Feats that should just be abilities you start with

[INoKnowNames]

One of the two reasons OP states for granting free feats is that some feats "are just unbalanced and unfun to have to take". It may be only five words (actually nine), but it's half the point of their post.

If that was all that was in his post, then I'd agree. But then he goes on to make several comments that actually prove my last point. Let's compare some of his list to a pretty standard and commonly known party, the Order of the Stick:

Improved Unarmed Strike? I don't see, say, Celia or Vaarsuvius throwing a decent punch.

Improved Shield Bash and Two Weapon Fighting: Durkon doesn't seem to be getting any extra attacks when he gets all up in melee, despite the fact that, as mentioned in the op "if you are proficient with a shield you should know how to fight properly with it", so you'd think he'd be making more use of his ancestral tools.

Weapon Finesse: Belkar doesn't seem like he relies on Finesse to me. Ranger and all that.

Chokehold I can't speak on, because I don't know that feat off of the top of my head. Probably a grappling thing, though.

Most of his post seemed more on what he felt was something people should be able to do, or at least more so that than "this is a definitive feat tax", admittedly with the exception of Weapon Finesse, which is explicitly called out as such.

Let me reiterate: Removing useless feat taxes? Not a bad idea, so long as they're baked in properly to the characters to whom gaining the bonuses makes sense. But saying that every single adventurer should be able to passively do all of this is where I disagree.

I don't think you quite got what I was saying but your edit was a closer attempt.

We both think that feats should be worth it. There are a variety of ways to do so. Either you take the existing weak feats and add feat worthy effects to them. Or you give warriors those weak feats for free and create new feats with feat worthy effects. Personally I see no notable difference between those two methods. Personally I, like you, also err on the side of adding to existing feats.

Likewise there are some feat worthy feats out there but they have some non feat worthy feats as prerequisites. Improving those non feat worthy feats or granting those non feat worthy feats for free are two methods for making the existing feat worthy feats easier to access (however that would not avoid the necessity for new content as far as feat worthy effects go).

I underlined the main point here that I'm responding too, and the difference between me agreeing with you and finding discrepancies in a few others' remarks. Make sure that only those who would realistically gain access to them in the system, and I'm entirely onboard with starting off with some of the early level feats. Some characters genuinely aren't the type to be able to do everything, so some tricks shouldn't be added to their trictionary is my only point. They have different tricks to enjoy.

Improving feats by removing the chaff or merging it into the wheat though, either way yeah I'm all for it.

Ah. I skipped around a bit but that part did seem high level. Strangely the later person vs person part of the fight seemed lower level(say mid level or so).

Then you missed the part where the Monk stops playing around with his Ki Powers and starts punching Volcanoes and then starts throwing buildings, after the Fighter gets access to a better longsword. Check at 29:50.

I think even if you argue that it shouldn't be accessible to everyone, IUS as it stands is not a great design. I think what I would propose for it is to effectively just be martial proficiency with unarmed strike- that is, if you're proficiency with martial weapons, you get IUS. I feel like its just as reasonable for a fighter to automatically know how attack properly with a punch as it is for them to know how to properly throw a throwing axe.

Yeah, I can buy that. Really, it's that being proficient with a weapon is either so easy to get or means so little that there's basically no point to it. Making that actually mean something, and then letting feats from there actually make your skill with the weapon stand out world wide or larger, I would like very much.

Personally, I'd build Raiden as a Duskblade/Renegade Mastermaker, or fudge it as a warforge swordsage. You'd need a lot of ranks in acrobatics and stupidly good str, though.

Oh please, Snowbluffsama, please do not tempt me. I have so little time as it is; I can't start being distracted with trying to build Mr. Lightning Bolt.

[Deadline]

Let's see:

Dodge
Power Attack
Short Haft
Two-Weapon Defense
The Improved and above versions of Two-Weapon Fighting (you should only have to spend the one feat to get the whole chain's benefits).

Agile Shield Fighter should not be automatic, but way easier to qualify for.

An AoO shouldn't stop a grapple attempt (although this may be in place for balance reasons).

I disagree with Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Shield Bash. Any character can punch someone, not everyone can use their bare hands to fight a guy with a sword and not get stabbed repeatedly (I do agree with the idea of making it a feature of having the martial proficiency with it though, I'm having a hard time picturing any trained fighter not knowing how to be dangerous with just his fists). And in the same vein, anyone can already bash someone with a shield (it's super easy to do), but doing so and keeping your balance and shield free to defend yourself might require special training. Same thing with Two-Weapon fighting. Anyone can do it, but taking the feat means specialized training that lets you do it better.

I'd also like to see the quarterstaff be a much more dangerous weapon, but that's more of a personal preference thing.

[Snowbluff]

Oh please, Snowbluffsama, please do not tempt me. I have so little time as it is; I can't start being distracted with trying to build Mr. Lightning Bolt.

You can take a feat to bind Lighting Gauntlets, or the one that gives warforged the ability to add lightning damage their attacks called Shocking Fist... or both.

Let's see:

Dodge

Fighting Defensively is already an option.

Short Haft

Oh yes.

I'd also like to see the quarterstaff be a much more dangerous weapon, but that's more of a personal preference thing.

Yeah, I can't see it being anything better than a bludgeoning polearm. Halberds are where it's at.

[OldTrees1]

My inner grognard is confused by this. Feats were a fun thing they added to 3.0 that created a greater distinction between fighter A having an axe while fighter B having a sword. It was an extra arena to generate unique-ish elements between characters. Complaining that some bonus isn't enough and should have been baked in sits ill with me, even being able to take toughness 5x was a very nice and exciting step forward in the design of d&d.

now get off my lawn!

Feats(even skill focus[speak languages]) were a very nice and exciting step forward in the design of d&d. However discussion forums like this one tend to have an evolving sense of game design. So the forum is now using 15 years of improvement on game design to evaluate the step forward made back in 2000 AD. We have had time to observe, evaluate, experiment, and innovate with the mechanical concept of a feat. Likewise we have had time to observe, evaluate, experiment, and innovate with 3rd editions martial combat mechanics. This leads to evolving conclusions on what the ideal division would be between martial combat mechanics and martial combat feats.

But your inner grognard is useful for remembering the importance of that step forward those 15 years ago. We should not take that innovation for granted.

[Bucky]

An AoO shouldn't stop a grapple attempt (although this may be in place for balance reasons).

Sunder and Disarm shouldn't need a feat to avoid provoking an AoO.

[OldTrees1]

I underlined the main point here that I'm responding too, and the difference between me agreeing with you and finding discrepancies in a few others' remarks. Make sure that only those who would realistically gain access to them in the system, and I'm entirely onboard with starting off with some of the early level feats. Some characters genuinely aren't the type to be able to do everything, so some tricks shouldn't be added to their trictionary is my only point. They have different tricks to enjoy.

Improving feats by removing the chaff or merging it into the wheat though, either way yeah I'm all for it.

Yeah. That is a good position. I agree with you in full. Especially the part I underlined.

Then you missed the part where the Monk stops playing around with his Ki Powers and starts punching Volcanoes and then starts throwing buildings, after the Fighter gets access to a better longsword. Check at 29:50.

Ok, I need to actually watch this start to finish now. I keep missing so much by clicking around.

[Arbane]

Then again, this is what I think a level 21 Fighter vs level 21 Monk + Epic Animated Construct fight should look like, so my thinking is probably very flawed. Bit of a warning for some mild language and violence. Probably important to mention.

I'm pretty sure you can't do anything nearly that flashy in D&D without spells spells spells spells.

All this stuff about not granting feats because it's unrealistic to be automatically trained in some thing or another is kind of irrelevant. The point of granting free feats isn't for realism reasons, it's to remove all the bull**** penalties and taxes that d20 is full of, and that happen to only affect martial characters because spellcasters are T1 without any feats at all. Who the hell is excited about taking Point Blank Shot, or even Precise Shot? Nobody, that's who. The goal here is to take those dumbass feats that are mandatory for noncasters to even function and hand them out for free so characters can make meaningful, interesting choices with their feat selections.

It's not about being realistic. It's about making this game fun.

And if you don't think that is a good reason, I don't know what to say to you.

Makes perfect sense to me. D&D3's design seems to have been unfortunately big on the unspoken but always present idea that if you want to do anything more interesting in a fight than stab the other guy in the hitpoints, you'd better cast a spell, own a magic item, have a feat, or be prepared to suck an attack of opportunity. This strikes me as bad design.

[Flickerdart]

Improved Unarmed Strike? I don't see, say, Celia or Vaarsuvius throwing a decent punch.

That's not the metric you should be using.

Not even considering all the combat maneuvers that have "improved X" feats, there are loads of things that everyone can do by the base rules, but certain characters won't. Anyone can Demoralize, but Vaarsuvius would not do a good job at it. Anyone can use a splash weapon, even though Vaarsuvius wouldn't be good at using them with his piddly wizard BAB and lousy dexterity.

[Kurald Galain]

Not even considering all the combat maneuvers that have "improved X" feats, there are loads of things that everyone can do by the base rules, but certain characters won't. Anyone can Demoralize, but Vaarsuvius would not do a good job at it. Anyone can use a splash weapon, even though Vaarsuvius wouldn't be good at using them with his piddly wizard BAB and lousy dexterity.

Yes. And by the rules, everybody can throw a punch. But people without IUS would not do a good job at it. I don't see the problem.

why exactly should punches be singled out, exactly? Is it really so much simpler to use a puny dagger properly against the guy armed with a greatsword than it is a punch?

Yes. Oh so very much.

It's not about being realistic. It's about making this game fun.

If the market has shown us anything the past six years, it's that most players prefer realism to balance. Yes, many people actually find verisimilitude fun, and care not one whit about balance in a cooperative storytelling game - forum overanalysis notwithstanding.

[Segev]

If the market has shown us anything the past six years, it's that most players prefer realism to balance. Yes, many people actually find verisimilitude fun, and care not one whit about balance in a cooperative storytelling game - forum overanalysis notwithstanding.

I would argue that people do care about balance, just not to the exclusion of (nor even at the expense of) their sense of immersion.

Also, I would further argue that it wasn't so much verisimilitude (or lack thereof) that turned people off to 4e, but rather that it just didn't capture the "D&D feel" of prior editions. (Personally, I just couldn't get into it when everything played like a Martial Adept. I like Martial Adepts, but if I want to play a cleric I don't want to really be playing a Crusader.)

[Extra Anchovies]

If the market has shown us anything the past six years, it's that most players prefer realism to balance. Yes, many people actually find verisimilitude fun, and care not one whit about balance in a cooperative storytelling game - forum overanalysis notwithstanding.

Realism vs. balance has nothing to do with this discussion. This isn't an attempt to balance d20. You can't balance d20. It's an attempt to make d20 more interesting and enjoyable by allowing players to make interesting and meaningful - and thus also fun - choices about their feats.

And where are you getting this information from? You seem very sure of its veracity. Can you cite reliable statistics showing that most (i.e. more than half of) players do actually prefer realism to balance? Or are you just pulling that statement out of thin air or some other disreputable place?

ETA: Segev's post has clued me in to the fact that you were referring to 4e. Next time actually make that clear instead of dancing around the issue and pretending that you're still saying something that's relevant to a discussion of Dungeons and Dragons, third edition.

[Hal0Badger]

IUS is not about "throwing a decent punch". It is about knowing a martial art, rather it be boxing, kung-fu or something else, to be able to use against armed opponents. Everyone with a high str score, like +5 or +6, throws a god damn good punch already, can easily knock a npc (commoner, farmer, merchant maybe even a town guard) in 2-3 hits. Training in holding a weapon should differ from this.

This being sad, I do not disagree that feat system deserves more love, especially on the feats like Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization (like, Weapon Spe. allows you to apply your str modifier one more to your damage, thus making it x2 for one handed, x2.5 for two handed). Blunt +1 gets old even before you level up to 2nd level. Feats like Weapon Finesse, as members mentioned above, should be weapon specific or character specific (like choosing you would rather apply your str bonus or dex bonus at the creation). Power attack should be made available to all without a feat, maybe up to a degree, and further feats should improve on that. We need more tactical feats like Shock Trooper (where 75% of the players forget the first 2 ability, but has very nice uses nevertheless) or Elusive Target, which gives a lot more option than a Dodge.

Maybe most importantly, Feats should not be balanced via preq. feats (Whirlwind Attack, 2TW feat chain, Style feats). Road to feats should actually be fun and rewarding. A spellcaster only needs to level up rather than investing in unnecessary and not-funny feats, unlike a mundane melee.

[Jay R]

The title says it all. There are plenty of abilities titled feats that pretty much anybody taking up a life of adventuring should already be capable of, or who are just unbalanced and unfun to have to take. Namely:
Improved Unarmed Strike (Anybody who grew up in a world like D&D should be capable of throwing a decent punch)

They can. But it does nonlethal damage and provokes an Attack of Opportunity. By contrast, somebody trained in boxing or karate can do lethal damage with their fists, and can close safely, avoiding being attacked.

Improved Shield Bash (anyone who has ever held a shield should know how to shove it in people's faces without dropping guard)

Nobody can shove it in people's faces without moving it away from their legs and head. This Feat is the training to pick the moment perfectly so that you're not open when he can throw the shot. I promise you I've faced people in the SCA whose shield rushes left them completely open.

Precise Shot (Anyone who is using a bow in combat should be aware of how to get around melee)

Trying to attack one of two moving, jostling people without risking hitting the other is not easy. If anything, I would make this a skill only available at higher levels.

Two-Weapon Fighting (A bit of a stretch, but if you are proficient with a shield you should know how to fight properly with it)

No. Many people can use shields well, but aren't good at blocking with a sword or attacking with their left (or off) hand.

Weapon Finesse (Basically just a feat tax for agile characters)

I could maybe agree with you here, but if I did, I'd also make it impossible to use a STR bonus with a rapier at all. Then I'd have to go down and decide which weapons could use one or the other, and whether the STR bonus for a mace is worth more than for a sword, etc. I'm not opening that can of worms.

Besides, this "feat tax" is balanced by the equivalent one of Power Attack for strong characters. Drop Weapon Finesse and Power Attack, and give all melee fighters one less feat, and you would change nothing.

Chokehold (Ultimate Combat) (What do you mean I couldn't already do this to people?)

No, you can't do it really well. Most people can't.

[Extra Anchovies]

IUS is not about "throwing a decent punch". It is about knowing a martial art, rather it be boxing, kung-fu or something else, to be able to use against armed opponents. Everyone with a high str score, like +5 or +6, throws a god damn good punch already, can easily knock a npc (commoner, farmer, merchant maybe even a town guard) in 2-3 hits. Training in holding a weapon should differ from this.

Again. It's not about realism. It's about making an enjoyable game. Improved Unarmed Strike is a worse feat than even Exotic Weapon Proficiency is (see below). When a feat is that bad, nobody's taking it because they want to, they're taking it because they have to (e.g. as a prerequisite for something else).

Spoiler: Why IUS is worse than EWP

Show

EWP can give you the Elven Lightblade, a 1d6 18-20/x2 weapon. Improved Unarmed Strike gives you a 1d4, 20/x2 weapon that can't be enchanted. So Elven Lightblade, which is one of the worst possible choices for EWP, is far and away better than an unarmed strike, and yet both cost one feat to use.

[Bucky]

Again. It's not about realism. It's about making an enjoyable game. Improved Unarmed Strike is a worse feat than even Exotic Weapon Proficiency is (see below). When a feat is that bad, nobody's taking it because they want to, they're taking it because they have to (e.g. as a prerequisite for something else).

Unarmed Strike has the benefit of being impossible to disarm, sunder, confiscate or otherwise remove from one's possession, and it can be 'drawn' as a free action. This is a niche no exotic weapon fills.

Not taking a penalty for nonlethal strikes is just a bonus.

[Molosse]

The only two I can think of would be Combat Expertise and Power Attack.

Combat Expertise is simply an individual concentrating upon defense at the expense of accuracy.
Power Attack is simply an individual attacking more wildly without attempting to aim.

In addition both of them have attached feat chains important to Martials that could serve to be shortened somewhat.

[Brookshw]

And where are you getting this information from? You seem very sure of its veracity. Can you cite reliable statistics showing that most (i.e. more than half of) players do actually prefer realism to balance? Or are you just pulling that statement out of thin air or some other disreputable place?

You do realize, I hope, that this is not a reasonable request, right? Unless you have reliable unbiased statistical evidence that supports "Who the hell is excited about taking Point Blank Shot, or even Precise Shot? Nobody, that's who.". Pretty sure I've seen a few players be glad for the small things plenty of times. There's a wide margin of games to be enjoyed, low op, low magic, high op, high magic, e6, various styles of house rules, and on and on and on, I'm pretty sure realism can be counted on among those margins. It's actually been incorporated in many game design basics as something to address, for example Funamentals of Game Design by Dr. Ernest Adams spends quite a bit of time analyzing how to consider incorporating Realism into a game from the initial design phases in order to have an end product that meets expectations. Figuring out what elements of realism to maintain and which to eliminate for the sake of mechanical complications is pretty important. Do you enjoy 1st person shooters? Notice that many of them actually try to mimic the firing speeds etc of the rl weapons they duplicate? That's not an accident, that's the result of a lot of thought that went into how they want the game to play and how the audience will react to it.

Edit: Back to the OP, I could do with Power attack being baked in easily. Probably shock trooper as well now that I think about it. Also as people have said, weapon finesse makes great sense as being a weapon property.

[Deadline]

Fighting Defensively is already an option.

True, completely forgot about that. Dodge seems to be about focusing your defense toward a specific target though, which seems odd to have as a feat.

Oh, and I agree on Sunder and Disarm Bucky.

Also, put me in the Weapon Finesse shouldn't be a feat camp.

[Hal0Badger]

Again. It's not about realism. It's about making an enjoyable game. Improved Unarmed Strike is a worse feat than even Exotic Weapon Proficiency is (see below). When a feat is that bad, nobody's taking it because they want to, they're taking it because they have to (e.g. as a prerequisite for something else).

Spoiler: Why IUS is worse than EWP

Show

EWP can give you the Elven Lightblade, a 1d6 18-20/x2 weapon. Improved Unarmed Strike gives you a 1d4, 20/x2 weapon that can't be enchanted. So Elven Lightblade, which is one of the worst possible choices for EWP, is far and away better than an unarmed strike, and yet both cost one feat to use.

Making it free for everybody does not fix it though.
IMO, unarmed strikes without IUS, works good both in mechanical and realism sense, you can land a blow, yet cannot protect yourself good, so open to attacks. If your ac is high (due to your reflexes or armor), your chances of being hit is low, but it is there. In my eyes, it certainly defines the line between a character who can throw a good punch in a fight and another one who is trained in some-sort of unarmed combat techniques.

What can be done is, buffing IUS a little, maybe making its damage dice higher (d6?), or combining it with Superior Unarmed strike, allowing a better damage dice based on your level. I like the IUS even now, it allows my melee characters to enter bar-fights more easily, because of the extra AoO you get.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that most of the feast are burden, and it is a huge burden on mundane classes, but giving this feats free solves almost nothing.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Unarmed Strike has the benefit of being impossible to disarm, sunder, confiscate or otherwise remove from one's possession, and it can be 'drawn' as a free action. This is a niche no exotic weapon fills.

Fighting unarmed isn't something you should ever be choosing to do over other options, its a back up weapon.

The issue is that the concept of unarmed strike specialists makes no sense and assumes that most trained warriors for some reason neglect grappling, which isn't realistic at all.

Improved Shield Bash, Bull Rush, etc: These are specialist feats, being a specialist should never be 'free'. The problem is that these specialisations aren't actually interesting.

Ignore rule feats like Precise shot, eschew materials, most of the above, etc. Making these free is basically identical to gutting the combat system of annoying rules, since all these feats do is let you ignore fiddle things. If these feats are really that much of a no brainer you either hate the third edition rules or should just ban them and force people to actually play the game rather than give them away for free.

Two Weapon Fighting: Is a character trait, so it shouldn't be default on everyone. Shouldn't be ridiculously long tree though.

Two Weapon Defence: In D&D, the normal use of two weapons is a specialisation of top of a specialisations.

Combat Expertise: In D&D, no one gets better at defending themselves normally. If you want to give this away for free, scrap it and play a variant that gives characters proper defences instead.

Power Attack: This feat makes no sense. Sure it sounds logical, but if you think about it its gamist to the extreme. Surely using your skill to do a low accuracy but high damage attack is a called shot rather than a power attack? Like Combat Expertise its part of third edition not having any default translation of skill to anything other than hit chances.

[TheIronGolem]

Fighting unarmed isn't something you should ever be choosing to do over other options, its a back up weapon.

The issue is that the concept of unarmed strike specialists makes no sense and assumes that most trained warriors for some reason neglect grappling, which isn't realistic at all.

Unarmed strike specialists make perfect sense. It's a high-fantasy game; I should be able to punch enemy swordsmen to death if I want to. The fact that this almost never works in real life is of no consequence.

That said, I'm against the idea of making IUS free. It should require a feat to be effective, but the flip side is that the feat should make it effective.

Power Attack: This feat makes no sense. Sure it sounds logical, but if you think about it its gamist to the extreme. Surely using your skill to do a low accuracy but high damage attack is a called shot rather than a power attack? Like Combat Expertise its part of third edition not having any default translation of skill to anything other than hit chances.

I don't like Power Attack/Combat Expertise being feats, but they should be options. That they are "gamist" is not a reason not to have them. And yes, "called shot" is one of several perfectly good ways to represent a Power Attack.

[marphod]

I'll throw my hat in:

There are plenty (PLENTY) of bad feats in existence. They run from overpowered or poorly thought through (DMM) to idiotically weak (Dodge) to overly specific (combat casting) to things characters should be able to do already (Two Weapon Fighting).

I take it as an axiom in game design that you should never make a character pay a tax to get the abilities inherent to their design. Never make a character take a near-useless feat (Spell Focus(Conjuration), Dodge) in order to take a better one. Don't make a character have a skillset required by a PrC that never gets modified by the PrC. Etc.

Weapon Finesse is an obvious feat-tax and should be a property of the weapon in question, rather than a feat. In most cases, I believe Piercing Melee Weapons should be dex-based for attack rolls and Slashing/Bludgeoning Melee Weapons should be str-based for attack rolls. I'd also be tempted to make Light Melee Weapons do Dex-based damage by default and (All 2 Handed Melee Weapons) and (One Handed Slashing and/or Bludgeoning Weapons) do Str-Based damage by default. One handed Piercing would be character's choice. (Parens for delineating the groupings)

Similarly the TWF tree should be a basic combat option. I'd probably make it something like To use TWF, take a -1 to all to-hit rolls. For each additional iterative, off-hand attack you wish to make, take -1 penalty to the character's effective BAB for the round' So, TWF at first for everyone, ITWF at +7 BAB, GTWF at +13 BAB, and a fourth iterative attack at +19 BAB.

Two Weapon Defense should be a property of your offhand weapon (Parrying dagger, Sai, weapons with basket hilts, large guards, or sword catchers, etc: yes. Others: No) and improve with the number of iterative attacks you make. (+1 for the weapon, +1 for every iterative attack you make).

The Weapon Focus should be a property of your BAB and enhanced by levels in martial classes. (Everyone gets it for one weapon at +2 BAB; every time their BAB increases they can change the weapon; Fighters periodically get bonus focuses and Weapon Spec at level 4, with GWF and GWS scheduled for later in their career and apply to all their Weapon Focuses; other martials may get additional Weapon Focuses and possibkly GWF/S, but at a slower schedule.)

Shield Bash should be a property of the Shield Proficiency; at worse, Shield Bash with bucklers should be part of Light Shield Proficiency, with Light Shields as part of Heavy, and Heavy with Tower, but that seems artificially restricting access It isn't like Shield Bash is particularly unbalancing as it is; and if you find that to be true, make Bashing weaker and add feats to make it more effective.

Natural Spell should just be part of Wildshape; how many wildshape-based Druids do you know who don't take it, (other than the occasional example to prove it is possible)? Heighten Spell should just be part of spellcasting (Memorized Burning Hands as a 3rd level slot? Congrats, +2 to its DC.) ETc.

I'm also a fan of killing almost all material components. Let casters use them as flavor if they like, or possibly a flaw, but if the only way you can find to balance a spell is an inexpensive material component, there's a problem with your magic system. If the only way to balance is an expensive material component is required, there's something unbalanced with the spell. Eschew Material Components is just a tax. Foci and XP costs make a little more sense; a fighter wants a weapon, a rogue wants a set of thieves tools, and a spell slinger wants their foci. Some things they can do without, but some things just require the right tool. And XP costs are a way to allow powerful magics in your campaign, and allow there to be a real, significant, long-term cost. (XP as a river breaks this, though).

If you're going to require something like Dodge as a gateway feat (uggggh), it has got to be worthwhile. Let it make one AoO provoking action not provoke from the Dodge Target, once per round. Make it an AC bonus against all known opponents. Take a look at Defensive Move from Arcana Evolved/Arcana Unearthed.


Should IUS be a bonus feat? Probably not. I agree in with the camp that says IUS is more than how to hit someone, but also how to survive in a (metaphorical) gunfight when you've only brought a knife. On the other hand, I think that if someone is taking the -4 to hit to make their Unarmed Strikes do Lethal damage, they shouldn't be counted as unarmed when making an attack.

As for making Improved Trip free with a trip weapon, or Improved Disarm with a disarming weapon, I think it isn't appropriate for the ability to only be part of the proficiency -- that isn't simply knowing how to be effective with the weapon in question, it is an advanced technique. Therefore, it should be part of the Weapon Focus ability for appropriate weapons.

(I also think that the Flurry rules should be merged with things like Snap Kick, Tail Spikes, and anything else that gives an extra attack with a -2 penalty to attacks for the round. And the Two Weapon Fighting and Multifighting rules need to be merged into a single coherent whole. That monk should be eliminated, not only due to cultural confusion and what is presumably unintentional racism, but because it really should just be a fighter or rogue build with particular focus, and the only way to practically balance the tier system is to radically change the spell level for most spells -- many first and second level spells need to be dropped a level, and most 3rd or higher level spells need to have at least one spell level added. Fireball as a 4th or 5th level spell makes it similar, but still better, than what a minimally optimized fighter can do at the same level; on the other hand, I'm not sure how making Magic Missile usable a few times every encounter is particularly broken, compared to other low-level characters. But this is a sidebar that's gone way off topic)

[Abithrios]

Regarding the reason Vaarsuvius never punches anyone:

3.5:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency

Wizards are proficient with the club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff, but not with any type of armor or shield. Armor of any type interferes with a wizard’s movements, which can cause her spells with somatic components to fail.

Pathfinder:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Wizards are proficient with the club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff, but not with any type of armor or shield. Armor interferes with a wizard's movements, which can cause his spells with somatic components to fail.

Wizards are not proficient with unarmed strikes.

[Keltest]

Regarding the reason Vaarsuvius never punches anyone:

3.5:


Pathfinder:


Wizards are not proficient with unarmed strikes.

That's rather circular logic there. Trying to argue that many adventurers do not know how to throw a punch because theyre not proficient with it, and therefore they should not gain proficiency feats...

I question that argument.

[ThermalSlapShot]

That's rather circular logic there. Trying to argue that many adventurers do not know how to throw a punch because theyre not proficient with it, and therefore they should not gain proficiency feats...

I question that argument.

I'm sure hit die also is a factor in why wizards don't punch things.

[Keltest]

I'm sure hit die also is a factor in why wizards don't punch things.

That may have something to do with it, aye.

On the other hand, it may be because if they get calluses on their delicate wizardly hands, they wont be able to form their fancy hand gestures correctly. After all, a leather vest can somehow stop them.

[Necroticplague]

Yes. And by the rules, everybody can throw a punch. But people without IUS would not do a good job at it. I don't see the problem.

Even with IUS, you aren't suddenly really good at punching. Even if you have IUS, your punch does less damage than using a dagger. You still need some source of unarmed progressiong if you want to do more damage than any random dude with a dagger. Giving IUS for free just frees up an annoying feat tax.

Also, anybody else find it kinda weird so many grappling feats require high DEX, to support a fighting style that leaves you flat-footed?

[marphod]

That may have something to do with it, aye.

On the other hand, it may be because if they get calluses on their delicate wizardly hands, they wont be able to form their fancy hand gestures correctly. After all, a leather vest can somehow stop them.

(Regardless of their strength, dexterity, training ... )

This thread isn't going to convince anyone one way or another.

I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who tried to express a sincere belief that the lack of proficiency (if it exists) is RAI. No matter how pedantic they may be, there is simply no evidence that this was the explicit intent by anyone on the design team. It is a disputatious and facetious argument.

To wit, the evidence of the design intention is multitudinous, from the historical precedence of the Monk class in 1st edition, the versions in pathfinder and Trailblazer, the versions from 4th and 5th edition, flavor text in the various books discussing monks, the description of monks in the various novels and computer games, statements by various members of the development team, and almost every monk sample character.

For instance, from the flavor text before the class statistics in the PHB:

[Monks] train themselves to be versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons or armors. ...
Characteristics: The key feature of the monk is her ability to fight unarmed and unarmored. Thanks to her rigorous training, she can strike as hard as if she were armed and strike faster than a warrior with a sword.

and in the class features description:

Unarmed Strike:Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed.

For reference, the definition of proficiency from the various weapon feats is "understand how to use the weapon in combat". (q.v. Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Martial Weapon Proficiency, Simple Weapon Proficiency).


But this argument is more-or-less pointless. Given that the various developers who worked on 3.5 are not able to speak officially for WotC, and WotC isn't making any more official statements about the no-longer-supported 3.5, there is no way to get an official statement on this. There is no way to definitively prove the developers' intent, only a overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

[SinsI]

I think that a lot of those feats should not be free, but the cost should be not as high as a Feat. I.e. they should cost something like a skill point (thus becoming Skill Tricks) or even be straight Skill checks.

Maybe give those feats for free only if you have the necessary stat/skill/bab/proficiency prerequisites?

[ThermalSlapShot]

I think that a lot of those feats should not be free, but the cost should be not as high as a Feat. I.e. they should cost something like a skill point (thus becoming Skill Tricks) or even be straight Skill checks.

You are talking about a completely different type of system.

It could work in 3e, and does with skill tricks, but if you go this far you might as well make a d20 system that works directly off skill points for like everything.

*shrug*

edited

Not that a skill system would be a bad thing, I actually like the idea of a completely skill based d20 system.

Melee Weapon Attack
Melee Weapon Maneuver (Trip)

Etc...