How about we NOT make it a feat, you clown?

[Lago_AM3P]

Typical D&D conversation:

D&Der: You know what would be cool that the rules don't support? (Some reasonably cool manuever)

D&D n00b: AAaaAAaaAAaaAAaaAAaa! Let's make that into a feat! HURRRRRR.

IDIOTS.

Characters only have 7 feat slots to use EVER. I think we've (even the crappy single-classed fighter) long passed the point where we have room for these feats that they're cramming down our throats. When D&D first came out, I was in a Hungry Hungry Hippo race for feats from 3rd party sources but now I don't even freakin' bother.

Standard idiot response to the above comment:
'Well, humans get an extra feat! And wizards! And that's what fighter levels are for HURRRRRRRR!'

Well, you morons, those things don't FIT into most character builds, whether they're built for min-max or roleplaying reasons. I can't believe this is used as an argument for dismissal. And this doesn't address the fact that it's probably blatantly unfair that the feat is the only redeeming feature you're getting for that choice; after all you had to slug through one or more empty levels and I don't WANT to take two levels of fighter just because I thought it'd be cool to dive across the inn counter with two crossbows in hand like Jet Li.

Another standard idiot response to the above comment:
"HURRRRRRRR well that will just make you value feats more! I have a crush on EVERY boy!"

No, it doesn't. When they introduce slightly cool feats (and there are a cubic assload of them, honestly, even in loser books like Races of Destiny and Complete Warrior), it usually doesn't even make my feat selection BUDGE. I don't think anyone has ever had the feat selection of rapid shot displaced by ranged sunder, even though the second is really cool. The only time it does budge is when a really overpowered feat like Initiate of Mystra or Divine Metamagic comes out. Is this what you want the game to be like, douches?

ARGH AM HATING ROLEPLAYERS HERE FOLX

[Oberoni]

My (least) favorite example of this is the Investigate feat from the Eberron setting.

You have to take a stinking feat to pick up clues from an area with the Search skill.

A feat.

That doesn't even make sense.

[User3]

Feats sit in that magic place where the PrC sits and spells don't sit. For feats and PrCs to work well, you need to carefully build your character like a house of cards. Spells rarely synergize well, but feats and class abilities are designed to only be useful in synergy(which is why they have prereqs, a poor effort to guide you to some kind of synergy(we hope)).

The problem is that a random selection of feats or PrCs will get you a suck character, while a random selection of spells will get you an OK character.

Frankly, I don't understand why feats and class abilities aren't, at the level you take them, as good as spells of a "spell level = (character level/2)-1" like a wizard or druid or cleric.

I mean, even if you gave everyone at-will stuff as a Warlock, and spontaneous as a Sorcerer, and "prepped of any found spell" as a Wizard or "prepped off a set list" as a cleric, can you honestly say that a 12th level character shouldn't be bustin out at least one effect per day thats as good as a 6th level spell?

[Neeek]

1108973100[/unixtime]]
I mean, even if you gave everyone at-will stuff as a Warlock, and spontaneous as a Sorcerer, and "prepped of any found spell" as a Wizard or "prepped off a set list" as a cleric, can you honestly say that a 12th level character shouldn't be bustin out at least one effect per day thats as good as a 6th level spell?

Was this a rhetorical question, or did you want someone to just use the standard answer?

SA: There is no reason. Duh. That's why fighters blow like a jet engine turbine. Luckily for me, saying that here won't start a 33 page flame war.

[Oberoni]

FIGHTERZ RUL U SUCK!!!!!11

UR JUST A MUNCHKEN THAT LIKES ROLLPLAYING OVR ROLEPLAYING IF U CANT PLAY A FIGHTER

[Neeek]

1109005039[/unixtime]]FIGHTERZ RUL U SUCK!!!!!11

C'mon Obe, you can do better than that. Where's the "teh"? No "!!!11!eleven!!1"? And you didn't even insult me in a non-game context, other than by hurting my eyes by abusing caps and the English language.

I'm disappointed.

[Alansmithee]

1109006854[/unixtime]]

1109005039[/unixtime]]FIGHTERZ RUL U SUCK!!!!!11

C'mon Obe, you can do better than that. Where's the "teh"? No "!!!11!eleven!!1"? And you didn't even insult me in a non-game context, other than by hurting my eyes by abusing caps and the English language.

I'm disappointed.

y0|_| |\|00|3 f|74|2 |5 73|-| |20><><0|25 LOLOLOL!!!!1!1!1!!shift+1!!1!!111!!

[Oberoni]

1109006854[/unixtime]]
C'mon Obe, you can do better than that. Where's the "teh"? No "!!!11!eleven!!1"? And you didn't even insult me in a non-game context, other than by hurting my eyes by abusing caps and the English language.

I'm disappointed.

Jo' mamma wasn't last night!

Feel the burn!

[Sma]

Yeah, I basically agree that it´s dumb to let feats stand in for whyt basically is a dex/con/int/skill, roll. If somneone want´s to have one fun move be his main shtick, then I´m ok with creating a feat that let´s him excel at it. It should provide a substantial bonus to that action and not simply allow it to be taken, though

[PhoneLobster]

I like the basic vague underlying idea of the feat in the form of the whole customizable class feature thingy.

But as long as they are as diverse and moderately useless as they currently are we should probably give them out like free candy.

Player: "Can I have some candy?"
DM: "Sure, here have a new feat for your character, heck, take three."

With the current selection of feats (with only a few exceptions) it seems to me you could give pretty much any number of feats to pretty much any character with pretty much any excuse and it would not hurt much.

Seriously if a player wants his fighter (heck, even wizard) to take the Track feat and expresses doubt about whether he wants to expend a precious feat slot on it I for one am pretty much cool with just letting him have it for free, hell, he can have that dumb investigate feat from eberron at the same time for all I care, HELL I'll give him skill focus search as well, like it even matters...

[RandomCasualty]

Non-combat feats are just dumb... SKills should be all non-combat and feats should all have combat value.

[User3]

Dungeon magazine often has stuff where an event happens and a character gets a permanent +1 to a stat, or they find a book and anyone who reads it for a week gets a +2 on some skill check.

Frankly, thats the same kind of crap that hook-up feats or flat bonus feats will get you, except that you are getting them free in game.

I mean, story bonuses or effects don't even need to be class features. Why have Leadership when you can just keep four Charm effects on a person(doable at 1st level) or pull out some gold and hire some mercenaries?

I personally think that the game should just make skills the NPC part of character and have them do all non-combat stuff so that one guy's Craft ranks are equal to another guy's Hide ranks and keep feats for actual abilities.

I mean, why can't maneuvers have mechanics for nonproficient users, and then be Save VS. checks if you take a feat in it. Disarm could work like it does now, and work like Grease(enemy object) if you take a feat in it.

[SuicideChump]

Hum...have you ever read the Book of Iron Might by Malhavoc Press? I haven't ( ), but from what they told me it is entirely focused on combat maneuvers envolving abilities/skills rather than feats.

Is that true?

[The_Hanged_Man]

1108965392[/unixtime]]My (least) favorite example of this is the Investigate feat from the Eberron setting.

Worst Feat Eber! (couldn't resist)

[bitnine]

I have to say that Complete Scoundrel warms my heart a little if only for the excerpt that details skill tricks. You mean... packaged mechanics that DON'T USE UP A FEAT SLOT? I didn't think I'd live to see the day - in this edition, at least.

[Leress]

1168149350[/unixtime]]I have to say that Complete Scoundrel warms my heart a little if only for the excerpt that details skill tricks. You mean... packaged mechanics that DON'T USE UP A FEAT SLOT? I didn't think I'd live to see the day - in this edition, at least.

Except that they take 2 skill points to learn 1 skill trick.

1109113159[/unixtime]]Hum...have you ever read the Book of Iron Might by Malhavoc Press? I haven't ( ), but from what they told me it is entirely focused on combat maneuvers envolving abilities/skills rather than feats.

Is that true?

I have it and I like it, you can build maneuvers from a set of options and it gives you a penality to your attack roll to pull off the maneuver. (It gives a warning to about using the True Strike spells useage)

It also has tricks you can do with skill if you have certain feats or enough skill ranks.

[Catharz]

We've seen a zillion spy movies where an assassin nails someone through a window with his rifle. Why not let that happen in D&D?

An easy solution to this might be to make it a feat. Maybe something such as "penetrating shot" or "penetrating spell" that lets you cast spells through solid barriers.

D&D, I cry for you.

[Leress]

No, the easy solution is to use common sense

[Hey_I_Can_Chan]

That's the letter of the law. If you want to argue that the rule here is a little out of whack, I might be inclined to agree. We've seen a zillion spy movies where an assassin nails someone through a window with his rifle. Why not let that happen in D&D?

An easy solution to this might be to make it a feat. Maybe something such as "penetrating shot" or "penetrating spell" that lets you cast spells through solid barriers. As long as you have line of sight to the target (which pretty much limits this to paper, glass, and maybe ice, though I could see an application for shooting through a narrow metal grate, thin wooden slats, or even for a cheaterous monster with tremorsense, through a solid stone wall), you can make an attack that blows through the barrier. You apply hardness and the barrier's hit points (and maybe a little extra penalty just because), and the remainder of the damage carries through onto the target. That's basically the way that your DM ruled it. I would close the tremorsense loophole, or else things are going to get very weird and dangerous at high levels. (You need to break through a lot of hit points to burn a spell through solid stone, so maybe even tremorsense isn't that bad.) Other than that, I think I could see it.

No. The "easy solution" is to let anything with an attack roll target through clear barriers, attempt the attack roll, and subtract the hardness and hp of the barrier from the damage done before applying it to the target if the attack hits.

If we've seen a zillion spy movies like this, why suggest a freakin' feat instead of just making it something anyone can do?

Damn!

[shau]

Player: I want to use the dangling rope to swing across the pit.

DM: I can't find any rules for that. Let me ask the sage.

Sage: Make it a feat.

[MrWaeseL]

Everyone knows spies are all secretly fighters.

[Josh_Kablack]

The point is that, by the letter of the rules, the attack does not and cannot hit anyone on the inside of the window.

Well they just confirmed that chonj was totally right about the archer in the 4'11" by 4'11" box.

DM: I can't find any rules for that. Let me ask the sage.

Sage: Make it a feat.

That is absolutely craptacular, for whatever action is in question because feats are picked at chargen time, and situations without rules come up during gameplay-time. It's honestly a better answer to just say "it's a ___ check/save/skill/attack at plus/minus X" If it keeps coming up in game often enough to warrant a feat, the feat can be an increased bonus/reduced penalty to X or remove the need for the roll totally.

[power_word_wedgie]

1168704268[/unixtime]]
No. The "easy solution" is to let anything with an attack roll target through clear barriers, attempt the attack roll, and subtract the hardness and hp of the barrier from the damage done before applying it to the target if the attack hits.

I agree with the statement that an easy solution is to make not possible to do unless you offer it as a feat. (Another easy solution would to make windows man nothing) That takes much less effort to keep track of than another set of mechanics for resolution - either you can do it or you can't and normal rules apply.

Now, whether making it require a feat being the best or balanced solution, that's definitely up for debate. However, that's not what the quoted statement made. YMMV.

edit:

That is absolutely craptacular, for whatever action is in question because feats are picked at chargen time, and situations without rules come up during gameplay-time. It's honestly a better answer to just say "it's a ___ check/save/skill/attack at plus/minus X" If it keeps coming up in game often enough to warrant a feat, the feat can be an increased bonus/reduced penalty to X or remove the need for the roll totally.

Yeah, I really see this, but without making up new rules you could just make the window have no effect what-so-ever. Heck, as mentioned in the article, in medevil times there were few windows in the first place. Thus, let it slide if it isn't being abused.

Furthermore, this argument, when taken to extremes, basically also argues that maybe feats are needed in the game at all. Most of the time, feats are bonuses to rolls in certain conditions. Yeah, my improved turning feats are awesome, but really mean nothing if I don't run across any undead. To some degree, I have a hard time arguing with removing feats: of the new material that 3rd edition added, really the main item that it provided that made a night-and-day difference is skills. Frankly feats and prestige classes can be thrown to the curve.

[RandomCasualty]

1168722756[/unixtime]]
To some degree, I have a hard time arguing with removing feats: of the new material that 3rd edition added, really the main item that it provided that made a night-and-day difference is skills. Frankly feats and prestige classes can be thrown to the curve.

Oddly I've found the skill system most in need of an overhaul, or possibly scrapping it entirely. It doesn't work at all.

Feats have always been pretty nice ways to customize characters, though admittedly the "make it a feat" crap needs to go away. Feats are supposed to individualize character abilities, not replace any heroic actions or DM adjudication. Part of the problem with extremely codified rules is that it calls for stupid crap like this where the DM is taken totally out of the loop and all creativity is limited by "if it's not in the rules, you can't do it".

[User3]

However flimsy a glass window is (and it's pretty flimsy, with hardness of 1 and 1 hit point per inch), it is nevertheless a solid barrier. Ipso facto, no spell-go-through-o.

Wizard: beware my deadly spells!
Sage: Look, I put on a bedsheet. Woo, I'm a spoooky ghost. No line of effect for you!

Okay, so technically he's wearing the sheet, which means it doesn't actually count. But similar results are achievable by building a pillow fort.

Another interesting effect of a literal reading of that rule is that objects in an ordinary sack (but not one you're carrying) are protected from burst spells, because the sack blocks line of effect from the burst. This may or may not protect magic items against MDJ, depending on how you interpret "Area: All magical effects and magic items within a 40-ft.-radius burst" along with "All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined." The argument against the sack working is that most area spells use "within the area" rather than "within the radius", which apparently implies that MDJ can affect items outside its own area of effect.

Oh, and I love how at the end he explains that an open door on the other side of the building can determine whether you have LoE to the guy, even if neither of you have LoS to said open door. That means casting Invisibility on someone's Tower Shield lets you hit them with spells, because you have Line of Sight to them now, and the spell can just go around the back of the shield.