Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.16174617 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

>>dodge
>>mobility
>>spring attack

>>craft magic item

>>wear leather armor

is it a rule of 3.X that feats have no sense of scaling or power balance?

>> No.16174640

>>16174617
It's a rule for 3.X to be terribad.

>> No.16174739

>>16174640


A party of Wizard, Druid, Sorcerer, Cleric is a lot of fun though.

as long as everyone's within a tier of each other.

>> No.16174760

3.x is ass, it isn't supported, and the only way a new player is getting involved in it is through torrents. Fuck 3.x, play Pathfinder.

>> No.16174782

>>161747603.x is ass, it isn't supported, and the only way a new player is getting involved in it is through torrents. Fuck 3.x, play Pathfinder.


hey faggot, answer the OP question in the context of Pathfinder.

It's the same damn thing.

>> No.16174817

>>16174782
Feats do scale in Pathfinder and they are balanced for the most part. Some of them definitely aren't very good, but those are typically for flavor. Take a feat that gives you a bonus on skills, at level 10 that bonus doubles. Power attack and deadly aim give you the option to take minuses to hit, based on your base attack bonus, in order to gain a bonus to hit. Most other feats open access to other, higher level feats.

>> No.16174878

Balance and scaling are for the modern MMO crowd. Who needs it? I prefer to have the additional variety of 3.X feats, even if it attracts more Min-maxers.

>> No.16174911

>>16174878Who needs it?

People who aren't min/max savvy and build a character that sounds cool, but wind up falling into a trap.

It's not a question of the player, it's a question of the designer. You can roleplay in a game with well designed features or one with lop sided pitfalls, but the game designers behind it are the ones who make it.

>> No.16174922

>>16174878Balance and scaling are for the modern MMO crowd. Who needs it? I prefer to have the additional variety of 3.X feats, even if it attracts more Min-maxers.


So you're saying you play the game that attracts MORE min/maxers
Are you saying min/maxers would avoid a balanced 'MMO crowd' game?

>> No.16174953

>>16174817
>Minus to hit
>for a bonus to hit

I know how it actually works, but I still find this amusing.

>> No.16174971

>>16174817Feats do scale in Pathfinder and they are balanced for the most part

Only some of them scale

and others belong to trees that consume more slots. If you start that tree at a high level though you're getting a level 1 ability at level 7+.

There's also some problems like lack of synergy in places you'd expect it.

Cleave+Whirlwind doesn't work.
Vital Strike+Spring Attack doesn't work

>> No.16174991

>>16174953
Sorry, I'm tired.
>>16174971
Read the entire thing. Most of the feats that don't scale either give you access to other feats, or are incredibly powerful in their own right, and don't need to scale to still be potent at level 20.

>> No.16175002

>>16174971
Whirlwind is pretty potent, you make a strike against everyone around in your reach, add that to combat patrol, and you can wreck armies.

>> No.16175038

>>16175002
That doesn't work, though you can still whirlwind with reach weapons.

>> No.16175085

>>16174971
Whirlwind scales with your character and their weapons, as does cleave, spring attack, and vital strike. Many feats simply give you things you couldn't otherwise do, and they still scale with your ability to fight.

>> No.16175089

Here you go OP.

>> No.16175120

>is it a rule of 3.X that feats have no sense of scaling or power balance?

3e was a radical departure from 2e; designers didn't know how feats and... what the hell am I typing. People who designed 3e and 3.5 are retarded, and I mean that in the driest, most clinical way possible. Their system had flaws that are obvious to anyone who takes the feats and skills and makes a statistical analysis of what they do and how they scale. Seriously, you can do that in less than ten minutes if you have a calculator on hand. Some feats do nothing, or get obsoleted by something else. Some are literally tax to get something worthwhile. Some do something, but their effects are so small that you'd need the aforementioned statistical analysis to actually notice them. Some feats are so bad they actually make your character weaker in the long run. Precious few have weird broken synergies, and are considered a tax for playing non-casters (Power Attack, for example). And that's just feats.

The game fucking doesn't work without the DM constantly up to his elbows in the machinery.

>> No.16175190

>>16175120

Man, say what you want. I play strictly Dragonlance in 3.x and lemme tell you, Honorbound as a feat is the greatest mechanic in the world. It makes the big damn heroes into big damn heroes. I cannot tell you HOW many times i've seen people pulled from the brink of death because of that +2 to a check when failing would mean breaking a promise or sworn oath.... good shit man, good shit.

>> No.16175389

>>16175190
Though one should consider if they'd have been in such a situation had their feats been better too...

>> No.16175427

first part is figuring out which feat is the balanced one

and how combat feats are suppose to relate to caster power

and how caster power should be handled

>> No.16175445

>>16175389

Play with friends instead of losers. You'll probably find people worry less about how strong "their guy" is and more on where he fits into the world. I've had players retire characters mid-campaign to live normal NPC lives after accomplishing the IC goals of their character (saving a relative, reopening diplomatic relations with other races, etc.). I might be spoiled I suppose, but I have only ever played with close personal friends and they seem more interested in weaving a compelling narrative than being powerful.

>> No.16175462

>>16175445Play with friends instead of losers

avoiding a pothole is doable, it doesn't fix the pot hole and somebody still falls into it.

>> No.16175496

>>16175462

I suppose. Then again, there's nothing that can't be remedied by houseruling in any system. "wow, this feat sucks but i need it and 3 other shithouse ones to get to the one i want". "That's horsecrap, we'll say you don't need the pre-req feats, but you can't take the ending feat until you hit the level you would have gotten it if you needed the crap ones".

Good players and good DM/ST/GM are what the hobby is about, not really the rules themselves.

>> No.16175510

>>16175445
It's not about being powerful, it's about doing something in the party. When you feel like all you're contributing is another bunch of HP for the monsters to chew through while the rest do the work, something is wrong.

My experience with 3.X is that it's very prone to this (and i'm not comparing it to 4E, i barely played one combat of that, just other RPGs in general). The Rogue who has to face undead (skeletons in particular) for a ver clear example (which i admit has little to do with feats).

>> No.16175531

>>16175002
Whirlwind Attack is relatively good; the problem is the prerequisites.

>Dex 13
>base attack bonus +4
Fine.
>Int 13
Not likely for most melee characters.
>Combat Expertise
>Mobility
>Spring Attack
Meh.
>Dodge
Crap.

So you'd need a total of four mediocre feats to qualify for one feat that's useful. By that point it's better to just deal with the iterative attack penalty and spend those feats somewhere else.

>> No.16175532

I do have solutions, I have my houserules.

I have no problems with people who have fun with the system. This is more just letting off steam.

What I DO have problem with though is game designers being paid to put stuff like this out. It doesn't make a worse game for them to be more thorough in their work. The players do not suffer from good editing.

You can have fun by enduring the system or enjoying it, the latter is preferable but in the end fun can be had.

>> No.16175562

>>16175510
>The Rogue who has to face undead
>not taking a 2 level dip in skullclan hunter if you are facing undead on a regular basis
ISHYGDDT.jpg

also, both 3.5e and 4e are pretty balanced, if you think otherwise then you admit that you are a scrub and shouldn't be playing D&D in the first place

>> No.16175618

>>16175562
It's not enough that you're an idiot, you even go as far as making a counter point to yourself before stating your point at all. I am impress.

Also, concerning bards and rogues in combat. If bards and rogues are in combat, you party is doing something wrong.

>> No.16175655

>>16175531So you'd need a total of four mediocre feats to qualify for one feat that's useful. By that point it's better to just deal with the iterative attack penalty and spend those feats somewhere else.

What if it was a single feat that looked like this?

>>WHIRLWIND WARRIOR
>>You are skilled at dancing through enemy blows with fancy footwork and whirling strikes.
>>you gain the benefits of the following Tactical Maneuvers whose prerequisites you reach.

>>DEX 13 Dodge
>>Benefit: During your action, you designate an opponent and receive a +1 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks from that opponent. You can select a new opponent on any action. A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.

>>DEX 13 Mobility
>>Benefit: You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area.

>>BAB +4, DEX 13 Spring Attack
>>Benefit: When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speed. Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender you attack. You can't use this feat if you are in heavy armor.n

>>BAB +4, DEX 13 Whirlwind Attack
>>Benefit: When you perform the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within 5 feet.

Scales with level and you get the whole deal, not piecemeal.

>> No.16175691

>>16175618
Yes, because they don't have abilities specifically for combat. The assumption that certain party members should just do nothing in certain situations is one of the worst things in there i feel anyway (see traps, social skills, etc).

>> No.16175734

3.5 mechanics suck, are broken, and everyone still loves it more than 4e anyway because mediocre character options still seem to outweigh samey character options.

Pathfinder doesn't do any better than either.

Honestly it's a wonder anyone still plays D&D at all.

>> No.16175739

>>16175691The assumption that certain party members should just do nothing in certain situations is one of the worst things in there i feel anyway (see traps, social skills, etc).

A lot of people play that way

they also loudly complain that combat is a stupid and boring part of the game that distracts from the REAL ROLEPLAYING (rolling diplomacy)

>> No.16175752

>>16175691
They don't have any combat abilities. Rogue is supposed to be able to quickly dispose of lone guards, not to tumble in the enemy mids to benefit from warrior's flanking. Bard has nothing. He's support.

Trying to twink out these two to be mediocre warriors instead of being godlike monsters in their fields of expertise is idiotic. And if you think characters not participating in combat is bad, your beef is with the game and design of those classes within it. And with DMs that run combat-heavy games but don't warn players about it.

>> No.16175773

>>16175734
The problem is that 90% of the options aren't mediocore but crap.

4e had 2 viable routes/character at it's release (which you could mix though your efficiancy would take a hit) and now you can build like 10 different types of fighters.

That said... I still prefer the idea of 3.5, with lego like feat selection and multiclassing and shit like that.

>> No.16175793

>>16175752
The rogue is perfectly fine as long as the combat includes humanoids. The moment it doesn't? You need some silly PrC or feat hidden in god knows which book. Support is still a combat role.

But yes, i quite disagree with D&D design overall.

>> No.16175810

>>16175618
>If bards and rogues are in combat, you party is doing something wrong
fullretard.jpg

true they aren't as combat able as a fighter or barbarian, but to say that they aren't combat capable at all is fucking retarded, but at the same time you need to be careful in combat and feat selection

I have seen Bards and Rogues do stuff in combat that would make even a fairly strong fighter look like an anorexic boxer, its all about feat selection and placement/choices in combat

>> No.16175834

>>16175773
Multiclassing is what made 3e so appealing. You could make a character. In 4e, you're just leveling up a class.

Of course, with the ease of homebrewing in 4e, you'd think that people would make their own unique characters instead of playing prefab classes, but nobody, and I mean NOBODY I ever talked to even thought about it. Hurr im a dragonborn bravura warlord! Yes, but what- A DRAGONBORN BRAVURA WARLORD

WORT IS DIS DIS AINT IN THE PHB I HER O YORE KIND YOU A MONCHEKIN GET LOS

LEVEL-APPROPRIATE GOBLIN ENCOUNTER

>> No.16175854

>>16175810
Because they don't have a better use for their feats.

Okay, the rogue doesn't.

>> No.16175919

>>16175793
>You need some silly PrC or feat hidden in god knows which book

if you were to play a game where XP isn't handed out like candy then perhaps you would make better and more informed choices or your character, you would spend time looking through the books to find the gems and start thinking

also, you dont need heaps of extra books to make strong characters, I have seen a core level 5 Bard nearly solo a 6 headed hydra just through good feat selection because the player actually put some thought into his character

>> No.16176422

>>16175834Multiclassing is what made 3e so appealing. You could make a character. In 4e, you're just leveling up a class.


In all honesty though, the 4e Fighter already has more options than 3.X/PF Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Cavalier, Knight, BAB1/1 dudes, combined

>> No.16176438

Simple fix- allow sneak attack against anything.
The Rogue is a lot more useful than a Fighter though

>> No.16176447

The tier in the core book goes something like...

WIZARD- casters
you can do everything and break the game

ROGUE
you actually excel in your field, up to level 10

FIGHTER
you're ok at what you do, but get replaced by Summon Monster

MONK
you don't do anything useful

>> No.16176454

STOP LIKING WHAT I DONT LIKE

>> No.16176457

>>16176438
Considering that the wizard needs three spells to replace a rogue but only one to replace a fighter, I'll agree.

>> No.16176469

ideally you want to balance around the Rogue. The Rogue does what he does and he does it well. He doesn't infringe on the Fighter's meatiness or the Wizard's blastiness.

He sneaks, he stabs, he is content.

>> No.16176564

>>16176422
It's not really about options, it's about the illusion of choice. A 3e character had hundreds of classes to multi into. While nearly all of them were turds, that's still an area much more vast than what a 4e character can draw from.

And the system was much looser. Loose system + more options than a sane human can remember = freedom. I'm not thinking in a powergamer sense, I'm being general. The game just didn't give a fuck about you or your character, so you could play around. In 4e you can't get that feeling of openness. Each class has a comprehensive list of viable options carefulls lined by level, and can multi with another class to use its list, too. But it feel like you're walking around stuck in the world's largest condom. There's no feeling of freedom, even if you don't actually lack anything crunchwise.

>> No.16176596

3.5 is shockingly bad with just the core books - no game should be broken with the absolute minimum amount of books required to play.

Then you get grognards that lurk /tg/ who simply claim that the game is fine as long as you houserule...and use splat books...and min/max....and....and...and....

However by that point you might as well write your own system from scratch as you're trying to fix so many holes, it is a mess.

If you want to do the above that is fine, but don't preach that the game is even remotely balanced to a new player.

Pic related, it is a game that is far more balanced as base.

>> No.16176615

>>16176596

no, it's a game based around "losing is fun!"
so you don't call "Psyker killed everyone and himself" a bad thing

>> No.16176634

the game can be balanced up to level 6

E6 is the only way to play D&D3.X now

PF included

>> No.16176679

>>16176634
The problem with e6 is that the early levels are the worst part of every 3e game.

>> No.16176818

>>16176615

There is a huge difference between the psyker causing a TPK and having classes that are just inherently broken from the get go.

The psyker would have to roll poorly and fuck it up - something that is applicable to just about every die based game in existence, the class doesn't inherently wtfpwn the other classes once you get beyond early levels.

Plus, unlike 3.5 core DH's melee characters (that is, to draw a comparison to the monk/barbarian and fighter) don't all fight for the same skills, nor is one class blatantly better than the others.

Pic related again, each class has its own abilities and noen of them are flatout better than another.

>> No.16176833

>>16176679

I like levels 2-3 though

Fightin' orcs n' then it's "oh fuck its an ogre!"

>> No.16178501

>>16176818

can you provide me with some sample DW game please?

>> No.16178972 [DELETED] 

>>16178501
The sample one on the FFG website is actually really good.

Carcharodons

>> No.16178979

>>16178501
http://new.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/deathwatch/minisite/support/final-sanction-web-quality
.pdf

>> No.16179234

3.5 Is complicated. It has many books. Each of those books has many flaws. But the system has grown on us. We know to avoid taking stuff that is too weak or too powerful. We trust each other not to abuse the system.

Sometimes we take ridiculously powerful feats or classes because the character is otherwise relatively weak. But we do it in good taste and with good understanding of the system. Sometimes we roll ridiculously good statlines and play one of the weaker classes or choose all the flavor abilities over the power ones. 3.5 might not be for everyone, but it is for us. If you give it a chance, it can also be a system for you.

Every time I see my friends that also enjoy 3.5, we can talk about the cool random classes, spells, feats, fluff pieces etc we find in obscure books and if they enable new, strange character concepts. Sometimes we just laugh at the overpowered, stupid mistakes they slipped in the books. For us, 3.5 has a strong soul. That's why we play it.

>> No.16179536

>>16179234

So...if you play the game and endure through the blatantly broken things across many books which often exacerbate the problem the game'll work because you've played long enough to houserule out/impose unspoken rules said broken stuff?

That is a special level of insane only RPG players reach and is a good way to keep things inaccesible to new players and new DM's alike.

A game can be simple, it can be complex but it should never be inherently broken and virtually require you "fix" it.

In b4 "herp a derp we don't min/max and play for the fun" then rules simply don't matter at all, you might as well play an interactive novel as you're in for the story and game mechanics (or potentially, lack thereof) would get in the way of that.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action