitle or lock of this one while I dump like a dozen Tome feat proposals in one thread.

And in reading Races of War in depth (again) I noticed this time how late as many as three combat feats grant debuff on attack riders, notably Daze, a low level spell.
It's seriously not worth taking the BAB 16 stage of those feats.

[Kaelik]

Crap. I should have named this thread "Make It A Feat!" because now I'll have to pester FBMF for a retitle or lock of this one while I dump like a dozen Tome feat proposals in one thread.

And in reading Races of War in depth (again) I noticed this time how late as many as three combat feats grant debuff on attack riders, notably Daze, a low level spell.
It's seriously not worth taking the BAB 16 stage of those feats.

........ Daze is the most powerful condition in the game. It's stronger than literally anything else.

[merxa]

yes, dazing spell was one of the many reasons pathfinder got labeled 3.x, caster edition. Removing someone from combat for 3 or more rounds is about as good as killing them in the grand scheme of turn based combat.

[JonSetanta]

Nope. Stunned, then Paralyzed are more debilitating.

Losing actions for 3 rounds is indeed bad, but at least with Daze it's not allowing all autocrits like Paralyze.

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Paralyzed

[merxa]

the reason why the daze condition is so terrible is because there are essentially no ways to become immune to it. There are plenty of ways to gain immunity to being paralyzed.

Sure if you ever happen to become paralyzed it is slightly worse then being dazed, but high level 3.x d&d is all about multiple layers of defenses and condition immunities.

[Kaelik]

Nope. Stunned, then Paralyzed are more debilitating.

Losing actions for 3 rounds is indeed bad, but at least with Daze it's not allowing all autocrits like Paralyze.

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Paralyzed

Both stun and paralyze have many immunities.

Daze has effectively none.

Losing your actions is infinitely more important then some potential vulnerability to attacks, since of you can't take actions they will kill you in that time anyway.

Being able to daze everything is way more important then being able to make half of the things you fight lose dex bonus and drop something and the other half be immune.

[JonSetanta]

That's a bit metagaming, but ok.

[Zaranthan]

Weighing the strength of abilities when designing the game rules isn't metagaming. It's designing. You're not roleplaying the creator of the universe, you're writing game rules.

[Kaelik]

That's a bit metagaming, but ok.

Why are you levying metagaming as a criticism to DESIGN YOUR GAME BASED ON THE ACTUAL POWER OF THE CONDITIONS.

You are complaining about the game design decision of giving Daze, the most powerful condition, very late in the game. When you are writing an ability, deciding where to place the ability as a game design decision is of course going to be "metagaming" if you aren't making game design decisions based on the balance of the game then you are fucking the fuck up!

Also like all other "metagaming" accusations about character abilities it's not actually metagaming for players in the game to make decisions based on this information most of the time either. To the extent that we are going to pretend type based immunities aren't common knowledge it takes a DC 11 knowledge check to know that Elementals and Plants are immune to stunning. It takes a DC 17 Spellcraft check to notice that someone is casting a spell that gives them immunity to stun when they are casting it, implying anyone who can ever make a DC 17 spellcraft check is aware this spell exists, which is everyone with a single rank in spellcraft.

If your response to someone explaining why a game design decision you didn't understand was made the way it was is to complain about how the game designer was metagaming you should carefully reevaluate whether you have an actual objection besides being mad about being wrong.

[merxa]

dazing, from what I can tell, was a condition mostly caused by a low level spell that had a save and a hard HD limit. Some designers, who were probably power gamers, then expanded what causes daze with unique abilities, additional spells, metamagic effects, many of which may not have saves or HD limits or round limits or limits on how often you can be dazed by the same effect in a given time period. while the previous 90% of the game never even cared about some obscure status. It's certainly not some great insight to look at powerful monsters with a long, long list of immunities and notice they missed the daze condition -- the designers aren't all in the clubhouse colluding how they can win d&d when they become PCs -- if daze was in widespread use they would of included it in the stat block along side immunity to stun, paralysis, petrification, fear.

daze was a tiny crack that got expanded into a gaping chasm of brokenness.

[JonSetanta]

My gripe with granting the Daze rider to a melee attack at Level 16+ is that it's a cantrip for most casters from Level 1.

The reason why I said the word metagaming is because it's the same as assuming almost every enemy is going to have Fire immunity, while very few have Sonic immunity, but then there are abilities/feats/spells that then NEGATE said immunity.

I could very well write something that says "This attack causes Stun on a failed save, even if a target is immune to Stun".
I've actually seen this kind of negation in Tome. Being able to destroy Force effects, an otherwise indestructible object, is actually a thing.

[Kaelik]

dazing, from what I can tell, was a condition mostly caused by a low level spell that had a save and a hard HD limit. Some designers, who were probably power gamers, then expanded what causes daze with unique abilities, additional spells, metamagic effects, many of which may not have saves or HD limits or round limits or limits on how often you can be dazed by the same effect in a given time period. while the previous 90% of the game never even cared about some obscure status. It's certainly not some great insight to look at powerful monsters with a long, long list of immunities and notice they missed the daze condition -- the designers aren't all in the clubhouse colluding how they can win d&d when they become PCs -- if daze was in widespread use they would of included it in the stat block along side immunity to stun, paralysis, petrification, fear.

daze was a tiny crack that got expanded into a gaping chasm of brokenness.

The most significant Daze addition to the game was Celerity, where they specifically chose it believing no immunity exists so that they could take away your actions. I can't speak to what Pathfinder devs were smoking, but adding immunity to the negative effects of celerity would be a bad addition.

My gripe with granting the Daze rider to a melee attack at Level 16+ is that it's a cantrip for most casters from Level 1.

The Cantrip daze is a Compulsion that takes your standard action, forces a save, and lasts for one round. (it also has a HD limit.)

If you spend your standard action casting Daze, you have Dazed yourself with a 100% chance and dazed them enemy with whatever the chance they fail the will save and aren't immune to compulsions is.

A Daze rider on an attack roll 1) does not interfere with your ability to attack. 2) can trigger multiple times a round.

That means that if you daze them with the cantrip every round the result is that you are in an endless standoff until they make the save and then only they get actions.

If you daze them every round with a rider on your attacks then you kill them with HP damage.

The reason why I said the word metagaming is because it's the same as assuming almost every enemy is going to have Fire immunity, while very few have Sonic immunity, but then there are abilities/feats/spells that then NEGATE said immunity.

Elementals and Plants exist! It's not metagaming to say you will ever run into entire large section of the monster manuals at some point. There are no immunities to daze (Dragon Magazine has a template that grants the immunity). It also wouldn't be metagaming to notice that more creatures have Fire Immunity.

It is only metagaming to know information about the opposition your characters can't have. Your characters can have the information about the general distribution of the set of all monsters.

[deaddmwalking]

Even if you don't claim information about the set of all monsters, there are SOME monsters that you'll have familiarity with. As pointed out, it would be pretty easy to know that none of the ones you know about are immune to daze, unless you're specifically meaning the spell and they have 5+ HD.

This is a little like deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. Sometimes a very minor power becomes stupidly powerful when combined with some other power. Some people truly delight in finding an under-rated ability and turning it into a dominant tactic. It's quite possible that you will create such an exploit in the design phase, and it's also possible that you will fail to discover it during play-testing. But if you do find it, your response should not be 'I'll just let this out in the wild and hope nobody else notices it'.