D&D Skills & Feats [Rebalancing 3.5]

[Sinfire Titan]

So, in your new Combat Expertise example, you'd get your Int mod to AC if you fight defensively or use a shield?  I can see low level wizards taking this and getting a buckler...

I guess it does help the swashbuckler types.

We may need to apply a caveat to it, but I don't see much of a problem with letting a caster use this with a buckler. It means that they used a feat slot to boost their AC instead of a spell slot.

[Ralp]

Precise Shot
In addition to its normal benifits, add in the benifits of Point Blank Shot.  Remove PBS as a prereq (so the only prereq is Dex 13+)


Point Blank Shot
Remove this feat.  All feats that have it as a prereq now have Precise Shot as a prereq.


Far Shot
In addition to the normal benifits, this adds +30 feet to the range at which you can apply precision damage such as Sneak Attack, Skirmish, and Sudden Strike.

I adore both these changes, are they still being considered?  I checked the first page of the thread and didn't see them included there yet.

My only comment is that normally neither Precise Shot nor PBS has a Dex requirement.  Dex 13+ is reasonable of course, but the parenthetical seems to suggest it's not a new requirement.

[RobbyPants]

Precise Shot
In addition to its normal benifits, add in the benifits of Point Blank Shot.  Remove PBS as a prereq (so the only prereq is Dex 13+)


Point Blank Shot
Remove this feat.  All feats that have it as a prereq now have Precise Shot as a prereq.


Far Shot
In addition to the normal benifits, this adds +30 feet to the range at which you can apply precision damage such as Sneak Attack, Skirmish, and Sudden Strike.

I adore both these changes, are they still being considered?  I checked the first page of the thread and didn't see them included there yet.

My only comment is that normally neither Precise Shot nor PBS has a Dex requirement.  Dex 13+ is reasonable of course, but the parenthetical seems to suggest it's not a new requirement.

I'm glad you brought those up again.  I was thinking about moving them to the first page.  Everyone seemed to like the idea.  I'll include the Dex 13+ prereq in all three feats.

[lans]

Special: You may take this feat multiple times.  Each time it applies to a different type of shield.  A fighter may take Shield Specialization as a fighter bonus feat.

Feel free to tell me if I could have worded this better!

I kind of hate how feats like this have the special about being able to take it 8 times for 8 things that you can only use 1 of at a time.

Could it be changed to
Special: You may take this feat twice. If you do it applies to all types of shields.  A fighter may take Shield Specialization as a fighter bonus feat.

So if you manage to take it twice then you are a shield specialist and not just into two types of shields.

Hey did we specify that fighters have full intiator level for purposes of martial study and martial stance... and should we?

I think we could apply the full initiator to most of the  classes, but in limited amounts and let the Fighter picks any 1 school.
So Paladin can choose between White Raven and Devoted spirit
Barbarian between Iron Heart and Stone Dragon
Monk between Diamond Mind and Setting Sun
Ranger between Tiger Claw and ??
Rogues between Shadow Hand and ??
Maybe allow bards to pick up Setting sun if they have that energy variant, with a matching elemental shift, if not then white raven.

That gives a decent options to other classes. . For the high level ones they will be spending half of their feats and they are limited to one school, so I don't think it steps onto the toes of the adepts too much.


Should we change boomerang daze and stand still to be 10+1/2 level + Strength? Boomerang daze is far too powerful at this point with it being 10+damage dealt, and stand still might be changed so it still does damage to compensate. We want to avoid untouchable DCs right?

[veekie]

I kind of hate how feats like this have the special about being able to take it 8 times for 8 things that you can only use 1 of at a time.

Could it be changed to
Special: You may take this feat twice. If you do it applies to all types of shields.  A fighter may take Shield Specialization as a fighter bonus feat.

+1, I think this should be the norm for all those feats, actually. If you're sinking two feats into it, you should expand a 'point' benefit to a categorical one, and a categorical benefit to a universal.

[RobbyPants]

All of these Focus/Specialization feats are really sacred cows from earlier editions.  Honestly, it wouldn't break the game to have Weapon Focus/Specialization apply to all weapons either.

[lans]

All of these Focus/Specialization feats are really sacred cows from earlier editions.  Honestly, it wouldn't break the game to have Weapon Focus/Specialization apply to all weapons either.

I don't think that's a good idea, maybe at 3 it will give all weapons. First gives one weapon, second gives all ranged or melee and the third gives all weapons.

[Ashtagon]

All of these Focus/Specialization feats are really sacred cows from earlier editions.  Honestly, it wouldn't break the game to have Weapon Focus/Specialization apply to all weapons either.

I don't think that's a good idea, maybe at 3 it will give all weapons. First gives one weapon, second gives all ranged or melee and the third gives all weapons.

Three feats. That's half the feats you'll ever get strictly from levelling up. That's really quite expensive to be able to use that one feat with versatility.

Plus, a lot of feats in this kind of sequence (such as the shield specialisation one mentioned earlier) don't have that melee/ranged distinction.

[Kuroimaken]

All of these Focus/Specialization feats are really sacred cows from earlier editions.  Honestly, it wouldn't break the game to have Weapon Focus/Specialization apply to all weapons either.

Agreed. I don't see why any class relying on weapons must be made to "marry" them.

Maybe you could do it by cathegories, as in take weapon focus twice on a martial weapon, and it's good for all martial weapons, etc..

Though even then I wouldn't see much of a point. It's pretty rare for a character to actually be able to use more than a couple of weapons.

[lans]

All of these Focus/Specialization feats are really sacred cows from earlier editions.  Honestly, it wouldn't break the game to have Weapon Focus/Specialization apply to all weapons either.

I don't think that's a good idea, maybe at 3 it will give all weapons. First gives one weapon, second gives all ranged or melee and the third gives all weapons.

Three feats. That's half the feats you'll ever get strictly from levelling up. That's really quite expensive to be able to use that one feat with versatility.

Plus, a lot of feats in this kind of sequence (such as the shield specialisation one mentioned earlier) don't have that melee/ranged distinction.

Your probably right. Is it still only +1 to  hit for nonfighter/warblades? I guess twice for everything should be fine.

[Hallack]

Anyone been playtesting these changes in game?

I think I'm going to be using some of it in my new game.

Particularly the following.
 * Feats
 * Turning
 * Cross Class skill cost change
 * Charging & Overrunning
 * Some of the Spell Changes and Damage boost

[Hallack]

Feats
Point Blank Shot
Remove this feat.  All feats that have it as a prerequisite now have Precise Shot as a prerequisite, as well as Dex 13+.


Precise Shot
In addition to its normal benifits, add in the benifits of Point Blank Shot.  Remove PBS as a prereq (so the only prereq is Dex 13+)


Shot on the run
- Drop all the prereqs except Point Blank Shot.  This feat can be taken at level 1.

If using this version of Precise Shot then need to Change the Prereq on Shot on the Run.

Cheers

[RobbyPants]

Anyone been playtesting these changes in game?

I think I'm going to be using some of it in my new game.

Particularly the following.
 * Feats
 * Turning
 * Cross Class skill cost change
 * Charging & Overrunning
 * Some of the Spell Changes and Damage boost

We were going to playtest it as a group, but it sort of fell though.

I've started running my first game in two years (also my first since working on this project), and I'm using a lot of these rules, but not all of them.  In fact, I'm using almost exactly the same subset you're considering.  So far it's working out nicely, although I'm wondering if I've overcompensated the rogue in my game...

If using this version of Precise Shot then need to Change the Prereq on Shot on the Run.

Good catch.  Thanks.

[Hallack]

What are you running into with the rogue?  I don't have one in my group.

[RobbyPants]

What are you running into with the rogue?  I don't have one in my group.

Disclaimer: my two concerns are from houserules not from this project.

It's nothing big yet, because the group is only level 4.  It's just that in this series of houserules I'm using, I also put a lot of emphasis on ToB (for better or for worse).  So I gave the rogue a maneuver progression similar to the warblade (one maneuver behind per level), with a very specific list of manuevers (hand picked from Shadow Hand, Setting Sun, and a bit of Desert Wind).  Also, I'm allowing everyone to take the benefits of Weapon Finnesse for free, and the Weapon Finesse feat now adds +Dex to damage on a finnessable weapon as precision damage.

So, basically this guy is running around doing similar damage to the cleric/crusader without sneak attack.  Although, he seldom remembers his maneuvers and doesn't often refresh them (with a sneak attack not using a maneuver), so I have a hard time figuring out how strong it really is.  Luckily, his AC and HP are noticably lower than the other character, so damage or not, the other guy does primary tanking and uses Martial Spirit to keep them both alive.  It seems to be working fairly well, but I have my worries.

[Hallack]

Yep, that is a lot of extra goodies for the Rogue.  Sounds like if the guys started optimizing it could be bit of a problem but so long as he doesn't should just be good effective fun for him.

[RobbyPants]

And that was my concern.  The problem (well, maybe it's not a problem) is that the guy doesn't really optimize.  He'll go against advice just to try something out.  For example, when they hit level three, he could take the Studied Precision feat I created, allowing him to do full Sneak Attack damage against creatures immune to crits.  I brought it up so he was aware of it.  What did he take instead?  Combat Reflexes!  He doesn's even use a reach weapon, and to date, very few creatures have provoked AoOs from movement in combat.

The only thing I can guess is he saw the two flanking feats in PHB2, but that doesn't make sense either because he's continually in Island of Blades, and he does remember to utilize that each fight.

tl;dr: I think it will all work out, but not because I made balanced rules...

[Sinfire Titan]

Necromancy at work!



An idea I had yesterday: What if UMD didn't require a Skill Check to activate the items? What if your ability to use a Wand was instead based on the Ranks you have in the skill alone, and the actual check was for disabling magical traps?

IE:

2 Ranks=Able to activate a 0 level Scroll.
4 Ranks=Able to activate a 0 level Wand.
5 Ranks=Able to activate a 1st level Scroll.

Etc. Then, when a magical trap like Explosive Runes comes up, the Rogue makes a UMD check instead of a Disable Device check (because spells are not mechanical objects a majority of the time).

[wotmaniac]

Necromancy at work!



An idea I had yesterday: What if UMD didn't require a Skill Check to activate the items? What if your ability to use a Wand was instead based on the Ranks you have in the skill alone, and the actual check was for disabling magical traps?

IE:

2 Ranks=Able to activate a 0 level Scroll.
4 Ranks=Able to activate a 0 level Wand.
5 Ranks=Able to activate a 1st level Scroll.

Etc. Then, when a magical trap like Explosive Runes comes up, the Rogue makes a UMD check instead of a Disable Device check (because spells are not mechanical objects a majority of the time).

this is really interesting -- I'm definitely gonna have to let it ferment for a bit; but my initial impression is that I like it.  what would the whole rank progression look like?

[archangel.arcanis]

I like that as well. But here is the question do you allow any class to disable magical traps at that point?

Can my bard all of a sudden take the place of the rogue for trap duties? How about Warlock? Then there is the bat shit insane fighter who managed to get it as a class skill, him to?