[3e] Feat Taxes

[Tequila Sunrise]

To use a loaded 4e word, I think there are a few 3e feats that every character should have the benefit of, without having to waste a slot on. These three immediately come to mind:

A way to trade accuracy for damage (1-for-1 Power Attack, Manyshot)
Weapon Finesse ('Cause god forbid we let anyone use their Dex without jumping through hoops.)
Heighten Spell (What's the big deal about using a higher spell slot to get a better DC out of Charm Person or whatever?)

Oh, and possibly a way to full attack on a charge just because I find the wait-for-him-to-charge-me strategy retarded, in general.

Thoughts?

[Eldariel]

Reckless fighting; -4 to AC, +2 to hit or something. It actually exists as a feat... (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#recklessOffense) And Point Blank Shot. God forbid close range shots being easier than long range ones!

Also, Natural Spell for Druids; either make it worse or make it stop requiring a feat. Probably both.

EDIT: Stuff like full attacks (IMHO the standard action attack should be good for all your iteratives, and feints should either be move actions or attack actions WITHOUT feats; free action once per attack with feat), 5' steps and such do of course warrant changing, but don't really fall under feat tax since they aren't handled by feats presently.

[Asbestos]

Reckless fighting; -4 to AC, +2 to hit or something. It actually exists as a feat... (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#recklessOffense)

Which is funny since its basically the opposite of fighting defensively. You could just call it 'fighting aggressively'.

[Zeful]

Weapon Finesse ('Cause god forbid we let anyone use their Dex without jumping through hoops.)Having certain lighter blades allow for Dex-or-Str (or changing the default assumption so that Str is not used for accuracy at all) is reasonable.

Heighten Spell (What's the big deal about using a higher spell slot to get a better DC out of Charm Person or whatever?)While this is pretty reasonable, classes like the Wizard and Archivist would still have to have to take the feat, due to the way they learn spells.


Oh, and possibly a way to full attack on a charge just because I find the wait-for-him-to-charge-me strategy retarded, in general. I've thought about simply giving classes like the Fighter and Paladin a class feature that reduces the full attack, from full-round to Standard action, while classes like the Barbarian get pounce.

[jmbrown]

I've thought about simply giving classes like the Fighter and Paladin a class feature that reduces the full attack, from full-round to Standard action, while classes like the Barbarian get pounce.

That's how it used to be and it's how it should be. The defining features of warriors were that they got extra attacks and they could make them without sacrificing mobility. I'd make it a full-BAB feature only (and add in a clause that temporary effects giving you full BAB don't count; sorry, ClericZilla you're bad enough as it is).

[grautry]

Provoking AoO's on trip/grapple/disarm/sunder/etc. always seemed pointless and restricting to me. Eliminating them seems like a good idea.

Still, I'd go with 'class feature' route on that - simply, you don't provoke AoO's from combat manoeuvres when you have two or more levels in a full-BAB base class.

[Zeful]

That's how it used to be and it's how it should be. The defining features of warriors were that they got extra attacks and they could make them without sacrificing mobility. I'd make it a full-BAB feature only (and add in a clause that temporary effects giving you full BAB don't count; sorry, ClericZilla you're bad enough as it is).

Why be that complicated? It's easier to simply make it a level 5 or so class feature for the naturally full-bab classes, than it is to make it a feature of having a full-bab. In the former, it is the exception, in the latter, it's the norm, which creates the need for exceptions if you don't want people to have access to them.

[Gralamin]

To use a loaded 4e word, I think there are a few 3e feats that every character should have the benefit of, without having to waste a slot on. These three immediately come to mind:

A way to trade accuracy for damage (1-for-1 Power Attack, Manyshot)
Weapon Finesse ('Cause god forbid we let anyone use their Dex without jumping through hoops.)
Heighten Spell (What's the big deal about using a higher spell slot to get a better DC out of Charm Person or whatever?)

Oh, and possibly a way to full attack on a charge just because I find the wait-for-him-to-charge-me strategy retarded, in general.

Thoughts?

Pretty much anything in this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=320889) thread, I'd add.

[Zeful]

I would consider that to be a bad idea, being able to use Dex or Int in place of Str for damage actually makes sense, just willy-nilly replacing it for whatever is most beneficial to player is simply just Monty-Hauling1 it.

1:I'm using it as a replacement for "unnecessary reduction of difficulty through the removal of choice". Because it is.

[Radiun]

Charisma to will saves.

From the SRD

Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition.

Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.


It looks to me like they threw "willpower" into wisdom just to have an excuse to use it for Will saves.

[LibraryOgre]

Charisma to will saves.

From the SRD

Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition.

Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.


It looks to me like they threw "willpower" into wisdom just to have an excuse to use it for Will saves.



Wisdom is a composite term for the character's enlightenment, judgement, wile, willpower and (to a certain extent) intuitiveness.

They stuck it in about 30-some years ago. Charisma, for comparison, is "the measure of the character's combined physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism."

[Tequila Sunrise]

Reckless fighting; -4 to AC, +2 to hit or something. It actually exists as a feat... (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#recklessOffense)
Wow, that's a sad feat. I'd let a player fight recklessly just by asking nicely.


Also, Natural Spell for Druids; either make it worse or make it stop requiring a feat. Probably both.
I'd say screw NS altogether. But then I don't have to think about it at all because shapeshifting isn't an option when I run 3e -- it's how all druids work.


While this is pretty reasonable, classes like the Wizard and Archivist would still have to have to take the feat, due to the way they learn spells.
:smalleek: What do spell books have to do with heightening spells?


I've thought about simply giving classes like the Fighter and Paladin a class feature that reduces the full attack, from full-round to Standard action, while classes like the Barbarian get pounce.
Eh I suppose it'd be simple enough to say "6th level of any full BAB class grants you full attack as a standard action," but I'd be equally prone to make it a blanket rule: "Everyone can full attack as a standard action." Of course, that makes my life as a DM a little more fun. :smallwink: (It also makes the full BAB monk house rule a bit more fun.)


Pretty much anything in this thread, I'd add.
I agree there should be some way to trade accuracy for damage, no matter your weapon. I'd just say "Everyone can use 1-for-1 power attack. With anything."

But Leadership? Heck no, that's banned in my games.


It looks to me like they threw "willpower" into wisdom just to have an excuse to use it for Will saves.
What Mark Hall said. It wasn't until 3e that Charisma became a measure of some vague 'strength of soul' trait. I can see using it for Will saves, but then I'd also say "Let's go the whole nine yards like 4e does and pair every stat with a save." Might be a good idea, all things considered.

[bosssmiley]

To use a loaded 4e word, I think there are a few 3e feats that every character should have the benefit of, without having to waste a slot on. These three immediately come to mind:

A way to trade accuracy for damage (1-for-1 Power Attack, Manyshot)
Weapon Finesse ('Cause god forbid we let anyone use their Dex without jumping through hoops.)
Heighten Spell (What's the big deal about using a higher spell slot to get a better DC out of Charm Person or whatever?)

Oh, and possibly a way to full attack on a charge just because I find the wait-for-him-to-charge-me strategy retarded, in general.

Thoughts?

Races of War fixes many of your objections to the feat tax. Yes, it's homebrew, but its better than 90% of the stuff WOTC slopped out.

Power Attack and Weapon Finesse are options anyone can use.
Exotic weapon proficiency is a gimme after a few days training with a new toy.
All those Improved [should be able to do this anyway] Muggle tax combat maneuvers are either integrated into the core combat system, or made into actually worthwhile feats a sane person might take without a gun to their head.

[Zeful]

:smalleek: What do spell books have to do with heightening spells?It's formulaic. A Wizard's spell will have the same effect no matter who's book they get it out of. You could make it an explicit part of the magic system without any problems, but Wizards are already powerful enough without the free powerup of spells.



Eh I suppose it'd be simple enough to say "6th level of any full BAB class grants you full attack as a standard action," but I'd be equally prone to make it a blanket rule: "Everyone can full attack as a standard action." Of course, that makes my life as a DM a little more fun. :smallwink: (It also makes the full BAB monk house rule a bit more fun.)Making it a blanket rule does nothing for the classes that would actually benefit from it. A Cleric still is a better option for a frontline fighter. If it's a class feature of most, or even all full BAB classes at sixth level (or maybe fifth, to allow for dual-wielding to be usefull) then it's a signigicant investment to get the ability.


What Mark Hall said. It wasn't until 3e that Charisma became a measure of some vague 'strength of soul' trait. I can see using it for Will saves, but then I'd also say "Let's go the whole nine yards like 4e does and pair every stat with a save." Might be a good idea, all things considered.
It could be a good idea, as it makes certain MAD classes less so. But it also makes SAD classes more so. A Wizard will only increase Int, Con, and Wis (Cha if he's going to be summoning) While a Paladin needs Str, Con, Wis, and Cha (though if you let him use Dex for attack and damage it would let him boost all his saves and attack damage at the same time).

[Roderick_BR]

To use a loaded 4e word, I think there are a few 3e feats that every character should have the benefit of, without having to waste a slot on. These three immediately come to mind:

A way to trade accuracy for damage (1-for-1 Power Attack, Manyshot)
Weapon Finesse ('Cause god forbid we let anyone use their Dex without jumping through hoops.)
Heighten Spell (What's the big deal about using a higher spell slot to get a better DC out of Charm Person or whatever?)

Oh, and possibly a way to full attack on a charge just because I find the wait-for-him-to-charge-me strategy retarded, in general.

Thoughts?
In some rules I've been working on, I'm changing some of these feats the way you mentioned. Everyone can trade -1 to attack for a +1 to damage or AC. Powere Attack and Combat Expertise gives you others similar but different benefits. Don't know if manyshot needs to be give away for free.
Allowing anyone to use Dex instead of Str for light weapons is good too. The Weapon Finesse feat could instead allow someone to add Dex to the damage.
I'm also allowing any caster to use Heighten spell as a freebie (it's not really that broken, even if it's used to pump up the save DC more, there are better ways to do it).

I'd throw in Stand Still (Psyonics handbook). It is, in essense, using a BullRush as an attack of opportunity.
Also, All characters have a number of AoO per round equal to their Dex modifier (minimum 1). The Combat Reflex feat would add +4 to the attack roll, plus +3 AoOs each time you pick the feat.

In a reversal, I'd make it that casters can't cast defensivelly, unless they get Combat Casting, gaining a +4 to his Concentration checks to cast defensivelly, and to the check to not lose a spell if they are actually struck.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Exotic weapon proficiency is a gimme after a few days training with a new toy.
Meaning...what? You get feats for free after playing with your new toy for a bit?


All those Improved [should be able to do this anyway] Muggle tax combat maneuvers are either integrated into the core combat system, or made into actually worthwhile feats a sane person might take without a gun to their head.[/LIST]
Really? I've never thought of those as must-haves. I can see dropping the AoOs for untrained use, somewhat how Gautry suggested, but I've never heard anyone say they need any of them the same way a rogue needs weapon finesse.


It's formulaic. A Wizard's spell will have the same effect no matter who's book they get it out of. You could make it an explicit part of the magic system without any problems, but Wizards are already powerful enough without the free powerup of spells.
Ah. I imagine a wizard heightening his spell as something like "I spend a couple extra moments preparing it" rather than as "I research a whole new spell."


Making it a blanket rule does nothing for the classes that would actually benefit from it.
Sure it does; you'd get to use your awesome BAB to full effect every round. :smallsmile: I get what you're saying about CoDzilla though.

Why fifth level exactly?


Also, All characters have a number of AoO per round equal to their Dex modifier (minimum 1). The Combat Reflex feat would add +4 to the attack roll, plus +3 AoOs each time you pick the feat.
I don't see anything wrong with the 4e route.


In a reversal, I'd make it that casters can't cast defensivelly, unless they get Combat Casting, gaining a +4 to his Concentration checks to cast defensivelly, and to the check to not lose a spell if they are actually struck.
Well the defensive casting formula is borked anyway, so why not go the whole nine yards and fix it? (Either double the spell level or base it on the foe's...hm, BAB doesn't work well with monsters...stats don't either...nvm let's stick with double the spell level.) Of course now we're well beyond feat taxes. Nobody needs Combat Casting, even if it were actually useful.

[Snails]

While this is pretty reasonable, classes like the Wizard and Archivist would still have to have to take the feat, due to the way they learn spells.

Generally speaking, the slot cost of the metamagicked spells are fair in their own right. You certainly could give every Core spellcasting class every Core metamagic without there being meaningful balance consequences.

[Haven]

Why fifth level exactly?


Doesn't really make a difference before then. Except for TWF I guess.

Though here's an important question--after level five in a full BAB class or after five levels of full BAB classes? I'd go with the latter so as not to discourage multiclassing, but then, I was always a fan of fun multiclass characters.

[Zeful]

Ah. I imagine a wizard heightening his spell as something like "I spend a couple extra moments preparing it" rather than as "I research a whole new spell."Like I said, you could give them without it being a problem. I wouldn't.


Sure it does; you'd get to use your awesome BAB to full effect every round. :smallsmile: I get what you're saying about CoDzilla though.

Why fifth level exactly?TWF, it allows characters to have a full-attack sequence at level 1. TWF Rangers would be getting it earlier by virtue of being a TWF Ranger. Also, meld all the TWF feats together, and simply have TWF give you the ability to duplicate you attack routine with your other hand (eg: A 11th level fighter would have a one-handed attack routine of at least +11/+6/+1, a 11th level TWF fighter would have an attack routine of +11/+11/+6/+6/+1/+1. This is only taking into account BAB alone, but with the Attack penalties with two weapons Str or Dex bonuses, enchantment bonuses and extra attacks from things like weapons of speed and haste). I'd still have Improved and Perfect TWF as feats, but they'd decrease the penalty and increase damage when fighting with two weapons.


I don't see anything wrong with the 4e route.There is nothing wrong with it, in theory, however, practical applications means that some classes, (monk, paladin) don't benefit at all from the changes while others (Wizard, Druid, every SAD caster) become much more powerful. This means the change has to be very carefully considered before you implement it.


Generally speaking, the slot cost of the metamagicked spells are fair in their own right. You certainly could give every Core spellcasting class every Core metamagic without there being meaningful balance consequences.I disagree, giving all the core casters all the core metamagic feats will make players who don't optimise as much (Combat Casting, Evocation specialization, Spell Mastery) far more powerful than they were, and given magic's place as the Top Dog in D&D, it makes more classes that much more worthless in comparison. Considering the highest tier of play alone- where you are correct in saying that giving every spellcasting class every core metamagic feat free wouldn't make a difference- is showing a surprising lack of foresight. Shouldn't you have that up 24/7? :P


Though here's an important question--after level five in a full BAB class or after five levels of full BAB classes? I'd go with the latter so as not to discourage multiclassing, but then, I was always a fan of fun multiclass characters.As I'm suggesting a class feature similar to pounce, it would be five or six levels in a specific class that has the ability.

[Fitz10019]

I'm thinking of the 'free' weapon finesse being based on the weight of the weapon (up to 3lbs). A character could then finesse a mithral longsword, ignoring the mithral rules saying the half weight does not affect the ability to use it.

[Mongoose87]

Leadership. It should not be a feat, it should be a boon bestowed upon you for role playing well, a story element, or a punishment (in the form of a gimped cohort) for intentionally annoying the DM.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Though here's an important question--after level five in a full BAB class or after five levels of full BAB classes? I'd go with the latter so as not to discourage multiclassing, but then, I was always a fan of fun multiclass characters.
I'd go with the latter too. The only argument for the former I can see would be the dead level issue -- but I can't remember off the top of my head, is 6th level dead for any full BAB class? Meh, whatever, I'm not too interested in more class features.


TWF, it allows characters to have a full-attack sequence at level 1. TWF Rangers would be getting it earlier by virtue of being a TWF Ranger. Also, meld all the TWF feats together, and simply have TWF give you the ability to duplicate you attack routine with your other hand (eg: A 11th level fighter would have a one-handed attack routine of at least +11/+6/+1, a 11th level TWF fighter would have an attack routine of +11/+11/+6/+6/+1/+1. This is only taking into account BAB alone, but with the Attack penalties with two weapons Str or Dex bonuses, enchantment bonuses and extra attacks from things like weapons of speed and haste). I'd still have Improved and Perfect TWF as feats, but they'd decrease the penalty and increase damage when fighting with two weapons.
Ya know now that I'm thinking more about it, I think I'd still require a full round action for TWF -- mostly because it'd be really weird to need a full round to stab twice for five levels and then all of a sudden be able to stab four times as a standard action. There is a feat for that if you really wanted to do it.

Anyway, I agree that TWF is totally borked unless you're a rogue or [maybe] a ranger. I like the idea of folding the whole chain into one feat, including the missing fourth one. Heck, I'd fold the four TWD feats into one while we're at it.


There is nothing wrong with it, in theory, however, practical applications means that some classes, (monk, paladin) don't benefit at all from the changes while others (Wizard, Druid, every SAD caster) become much more powerful. This means the change has to be very carefully considered before you implement it.
Well my 4e comment was in regard to Roderick's combat reflexes idea. In any case, I find 'careful consideration' and anything to do with 3e rules to be a somewhat silly thought.


Leadership. It should not be a feat, it should be a boon bestowed upon you for role playing well, a story element, or a punishment (in the form of a gimped cohort) for intentionally annoying the DM.
Yeah, either everyone should get it or nobody should get it. My preference is for the latter, but whatev.

[Zeful]

Ya know now that I'm thinking more about it, I think I'd still require a full round action for TWF -- mostly because it'd be really weird to need a full round to use your quizinart routine for five levels and then all of a sudden be able to do it in a standard action. There is a feat for that if you really wanted to do it.It's two attacks, it's no more a cuizinart routine than a level 6 fighter's is. I'll admit it's odd to "suddenly" be able to do x at y level, but it's no different from spells so I fail to see the problem.


Anyway, I agree that TWF is totally borked unless you're a rogue or [maybe] a ranger. I like the idea of folding the whole chain into one feat, including the missing fourth one. Heck, I'd fold the four TWD feats into one while we're at it.Which is why I'd still have Improved and Perfect TWF, but instead of giving more attacks it'd give damage bonuses, attack bonuses, to make up for the failings of the style.


Well my 4e comment was in regard to Roderick's combat reflexes idea. In any case, I find 'careful consideration' and anything to do with 3e rules to be an somewhat silly thought.I take the viewpoint that careful consideration was not used during the writing of 3.5, so we must exercise it twofold to make up for it.

[Snails]

I disagree, giving all the core casters all the core metamagic feats will make players who don't optimise as much (Combat Casting, Evocation specialization, Spell Mastery) far more powerful than they were, and given magic's place as the Top Dog in D&D, it makes more classes that much more worthless in comparison. Considering the highest tier of play alone- where you are correct in saying that giving every spellcasting class every core metamagic feat free wouldn't make a difference- is showing a surprising lack of foresight.

Either the slot cost of a metamagicked spell is fair when compared to other spells of the same level or it is not.

If it is fair, then what you are complaining about is a general design issue about all the spell lists. "Gee, I hope that all the wizards are poorly optimized" is not a meaningful step forward.

If it is unfair, then make that argument.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Which is why I'd still have Improved and Perfect TWF, but instead of giving more attacks it'd give damage bonuses, attack bonuses, to make up for the failings of the style.
If you're gonna start writing feats to fix TWF, ya might as well fix it from the ground up. I like the idea of having two TWF rulesets -- one for rogues [and possibly rangers] and one for everyone else. The rogue ruleset works like RAW. The other ruleset would have things like no attack penalties and full str bonus for the off-hand right from the get-go. No reason for TWF not to be competitive right at level 1.


I take the viewpoint that careful consideration was not used during the writing of 3.5, so we must exercise it twofold to make up for it.
That was my view as well, but choosing a different favorite game kinda lightened my attitude toward 3e.

(This thread was inspired by me joining a new local group, who play 3e pretty exclusively, and realizing that I'm the only experienced DM other than the current DM. So this thread is me thinking 'If my skills are ever called on...')

[JaxGaret]

Either the slot cost of a metamagicked spell is fair when compared to other spells of the same level or it is not.

If it is fair, then what you are complaining about is a general design issue about all the spell lists. "Gee, I hope that all the wizards are poorly optimized" is not a meaningful step forward.

If it is unfair, then make that argument.

It's not about whether metamagicked spells vs. non-metamagicked spells are fairly equal in power, it's about flexibility.

A caster with all of the metamagic feats at their disposal is going to be more flexible, and therefore more powerful, than a caster who does not.

[Snails]

It's not about whether metamagicked spells vs. non-metamagicked spells are fairly equal in power, it's about flexibility.

A caster with all of the metamagic feats at their disposal is going to be more flexible, and therefore more powerful, than a caster who does not.

But your argument is actually a general claim that Wizards are way too powerful, which is orthogonal to the thrust of this thread.

I am simply stating that from a design perspective it seems logical and reasonable for all spellcasters to tailor their spells to some degree, as an intrinsic class feature. Within 3e mechanics that would mean metamagic feats.

[grautry]

I am simply stating that from a design perspective it seems logical and reasonable for all spellcasters to tailor their spells to some degree, as an intrinsic class feature. Within 3e mechanics that would mean metamagic feats.

Why's that?

From a D&D perspective spells are magic bullets. You prepare them, you fire them off once, you've got limited amount of shots. Sorta like being a gunslinger in the real world does not imply that you have the capability to alter how a bullet works(even if you can, in fact, build one).

The way that magic is built in D&D implies that it is, in fact, inflexible and changing how it works requires for you to get additional training(represented by metamagic feats).

I mean, sure, you can make magic more flexible but it is in no way inherently more "logical" or "reasonable" than the choice to make magic inflexible.

Especially since you're dealing with magic, which is an entirely made-up thing - it can thus operate on any rules you can conceive of and no system will be inherently better than any other.

And anyway, there's more to giving casters free metamagic than just the flexibility it grants. It also frees your feat slots to spend on something else, thereby automatically making you more powerful.

[Tyndmyr]

Leadership. It should not be a feat, it should be a boon bestowed upon you for role playing well, a story element, or a punishment (in the form of a gimped cohort) for intentionally annoying the DM.

The same could be said of many feats. My beef with leadership is not so much that it's a feat, so much as that it gives you quite a lot compared to other feats.

I'd rather see a leadership feat chain, as it were(preferably allowable as fighter bonus feats), allowing a character to theme himself as a leader by building his character appropriately. As a single feat, its just far too good.

[Snails]

Especially since you're dealing with magic, which is an entirely made-up thing - it can thus operate on any rules you can conceive of and no system will be inherently better than any other.

Thank you for making it crystal clear that everything else you stated in your own post can safely be ignored on my whim. :)

Obviously there is a significant degree of personal aesthetics applied in forming all the opinions submitted here. In an abstract system like D&D, "all wizards should be able to improve their spells at the cost of a higher slot" is no more and no less logical than "all Fighters should be able to improve their damage at the cost of accuracy".

[bosssmiley]

Meaning...what? You get feats for free after playing with your new toy for a bit?

Given that they hand out Weapon Proficiency feats at character creation, yes. If your character cares enough about a weapon to make it his primary means of bringing the stabby, then let him use it without penalty.

Weapon/Armour Proficiency feats are nothing but a Muggle tax on martial characters. They are functionally equivalent to requiring that casters pay feat slots just to use, let alone enhance, their class abilities. Scrap them as feats, and write them in as "can/can't use this ability in (foo) armour/-with (foo) weapon" elements of the class abilities package.

Fighty McFightness: "Funny thing. I've been wielding this twin-headed Phlungian swording-axe on our last five adventures, but I still suck with it. And me a supposed master of combat arts."
Blasty McCaster: "Odd that. You think you'd become better with it as you became accustomed to wielding it over time. Oh, I know some more spells now. No cost, no training requirement. Heh, it's good to be me."

[Fitz10019]

That sounds like Weapon proficiency should be bought with skill points (like the learning a language rule).

[Kaiyanwang]

I'd say that the thing I find annoying is not the required feat itself , but the feat after it.

Examples:

TWF --> ITWF --> GTWF

Combat Expertise--> Improved CE---> Allied Defense

Cleave ---> Greater Cleave ---> Supreme Cleave class feature

I think that the game would not break if they could be merged, and the subsequent advantages assigned in base of BAB and/or a stat and/or a synergy with another feat.

Example: Dex 15, TWF. BAB +11, Dex 19? GTWF.

Something like martial arts in OADv, but with a smaller laundry list of prereqs.

Example: "If you have both TWF and Combat Reflexes, you gain Dual Strike."

[Ernir]

Free 1-to-1 "power attack" (that works with bows and such too), free 1-to-1 "combat expertise" and "weapon finesse" are on my list of possible houserules to patch up melee a bit.

I like the idea of Reckless Fighting too.

I wouldn't give away heighten spell. Because they don't need it. :smalltongue:
And I don't think taking it is always a given, either...

[deuxhero]

I liked the idea proposed in the weapon redux thread. One marital weapon learned every level, and an exotic every 5 (and higher level proficiencys grant new abilities with the weapons).

[Snails]

They are functionally equivalent to requiring that casters pay feat slots just to use, let alone enhance, their class abilities. Scrap them as feats, and write them in as "can/can't use this ability in (foo) armour/-with (foo) weapon" elements of the class abilities package.

I sympathize with your reasoning. Certain

The primary target of the tax here is the Cleric. If you want to compete with the big boys in melee, either take 1 level dip into Fighter or spend a feat or worship a war god (and even then you may get focus is not the best weapon).

[jokey665]

I've switched to weapon groups (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AcAugfauJp7uZGM3amZzNzZfOTdodGh0ZGpkNg&hl=en) for my games, and I've made it reasonably easy to gain access to a large-ish number of weapons. Every race starts with at least one free weapon group, and each class has a good number of groups. It's entirely possible to be proficient with any exotic weapon of your choice at level 1 without spending any feats as long as you're a full-BAB class.

[FMArthur]

I'd be willing to give Monk Improved Natural Attack for free. I'd rather make Natural Spell take 9 feats than 1 for a Druid, though. :smallsigh:

[Tequila Sunrise]

Given that they hand out Weapon Proficiency feats at character creation, yes. If your character cares enough about a weapon to make it his primary means of bringing the stabby, then let him use it without penalty.

Weapon/Armour Proficiency feats are nothing but a Muggle tax on martial characters. They are functionally equivalent to requiring that casters pay feat slots just to use, let alone enhance, their class abilities. Scrap them as feats, and write them in as "can/can't use this ability in (foo) armour/-with (foo) weapon" elements of the class abilities package.

Fighty McFightness: "Funny thing. I've been wielding this twin-headed Phlungian swording-axe on our last five adventures, but I still suck with it. And me a supposed master of combat arts."
Blasty McCaster: "Odd that. You think you'd become better with it as you became accustomed to wielding it over time. Oh, I know some more spells now. No cost, no training requirement. Heh, it's good to be me."
Not what I'd call a tax, but I can dig it.

[Kaiyanwang]

I'd be willing to give Monk Improved Natural Attack for free. I'd rather make Natural Spell take 9 feats than 1 for a Druid, though. :smallsigh:

This is a wise, wise, wise observation. Sometimes, when I think about "feat taxes", I think about meleers (see my examples).

Nevertheless, Natural Spell, I guess, is in the field of "it shouldn't exist".

[absolmorph]

This is a wise, wise, wise observation. Sometimes, when I think about "feat taxes", I think about meleers (see my examples).

Nevertheless, Natural Spell, I guess, is in the field of "it shouldn't exist".
I think Natural Spell should exist.
It just shouldn't be at such a low level. Maybe a class feature at 10th level or later?

[Kaiyanwang]

I think Natural Spell should exist.
It just shouldn't be at such a low level. Maybe a class feature at 10th level or later?

Respectfully, if you want to delay it, make it an Epic feat.

I like A LOT the fact that the druid can cover several corners. Simply, I think is better that cannot do it for MORE athe same time.

IMO, of course.

[absolmorph]

Respectfully, if you want to delay it, make it an Epic feat.

I like A LOT the fact that the druid can cover several corners. Simply, I think is better that cannot do it for MORE athe same time.

IMO, of course.
Well, I just threw a number out there, honestly. Yeah, it probably would be better delayed more, but it's something that I think a druid would eventually pick up on.

[Thames]

What about Quick Draw it seems rather weak?
Also if Power Attack is to be considered a tax (i agree with this) then what about Combat Expertise?


Races of War fixes many of your objections to the feat tax. Yes, it's homebrew, but its better than 90% of the stuff WOTC slopped out.

What is races of War? Could you please link to something (cover picture, review ...)?

Thank-you Aethernox (responded to races of war)

[ex cathedra]

Races of War. (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Races_of_War_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29)

[Optimystik]

Natural Spell should be like the "Auto-XYZ" line - each time you take the feat, you can cast 3 more spell levels while shapeshifted.

I also have no problem with Heighten being inherent to the magic system, as preparing a spell with a higher slot should represent a larger expenditure of magic power and thus increase the DC accordingly, just like Psionicists generally gain the same benefit through augmentation.

And while I'm on the subject of psionics, Psionic Meditation is so mandatory (to EVERY psionic class) that it might as well just be free. It's not as though psionics would be so much more powerful than magic even so.

[Zeful]

I also have no problem with Heighten being inherent to the magic system, as preparing a spell with a higher slot should represent a larger expenditure of magic power and thus increase the DC accordingly, just like Psionicists generally gain the same benefit through augmentation.

Except Psionics and magic can, and in this case are, separate systems. Augmentation is the strengthening of powers by simply adding more, while heightening a spell would be more akin to altering a formula for use with larger numbers or logarithms. Which are not comparable.

Again, you could make the Heighten mechanic intrinsic to the magic system, but I am loath to give casters more power or flexibility (which they already have in spades).