PDA

View Full Version : Sensible Epic Feats



RadicalTurnip
2013-01-30, 12:14 PM
I've often thought that epic feats are supposed to be above and beyond the abilities of normal mortals, and it's annoyed me that if I want my epic character to have an ability that is perfectly and sensibly described by a non-epic feat, there is no chance that I would take that feat because, while I technically may trade an epic feat for a non-epic feat, it doesn't have the [Epic] descriptor. I feel I should be getting more bang for my buck! So here I've made two simple epic feats that I think make sense and aren't OP. What do you guys think?

Feat-and-a-half [Epic]
Benefit: Choose a non-epic feat for which you meet the prerequisites. You gain that feat. The second time (and every even numbered time thereafter) you choose Feat-and-a-half you gain another non-epic feat for which you meet the prerequisites.
Special: You may gain this feat multiple times. Each time you do, gain another feat (or set of feats) for which you meet the prerequisites.

Uncanny Learning [Epic]
Benefit: Choose a non-epic feat for which you meet all but one prerequisite. You gain that feat. You do not gain any benefit associated with a prerequisite that you do not have.
Normal: You may only gain feats for which you meet all prerequisites. With this feat, you may ignore a single prerequisite.
Special: You may gain this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you gain another feat for which you meet all but one prerequisite.

I feel like Feat-and-a-half is pretty straightforward, but Uncanny Learning may need some explaining: I could use an epic feat to, say, gain Two-Weapon-Fighting for my Dwarven Defender with only 10 Dex. Or, if I so chose, I could gain cleave without gaining power-attack as long as I had at least 13 Strength. If I didn't have 13 Strength, I could only get it by first getting power attack.

Edit: Changed Uncanny Learning for clarity.

Lix Lorn
2013-01-30, 12:17 PM
This kinda makes sense. Feat-and-a-half especially. xD

Uncanny Learning seems like it could cause problems. Specifically, you could take Improved Two-Weapon Fighting without taking Two-Weapon Fighting. Which is... odd. xD

RadicalTurnip
2013-01-30, 12:44 PM
That's why I put the "You do not gain any benefit associated with a prerequisite that you do not have." in there. With Improved TWF, you gain an additional attack, albeit at a -5 penalty. So yes, you can make 2 off-hand attacks, but the penalty (assuming the offhand is light) is still -4, -8, -13. An epic feat to gain an additional attack at -13? I don't find that very OP.

Edit: And only if they have 17 Dex.
Edit Edit: This comes off as sounding defensive, which I didn't mean it to do. I just had thought of that exact outcome (and gaining improved spell penetration without spell penetration) and realized that the original feat that you're skipping is usually at least as good as the follow-up feat. There are probably areas where this could be a bit OP and may need tweaking, but I didn't find them in my skimming of the ruleset.

Lix Lorn
2013-01-30, 03:58 PM
This is true. The things that would worry me is when a feat's upgrade includes the original feat within it, but... I can't actually think of one that does that. xD

Silva Stormrage
2013-01-30, 05:42 PM
For feat and a half I would suggest giving the extra feat one the odd attempts at taking the feat. Epic feats are powerful and needing to sacrifice two of them for 3 non epic seems a bit weak.

I do like uncanny learning though, interesting idea and sometimes its hard to meet all the prerequisites that you need at epic.

JoshuaZ
2013-01-30, 07:46 PM
Feat and a half is a bit weak. I'd be willing to have it do a 2/1 for deal and make it two non-epic for an epic.

TuggyNE
2013-01-30, 08:36 PM
Feat-and-a-half [Epic]
Benefit: Choose a non-epic feat for which you meet the prerequisites. You gain that feat. The second time (and every even numbered time thereafter) you choose Feat-and-a-half you gain another non-epic feat for which you meet the prerequisites.
Special: You may gain this feat multiple times. Each time you do, gain another feat (or set of feats) for which you meet the prerequisites.

Not sure why it's only 3 non-epic feats for every two epic feats, why not bump it up another notch?


Uncanny Learning [Epic]
Benefit: Choose a non-epic feat for which you do not meet a single prerequisite. You gain that feat. You do not gain any benefit associated with a prerequisite that you do not have.
Normal: You may only gain feats for which you meet all prerequisites. With this feat, you may ignore a single prerequisite.
Special: You may gain this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you gain another feat for which you do not meet a single prerequisite.

"do not meet a single prerequisite" is highly ambiguous; it could mean either "meet all but one prerequisite" or "doesn't meet even one prerequisite". Obviously, the former is desired.

Kornaki
2013-01-30, 10:30 PM
When I read the uncanny learning I fell for the ambiguity and thought it was a very odd feat haha. Feat and a half could definitely be two feats for every epic feat

Temotei
2013-01-31, 01:46 PM
I'm going to have to agree with the community on this one; Uncanny Learning's benefit is ambiguous and Feat-and-a-Half is weak.

RadicalTurnip
2013-01-31, 02:33 PM
Not sure why it's only 3 non-epic feats for every two epic feats, why not bump it up another notch?
There are certainly epic feats that seem more powerful than these (Endless Deflection and Exceptional Deflection come to mind), but all of the crunchy feats, to me, seem less powerful than this. Epic Weapon Focus just gives another +1, Epic Weapon Specialization is just another +2 damage. I would *like* it more if it gave 2-for-1, but that makes Epic Spell Penetration feel pretty sad (which it is).

I'm still a bit unsure, but I'm trying to look at the ELH mostly for the power of feats, instead of other epic books that have come after that, or other homebrew.

"do not meet a single prerequisite" is highly ambiguous; it could mean either "meet all but one prerequisite" or "doesn't meet even one prerequisite". Obviously, the former is desired.[/QUOTE]

I was trying to figure out how to word that, thanks.

Lix Lorn
2013-01-31, 03:45 PM
There are certainly epic feats that seem more powerful than these (Endless Deflection and Exceptional Deflection come to mind), but all of the crunchy feats, to me, seem less powerful than this. Epic Weapon Focus just gives another +1, Epic Weapon Specialization is just another +2 damage. I would *like* it more if it gave 2-for-1, but that makes Epic Spell Penetration feel pretty sad (which it is).

I'm still a bit unsure, but I'm trying to look at the ELH mostly for the power of feats, instead of other epic books that have come after that, or other homebrew.
Look at homebrew. Homebrew, when it's decent, is better balanced than Wizards material within a single book.

Temotei
2013-01-31, 05:57 PM
Look at homebrew. Homebrew, when it's decent, is better balanced than Wizards material within a single book.

Like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7764632&postcount=1) and this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7865285&postcount=33)? :smallbiggrin:

Lix Lorn
2013-01-31, 06:11 PM
Much better, although I'm still unsure on a couple of those.

Temotei
2013-01-31, 06:15 PM
Much better, although I'm still unsure on a couple of those.

If you've got ideas, I would be glad to hear them in a PM (better there so we can keep on-topic here).

sengmeng
2013-02-10, 09:58 PM
Yeah, two for one instead of feat and a half seems fair. I'd say even two or three ignored prerequisites would be fair (if it only ignores one prerequisite, you might as well take feat and a half instead).