Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Revan_Revanthas 03-07-07, 07:08 AM	Why is it that a character without the Shot on the Run feat, for example, cannot fire an arrow in the midst of their allowed movement? A normal unencumbered human PC (class irrelevant, pick one) can move 30 feet (extras aside), take a standard action and a free action in any given round. Why not allow the character to move 15 feet, fire an arrow and then move another 15 feet? Why can't a character without Mounted Combat roll a Ride check to possibly negate an attack against their mount? They put ranks in Ride, didn't they? The best feats allow a character to do something that any PC can do, but do it better. Improved Disarm is a great example. The rules for disarming an opponent are present and anyone can attempt the "feat" of disarm. A PC with Improved Disarm can just do it better. Feats have gone so far beyond the base mechanics of combat (and every other established entity) that they offer entirely new abilities and options. Take unarmed combat as another example. Anyone can strike an opponent bare handed, with the appropriate AoO and other risks (low damage, subdual, -4 for lethal) but a character with Improved Unarmed Strike suffers less penalty. This is good. Now add Stunning Fist / Deflect Arrows / Snatch Arrows to the mix. Without the feat, no character can even attempt (to just pick one) to deflect an incoming arrow with his bare hand, or even with a shield. Why not? The rules are meant to simulate fantasy combat. With so few feats granted to our PCs, it seems like the avalanche of options presented by the feat system would be better served if each new feat had a "Normal" block with mechanics to at least attempt what the feat allows without actually having to have chosen it. If a PC wants to try to bat aside an arrow with their bare hand, they cannot because they don't have the feat. Period. Does anyone have any ideas, concepts, or complaints about this system besides myself? Skills, for example, have been given expanded usage in various published sources. Why not feats?
Moccanime 03-07-07, 08:11 AM	That hurt my eyes, try using enter a few times:P Well I agree with you, and my group have made some changes to some of these feats. Like shot on the run, anyone can do it but if you lack the feat, you take -4 penalty to hit and -2 penalty AC. Edit: Decided to add my 2 cent about a few more feats. Now add Stunning Fist / Deflect Arrows / Snatch Arrows Stunning Fist is quite specialized manuver and it makes sense to have to take a feat to use it. Deflect Arrows really just give you a second chance at preventing the arrow from hitting you. When a arrow misses a character with high dodge bonus, I have myself used the desription of hitting the arrow away several times. Snatch Arrows is just like stunning fist that it is a specialized technique that someone who havn't spend the time practicing (ie taking the feat) shouldn't be able to use.
runestar 03-07-07, 08:13 AM	Why is it that a character without the Shot on the Run feat, for example, cannot fire an arrow in the midst of their allowed movement? I am guessing the problem is that for the typical archer, you move, and when you stop to fire an arrow, the momentum is lost, and you are unable to regain this momentum to continue moving quickly enough to continue doing so for the rest of your round. To be able to move-fire-move, this requires special training to better coordinate your hand and leg movements, as represented by the taking of the shot on the run feat. Without the feat, no character can even attempt (to just pick one) to deflect an incoming arrow with his bare hand, or even with a shield. Deflecting an arrow without the appropriate feat would be represented mechanically by the arrow failing to hit your AC(a miss in game terms). The arrow misses, but you are nonetheless allowed to designate just how or why the arrow missed. Taking the deflect arrow feat just means you can do it better.:)
jaelis 03-07-07, 08:15 AM	First, a readable version of the post: Why is it that a character without the Shot on the Run feat, for example, cannot fire an arrow in the midst of their allowed movement? A normal unencumbered human PC (class irrelevant, pick one) can move 30 feet (extras aside), take a standard action and a free action in any given round. Why not allow the character to move 15 feet, fire an arrow and then move another 15 feet? Why can't a character without Mounted Combat roll a Ride check to possibly negate an attack against their mount? They put ranks in Ride, didn't they? The best feats allow a character to do something that any PC can do, but do it better. Improved Disarm is a great example. The rules for disarming an opponent are present and anyone can attempt the "feat" of disarm. A PC with Improved Disarm can just do it better. Feats have gone so far beyond the base mechanics of combat (and every other established entity) that they offer entirely new abilities and options. Take unarmed combat as another example. Anyone can strike an opponent bare handed, with the appropriate AoO and other risks (low damage, subdual, -4 for lethal) but a character with Improved Unarmed Strike suffers less penalty. This is good. Now add Stunning Fist / Deflect Arrows / Snatch Arrows to the mix. Without the feat, no character can even attempt (to just pick one) to deflect an incoming arrow with his bare hand, or even with a shield. Why not? The rules are meant to simulate fantasy combat. With so few feats granted to our PCs, it seems like the avalanche of options presented by the feat system would be better served if each new feat had a "Normal" block with mechanics to at least attempt what the feat allows without actually having to have chosen it. If a PC wants to try to bat aside an arrow with their bare hand, they cannot because they don't have the feat. Period. Does anyone have any ideas, concepts, or complaints about this system besides myself? Skills, for example, have been given expanded usage in various published sources. Why not feats? What you suggest would make the game a lot more complicated. The way it is now, each character has a fairly long list of "standard" things they can do, and then a short list of additional abilities granted by feats. If every new feat maneuver also introduced a low-power "normal" option, then every character could do a huge number of things. The game could easily slow to a crawl as a player searches for the exact maneuver just right for a given situation: "Hold on a sec, I know there's a rule for using AoOs as counterattacks in here somewhere..."
jameswilliamogle 03-07-07, 10:13 AM	I don't see a huge problem of a house rule allowing the use of many feats at a substantial penalty (otherwise, there's no point in the feat). Something like -8 on "something". There might be a problem when you get to using feats that have no real penalty, so you'd have to balance it with each kind of feat. For example, now my Rogue, using UMD, can emulate having persistant spell, and metamagic spell-trigger, for persistant Wraithstrike, if he knows he's going to be fighting all day. My Wizard can emulate Power Attack after Polymorphing into an Anis Hag. And my Druid can emulate Improved Grapple w/o spending the feat, the penalties probably meaningless after Wildshaping into a super-Str form. Its all in the name of game balance, as is. If you're more of a simulationist, though, it does take some realism away from the game.
calvinNhobbes 03-07-07, 11:13 AM	You have to remember the game is turned based. You can run 15ft, stop, draw an arrow, line up a shot, fire, see if you hit, and move 15 ft. It will just take you 2 rounds to do it normally. Shot on the Run says you can do it all in one round. Possible flavor is that you have learned to adjust for your momentum and do not need to stop. Attacking while moving is much more difficult than stop and swing/fire. If a PC really wanted to make this kind of manuveur for flavor reasons (ex, run between a gap in wall and fire off a shot) even though they did not have the feat, I'd let them but impose a hefty penalty, perhaps -4 or more. Although I would just make all the monsters ready attacks instead, so it would pretty much defeat the purpose of the tactic. However, I do agree some feats are too narrow.
ScipioX 03-07-07, 01:50 PM	I agree that the feats are too limited. While the feat structure makes sense to people familiar with the rules, its really hard on players who are new to the game. One of the old DMG's had a line in it that went something like "don't say no, just say how hard." Allowing a 'normal' use of most of the feats would be pretty hard to balance, but could be done IMHO. The key is to make it difficult enough that most won't even bother. In addition, even if they player succeeds, the success still shouldn't be as good as somebody with the feat could achieve. (Otherwise people who can make the check will never bother taking the feat.)
Stormonu 03-07-07, 03:19 PM	I like this idea, but it definately needs further refinement - which feats can you give away as something you can do "normally", and which are simply enhancements to something you can do? Blind-Fight - no, augmentation chance to hit invisible and hidden foes Cleave, Great Cleave - no, this is an advanced form of multiple attacks from a high BAB; it lets you carry the same attack over to another opponent Combat Expertise - no, this is an advanced form of Fighting Defensively Combat Reflexes - no, augmentation of existing AoO (though I'd like to see a feat, "Extra Attacks of Opportunity") Deflect Arrows - no, as above, this is basically a boost to AC Diehard - yes, a Fort save of some sort to act while in the negatives, say DC 25? (and maybe change the stabalize check to a Fort save while at it) Dodge - no, augment of Dex to AC bonus Endurance - no, augment of Con Far Shot - no, augment of existing range increments Improved ... - no, augment of existing abilities Mobility - no, augment of Dex to AC bonus Mounted Archery -no, but shouldn't it be called "Improved Mounted Archery"? Mounted Combat - yes, you get 1/2 your Ride skill on the roll Multishot - yes, but you can only do one extra arrow and the penalty is -4 to hit Point Blank Shot - no, augment of BAB for ranged weapons Power Attack - no, as this is just a shift of attack bonus for damage Precise Shot - no, anyone can fire into melee, this is just an augment to that ability Quick Draw - Already built in Rapid Reload - yes, a Dex check (DC 20) to perform equivilant Rapid Shot - no, this is just an augmentation of multiple attacks for high BAB (which brings to mind, where isn't there "multi-swing", which lets you gain an extra melee attack with one weapon, different from two-weapon fighting?) Run - shouldn't this be "Improved Run"? Shot on the Run - as above, this seems like something feasible, -4 to hit Snatch Arrows - no, specialized move as folks stated above Spirited Charge - no, augment of Charge attack Spring Attack - yes, can be done with a -4 penalty to hit, no immunity to AoO's Stunning Fist - no, as discussed above, specialized move Trample - no, augmented overrun attack Weapon Finesse - no, specialized augment that switches Dex for Str Weapon Focus - no, augment of BAB Weapon Specialization - no, augment of weapon's base damage Whirlwind Attack - this seems like something you should be able to do normally, but at something like a -5 penalty for each additional target you attempt to strike (as you are essentially taking a extra attack) Feel free to disagree. These are just my thoughts. [Edit: Changed thoughts on Whirlwind]
mugguod 03-07-07, 04:02 PM	Normally an archer can either move then shoot or shoot the move. You have to come out from behind total cover to take your shot; stand there from a whole round (giving the other guys a chance to fire back); Then you can take a second shot and run for cover. Shot on the Run Feat represents a guy who can dart out, fire, and dive for cover so fast nobody (except a sniper with a ready action) can get a shot at him. If this was something that everybody could do, (even with -penalties to hit) 1st level characters would never have to enter the room. They'd just open the door and run back and forth peppering the room with arrows from the hallway.
Silverthumb128 03-07-07, 04:09 PM	First, a readable version of the post: Oh my Vecna, thank you. The feats are there to represent that the character has spent time learning how to do something. Shot on the Run, as an example: Not everyone who is proficient with a bow is able to run 15 feet, fire an arrow, then keep going 15 more feet. That would require some training to switch gears and then switch them back that quickly.
calvinNhobbes 03-07-07, 04:29 PM	Also, note that under the mounted combat rules that your mount can move as you fire, but in this case you do not have to move yourself. Also note that if the mount double moves it is a -4 penalty, and running is a -8. In all cases the shot is assumed to be fired at halfway through the movement. Therefore, there is a precedent in the rules for this, the question is, should this require extra training to do on foot? I would think so. I imagine trying to fire a long bow while jogging would require significant dexterity and training.
TheCobra 03-07-07, 07:17 PM	I tend to agree with the OP. It seems silly that you need a feat to even attept certain things. All those called-shot-with-sneak-attack feats in Complete Scoundrel are a good example of this.
Revan_Revanthas 03-07-07, 08:04 PM	I apologize for not formatting the original post better. Whatever specialized training a character requires (in taking a feat) to perform certain actions (like shot on the run) has been pushed into the background in every campaign I have played or DMed. Few, if any, published adventures allow for the training rules (time-teacher-gold) for skills or feats. How then do PCs receive the "specialized training" that enables them to pick feats in the first place? It is usually the assumed "in between adventures" period or as an evolution of the combat they engage in during their quests. With no rules to allow the PC to attempt a Feat without actually having it, the system becomes cumbersome. I agree with the idea that the character can attempt a feat without having it, at a penalty but certain feats (Stunning Fist seems to be a popular choice) give entirely new abilities. But it CAN be done. Monks can do it. A character can observe (or adventure with) a monk who has Stunning Fist and then emulate the technique... Not well, I imagine, but why not allow the attempt? I mention monks because Stunning Fist is one of their bonus feat choices, as opposed to a random class or character who has chosen the feat after meeting the prerequisites.
Huzzah! 03-07-07, 08:13 PM	A guy in my group once tried to do a Snatch Arrow without actually having the feat. Our DM let him try to make a touch attack against the arrow with appropriate size modifiers to AC and an arbitrary +6 for being in midair. The DM also ruled that if he missed, since he is purposefully trying to place himself in the path of the arrow, he'd take maximum damage upon failure. :)
Vharuck 03-07-07, 08:38 PM	The time spent studying, using, and learning to strike with a Stunning Fist attack is representable. It's called experience points and feats. The system exists to simplify things so that everyone can agree on a standard. While Rule 0 allows individual groups to set their own standards, it should be a rule of thumb that Rule 0 should be invoked as little as possible. Also, I've practiced martial arts for years and learning to actually stun somebody in real combat is difficult (most of the strike zones are on the neck and it is very hard to hit somebody's neck). Making it a feat makes sense to me.
Stormonu 03-07-07, 08:47 PM	Shot on the Run, as an example: Not everyone who is proficient with a bow is able to run 15 feet, fire an arrow, then keep going 15 more feet. Hell, I can do this. I probably won't hit, but I can hussle 30 feet while firing the bow somewhere along the line. Like I said, I probably won't hit the broad side of the barn, but I can try. If this was something that everybody could do, (even with -penalties to hit) 1st level characters would never have to enter the room. They'd just open the door and run back and forth peppering the room with arrows from the hallway. The counter is called the ready action - as in "I'll ready to charge as soon as that archer pokes his head back out."
runestar 03-07-07, 09:07 PM	Or in game terms, it would just mean that while you can attempt a stunt such as deflecting arrows without said feat, you would receive a massive ad-hoc penalty(-20) on your roll, so it is basically the same as auto-failure. The final result would be the same.;)
Revan_Revanthas 03-07-07, 11:47 PM	The experience gained over the course of an adventure applies to all aspects of a character simultaneously - it doesn't apply soley to learning feats. Gaining a level improves Hit points, BAB, Saves, skills, etc; I think the response that feat training is represented by gaining experience is largely inaccurate. I just like the idea that a PCs options in any given situation aren't limited to can/can't physicalities. The feat system seems to be aimed at encompassing every nuance. Okay then, let's add a few lines of text that state how to try it (perhaps as your PC tries to earn it?). The acquisition of feats is not under debate. That having been said, why the massive amount of published feats that do not have rules for attempting them untrained? An earlier response stated that it would make the game too confusing. Perhaps, but how many spells are there and how many people do you know who can rattle off the specs on any one of them? People who obsess over spells play wizards. What about people who want to play fighters? The game is a bit rules heavy anyway, what with over a hundred feats, a thousand spells, a million magical items and effects... New players tend to look at my bookshelf and ask if I wouldn't rather play a video game. All I'm suggesting is that feats should not be a Can or Can Not thing. On a similar note, one might say that I have occasionally engaged in martial pursuits myself. It is not that terribly difficult to stun someone for six seconds. In point of fact, it is rather easy... You might try aiming a bit lower than the neck, Daniel-san. A barely trained combatant can render another unconsious practically on accident. PCs tend to be trained warriors. They should be, at the very least, allowed to attempt a feat before they actually choose it. I welcome suggestions, scenarios, stories or nay sayers... Just please refrain from saying, "Uh, experience points," without supporting the statement somehow.
Johnny_Angel 03-09-07, 12:08 PM	I'm not really for or against the idea; I just wanted to throw in my two cents. I've noticed people saying that stunning fist is a specialized manuever, and I agree with that because it's something that you would need training to pull off. I hunt with a bow fairly frequently; I tried to imagine moving around while firing an arrow, and I came to the conclusion that it would be extremely difficult to pull off and still hit what you are aiming at. I don't even think a -4 penalty would be enough for someone not trained in that manuever to pull off. That being said, I feel that I would considering moving while firing a bow to be a "special manuever." I could possibly imagine someone with a crossbow being able to do it without much effort because I have experience with guns as well, and I know that moving and shooting at the same time isn't very difficult with a gun. However, I don't think it would be fair in the game to say that people with bows need the feat, but people with crossbows don't. I don't feel that it would be impossible to fire while moving, but -being that this is a game- I feel that it's more balanced to have a feat for this type of thing.
ScipioX 03-09-07, 02:38 PM	The feat system is great. It just shouldn't be the only way to do things. A new player should be able to play the game just by describing his actions: the DM applies appropriate mechanics to match the descriptions. Which is better? Scenario 1: Dm: a horde of waist high orange critters surround you and wave bits of stone and pointy sticks menacingly! New Player: Ok, I take my massive great sword and spin in a circle, cutting down as many as I can. DM: sorry, you can't do that, try something else. Or Scenario 2: Dm: a horde of waist high orange critters surround you and wave bits of stone and pointy sticks menacingly. New Player: Ok, I take my massive great sword and spin in a circle, cutting down as many as I can. Dm: Ok, you've never really done that before, so it'll be pretty hard. You can make an attack at each at -10, and you'll have to make a dex check to avoid falling over at the end. The key is to make the penalties stiff enough that most people wouldn't bother trying it except in special circumstances. Thus, allowing a crappy 'normal' version of whirlwind attack doesn't really affect game balance, it just lets a high level fighter massacre a bunch of mooks more cinematically. The example Huzzah! gave works pretty well too. A difficult check backed by a penalty for failure. I used -10 in my example, but even higher penalties are fine too. Typically for things that are not allowed by the rules, I assign a -20. This makes it effectively impossible in most cases, but an especially skilled person might pull it off. The possibility of a penalty for failure is also useful to discourage people from trying it everytime. Another ex: A player wants to cleave through 1 skeleton into another. (without the cleave feat) If he drops the first one, he can make a free cleave attack at -20. But to prevent him trying this every time, if he rolls a 1 or a 2 on the second attack, he loses his grip on his weapon because of the extra power he's putting on it.
Garonak 03-09-07, 06:32 PM	The rules are meant to simulate fantasy combat The whole thread in a nutshell... Simulate in this context is a bit of an overstatement. When you look at feats, skills, class abilities and whatnot in the rules, remember one thing, it's there for game balance. It's not necessary successfull, but try to see it that way. If you still don't like it, use Rule #0.