This is just something that I decided to put together after seeing the cleric essentials article, and thinking about other "patch feats" that have been made. However, I'm not going to limit mysellf to feats- this is actually a general rebalancing topic.
Cleric: Free "Improved Divine Fortune", Divine fortune becomes +3
Can cast the free cleric ritual (Gentle repose) for free, 1/day. (all the PH2 ritual casters have this)
Wizard: Can cast ANY ritual for half price. (this is included in the wizard RC multiclass feat from Arcane power)
Archer Ranger: Free "True Arrow Style", making Careful Attack still be weaker, but strictly more accurate, than Twin Strike
Greatsword and Rapier: High Crit.
Everyone: Weapon/implement expertise at level 5. Paragon and Epic defenses at 11 and 21,m respectively.
Paladin Divine challange/sanction- choose Str or Charisma at creation for damage.
Small characters: Versitile weapons wielded in 2 hands gain "defensive"
Does anything else look like it needs patching?
I Like it, and will probably implement it. But sadly its why i fear a 4.5E
The doublesword is widely regarded as being broken. I houserule it as d6/d6 lightblade only.
I combined all of the magic weapon focus feats (astral fire, dark fury, etc) into a single implement focus feat.
Trap detection DCs are out of wack, requiring rogues to roll 16+ to find appropriately leveled traps. I give rogues a +5 bonus to perception for finding traps, and other classes can buy it as a feat.
Trap detection DCs are out of wack, requiring rogues to roll 16+ to find appropriately leveled traps. I give rogues a +5 bonus to perception for finding traps, and other classes can buy it as a feat.
...the problem is really that the skill difficulties by level were updated to being lower and the traps listed in the DMG were not adjusted accordingly.
A 1st level trap is around a perception DC 15 to notice, not 20 - no +5 is needed as the game really only requires "trained in perception," in order to detect most level appropriate traps.
I guess you haven't looked at the DCs in most of the post skill DC update published adventures?
...the problem is really that the skill difficulties by level were updated to being lower and the traps listed in the DMG were not adjusted accordingly.
A 1st level trap is around a perception DC 15 to notice, not 20 - no +5 is needed as the game really only requires "trained in perception," in order to detect most level appropriate traps.
I guess you haven't looked at the DCs in most of the post skill DC update published adventures?
I haven't really looked at any 4e published adventures, no. Is this part of the errata that I missed? I suppose I could just follow these guidelines instead then.
Though I still like rogues having an edge in trap detection unless the player of another class goes out of their way to be a trap finder. Maybe I'll lower it to +2, along with the other bonus I didn't mention here. For those interested, here's my entire unmodified houserule:
"Trap Finding: +5 perception for finding traps. Character gains a limited but practical understanding of arcana, nature, religion, and dungeoneering as it applies to traps; Thievery substitutes for auxiliary skills (but not perception) for finding and disarming unconventional traps. Rogues gain this feat for free. Thievery skill is required to take this feat."
And the similar ranger feat:
"Tracking: +2 perception for finding tracks. Training in Tracking skill (Wisdom), which grants more detailed information such as number, pace, and creature type. Rangers gain this feat for free. Nature or Dungeoneering skill is required to take this feat."
I haven't really looked at any 4e published adventures, no. Is this part of the errata that I missed? I suppose I could just follow these guidelines instead then.
Though I still like rogues having an edge in trap detection unless the player of another class goes out of their way to be a trap finder. Maybe I'll lower it to +2, along with the other bonus I didn't mention here. For those interested, here's my entire unmodified houserule:
"Trap Finding: +5 perception for finding traps. Character gains a limited but practical understanding of arcana, nature, religion, and dungeoneering as it applies to traps; Thievery substitutes for auxiliary skills (but not perception) for finding and disarming unconventional traps. Rogues gain this feat for free. Thievery skill is required to take this feat."
And the similar ranger feat:
"Tracking: +2 perception for finding tracks. Training in Tracking skill (Wisdom), which grants more detailed information such as number, pace, and creature type. Rangers gain this feat for free. Nature or Dungeoneering skill is required to take this feat."
It's not so much a direct errata that you have missed, as there was no clarification made that the DC for trap detection was supposed to just be an Easy, Moderate, or Hard (depending on the trap) Perception check DC - which are supposed to hold up to the errataed skill DCs by level from page 42 of the DMG - and it is made clear by all of the traps listed in official material post-errata of the skill DC chart all falling in line with the new DC scale.
The way it works out is that a character that starts play with at least a +10 perception modifier (like an elven ranger with a 16 Wisdom trained in perception for example) will only ever not succeed on level balanced perception checks with their passive score if a very stealthy NPC gets a good roll while sneaking up on them... and a character that really goes all in on perception should almost never fail a check (passive or otherwise) - but that's because they started with an 18 or 20 Wisdom, training in perception, a racial bonus, a background bonus, and maybe even took Skill focus (a possible passive perception of 27 being the max at 1st level).
Your feat seems nice to me, as it's just one more option out there that allows a character to be good at trap finding - such as a charismatic rogue that doesn't necessarily want to be super-perceptive in general, but still excellent at finding traps.
...Your tracking feat is interesting though. Do you have martial power? I ask because Martial Power has a feat (requires Wisdom 13, Ranger, and training in Perception) that gives a +5 for finding and following tracks, and adds 5 to the DC of tracking you (and up to 10 allies)... which is very similar to the flavor of your feat, but with a higher bonus attached due to more stringent requirements.
.... I give rogues a +5 bonus to perception for finding traps, and other classes can buy it as a feat.
what does this mean for the dwarf rogues that specifically enjoy the fact that they are the only race that has a racial+class feat related to the finding and disarming of traps called, of all things, dwarf trapsmith????
i would hate to play alongside one of your rogues of another race, while i play out a dwarf rogue that took the feat, knowing that you get a free +5 to finding and disarming traps.
why not simply deal with the fact that traps and hazards are challenges. don't nerf them by giving a huge bonus to each and every rogue. if the rogue wants to drop a feat into skill focus, then he's more skilled than the average bear. if he wants to make sure he places some extra points into wisdom, then he can up that perception.
if you feel some traps are problematic, fix the trap case by case, not alter the rogue as a blanket.
...houserule:
"Trap Finding: .... Rogues gain this feat for free. Thievery skill is required to take this feat."
And the similar ranger feat:
"Tracking: .... Rangers gain this feat for free. Nature or Dungeoneering skill is required to take this feat."
why create feats that you give for free, that are really better served as case-by-case scenarios?
example: a group of carefully stealthy hunters generate a harder to track path than the path of a group of foolish mooks.
set the DC to appropriate levels instead of giving a blanket change to all rangers. if a player wants to be better at tracking, let htem take a feat that makes them better at tracking, don't just give them a freebie because they are a ranger.
same for the rogue, as before. don't give them a freebie. let them decide the feats that represent their training and pursuits. a rogue is no longer exclusively the thief and trapsmith. so, they don't have to be "extra" trained in those areas. let the players decide how much of the thief and trapsmith they want their own rogue to be.
same of all other classes, let them take the role in the party, but then they decide how they fulfill that role.
i've got a bard with no diplomacy or intimidate training. she gets by with bluff as needed. as she is hybrid warlock, she took beguiling tongue as a utility power. she's going to watch for a chance to use bluff in place of other interaction skills as often as possible. if my DM gave her a free diplomacy buff because she is a bard, that would be lame.
let the players decide how they want to develop a character. if challenges are not within their capacity, use a case-by-case review of possible adjustments. if htey don't see a trap, then they don't see a trap. if they see it and can't disarm it, then they don't disarm it.
AaronOfBarbaria,
I actually wasn't aware of that feat. I got the idea from watching Mantracker. Tracking is really much more than finding footprints in the mud, and I didn't want to lump in tracking knowledge with nature or perception.
DanTracker,
I'm against ruling everything case by case, especially for WotC math errors, because it takes more work than simplier solutions. That's the whole point of this thread. Why bother lowering the defenses of every monster when you can just give the PCs weapon/impliment expertise for free? However, per AaronOfBarbaria's suggestions, I am adopting the errataed DCs from page 42 instead, and reducing the trap bonus to +2.
I'm not going to revolve my houserules around esoteric racial feats that get added to the pile every couple of months in new supplimental books. However, my houserule would not nulify Dwarven Trapsmith because mine gives an untyped bonus. Your dwarf rogue would still have an edge.
I like rogues as trapsmiths and rangers as trackers rather than being generic damage dealers. The freebes give the classes more built-in, traditional flavor and utility without a feat tax. But if a player is that opposed to the idea, they can just ignore the feat (or maybe convince me to trade it for something more concept fitting; actually my very first houserule encourages this).
I also dislike laser clerics and other wisdom based classes being the best trackers/trapfinders by default. If they want to step outside of their traditional role, they should have to work for it.
Wizard: Can cast ANY ritual for half price.
Is there a feat that lets wizards do this? Where is it?
I think I would exclude Enchant Magic Item, Brew Potion, and anything else where the price is equivalent to the price of a magic item created. Such things are excluded from the bluff lvl10 skill power, as well.
Any build that has their two prime stats contributing to the same defense should get, for free, the ability to use one of those stats for a different defense (in place of the other 2 scores that normally go to that defense.)
I'm not sure which option would be most in-flavor in each case. Laser clerics should get either wisdom or charisma to either fortitude or reflex, but I'm not sure how to judge which. Maybe Wisdom to Fort.
Then chaladins could have Charisma to Reflex, as "Divine Grace"?
Con fighters could have con to Will. Sort of a thick-skulled thing?
Dex wizards could have int to Will, perhaps flavored as overcoming mental effects with sheer logic.
etc etc
> Thievery skill is required to take this feat."
>
> "Tracking: .... Rangers gain this feat for free. Nature
> or Dungeoneering skill is required to take this feat."
This sounds dangerously like a return to old-E, "You MUST have class X to do Y." design philosophy. 4E did very well to dismantle that.
I agree with the other posters - if the ranger wants to be good at tracking or the rogue at trap finding then skill focus is the straightforward solution (and other feats or class utility powers allow for more complex ones).
This sounds dangerously like a return to old-E, "You MUST have class X to do Y." design philosophy.
Except it's not even close. It's a +2 bonus with extra flavor, that is easily available to any other class that spends a feat 
But if you like generic classes, more power to you.
sidenote: I hate these new forums with its lack of emoticons
Dan.. You do have a bonus to diplomacy just because you are a bard. Words of friendship.
Dan.. You do have a bonus to diplomacy just because you are a bard. Words of friendship.
Well darn, I guess my barbarian socialite concept is useless now that they're forcing us into must-have roles [/sarcasm]
Dan.. You do have a bonus to diplomacy just because you are a bard. Words of friendship.
yes, that's true. and i recently did some retraining on her that gave her the diplomacy training. still her bluff is highest among all trained skills.
she is from Luskan and was a criminal, so lies and deception were her MO. now, she has spent five years in prison and decided that it was time to make some new changes. she found some new religion in Sune and has begun to head east with an adventuring party.
she ends up being the face of the party, but the fighter of the group is the idiot savant. he is untrained in most skills yet rolls higher than my girl with training. it has been fun to play out when she doesn't know an answer and he does.
but the DM never said, "oh, a bard, you must be good at singing and wear terribly stylish clothes. i'll give you a blanket bonus to your diplomacy with nobles as a free feat just because you're always going to be the one dealing with nobles."
i get to railroad my own character, thank you. and her background doesn't make her much of a diplomat. it makes her a liar.
however, words of friendship is a power given by the game engineering that serves a one turn bonus to diplomacy, not a homebrewed free feat that provides a continuous increase.
if perhaps the previous poster had created a short term bonus to searching for traps and gave that as a class feature, or a short term bonus to tracking and made that a class feature, i wouldn't have made such a fuss.
i don't have it because she is a hybrid and that ability doesn't automatically come along with the hybrid bard. i'd have to take a feat in hybrid talent to get that back, which i might do in the future as she continues to change her lifestyle and mannerisms.
Yeah, I say let players decide if they want to have a whole package of abilities so they are a super trapdog or something. As it is now some of the skills are pretty broad and there are cases where players would rather have a subset of some of them. Tacking on even MORE stuff that comes in the same package is just pigeonholing classes.
For example if a character wants to be pretty good at finding traps and the player doesn't want to burn a feat on Skill Training: Perception, then pick a character background that gives a +2 bonus to perception checks.
Remember too, the old 2e style thief certainly was the guy for finding AND removing traps, but he was also practically worthless in combat. The 4e rogue is a whole different thing.
As for rangers, there really is no need for tracking-specific rules is there? I mean the same argument holds as with the rogue, but even beyond that you have 2 skills, Nature and Perception. Perception lets you find "sign" and nature lets you interpret it. Seems pretty concise to me and most rangers are likely to be trained in both of those skills and/or have pretty good skill bonus with them.
Yes, its true that high WIS characters are best at a whole number of things, and high INT characters at a big chunk of other useful things. The thing is since when are fools and idiots particularly good at anything? In the real world they generally aren't all that impressively gifted. Its sort of like STR, characters with low STR are well... WEAK! That's kind of what having a low attribute score means. I know its kind of tough luck for the players that CHOSE to be dumb, foolish, weak, etc. and every PC has to have some things they aren't too good at, but if I want to make a really seriously super trap dogging rogue, then I'm going to give the character a decent wisdom score and trained in perception, so they aren't a fool. Yup, sure enough that means the character will be a bit short in a secondary stat someplace, but its a rational trade that fits the character I want to make.
It just seems to me like all the people that want to toss loads of extra feats onto starting characters basically really want to be combat optimized and still top of the line in every other way. Pick what you want to be good at.
Yes, its true that high WIS characters are best at a whole number of things, and high INT characters at a big chunk of other useful things. The thing is since when are fools and idiots particularly good at anything? In the real world they generally aren't all that impressively gifted. Its sort of like STR, characters with low STR are well... WEAK! That's kind of what having a low attribute score means. I know its kind of tough luck for the players that CHOSE to be dumb, foolish, weak, etc. and every PC has to have some things they aren't too good at, but if I want to make a really seriously super trap dogging rogue, then I'm going to give the character a decent wisdom score and trained in perception, so they aren't a fool. Yup, sure enough that means the character will be a bit short in a secondary stat someplace, but its a rational trade that fits the character I want to make.
And let's not forget that while a 10 in an ability may be low for a hero, it's still considered an average score. So while the PCs are feeling "stupid" with that 12 Int, they're still quite a bit brighter than the average non-heroic person in the campaign world. A non-heroic scholar or academic is probably feeling pretty clever with that 12 Int. Those characters that start out with a 20 Strength aren't just strong, they're twice as strong as the average person. There's as much difference between the 20 Str PC and the 10 Str NPC as there is between the 10 Str NPC and a turnip.
Does anything else look like it needs patching?
Versatile weapons wielded in two hands should count as two-handed weapons. That would help solve the problem with small barbarians.
Does anything else look like it needs patching?
Versatile weapons wielded in two hands should count as two-handed weapons. That would help solve the problem with small barbarians.
You know, I'm not sure that they don't-the great weapon fighter article seems to assume they do, even if they're not an optimal choice. That the character builder doesn't allow it isn't definitive. That sort of thing is a corner case scenario that often doesn't get updated.
For instance, I have a bard who carries (not wields) two longswords that he can wield as implements but not as weapons since he doesn't have the ranger feat. You can't do it in the CB, but it is legal by the rules.
I think this is something we on the forums have assumed a narrow interpretation of the rules on, simply because you have to assume the narrowest interpretation to make sure any build is functional under any DM. We've just sort of argued ourselves into assuming this is the case.
I seem to recall at some point a designer saying that a weapon counted as whichever way worked best for the player. I do wish they would clarify this.
Any build that has their two prime stats contributing to the same defense should get, for free, the ability to use one of those stats for a different defense (in place of the other 2 scores that normally go to that defense.)
I'm not sure which option would be most in-flavor in each case. Laser clerics should get either wisdom or charisma to either fortitude or reflex, but I'm not sure how to judge which. Maybe Wisdom to Fort.
Then chaladins could have Charisma to Reflex, as "Divine Grace"?
Con fighters could have con to Will. Sort of a thick-skulled thing?
Dex wizards could have int to Will, perhaps flavored as overcoming mental effects with sheer logic.
etc etc
That defeats the purpose of having 4 different defenses. If everyone has good defenses across the board, that would take a lot of the fun out of the game, in my own opinion.
Dan.. You do have a bonus to diplomacy just because you are a bard. Words of friendship.
Well darn, I guess my barbarian socialite concept is useless now that they're forcing us into must-have roles [/sarcasm]
Yes, and barbarians have abilities to hit things.. HARD. So you got to like hit things, because since you can do it my bard can't hit anything. [/sarcasm]
That defeats the purpose of having 4 different defenses. If everyone has good defenses across the board, that would take a lot of the fun out of the game, in my own opinion.
This wouldn't result in across-the-board-good; everyone would still have one weak NAD. This just makes it so that the builds that have TWO weak NADs (and nothing to make up for it), have only one instead, like most builds do.
Does anything else look like it needs patching?
Versatile weapons wielded in two hands should count as two-handed weapons. That would help solve the problem with small barbarians.
Small characters should never have had those weapons restrictions in the first place (since we're talking about patches).
Although I disagree about the Versatile weapons. Lawolf, Upho, and I (mostly Lawolf and Upho, though) have worked on a system using the existing weapons to figure out what everything is worth (so as to facilitate creating custom weapons), and, pretty consistently, Versatile ended up being worth 0 points. Versatile providing the benefit of allowing a One-Handed weapon to do extra damage when wielded two-handedly without altering what it counts as would seem to fit into that system.