D&D Skills & Feats [Rebalancing 3.5]

[JaronK]

Yay, Wizards and Sorcerers get +1 initiative!

...I don't think that's a good thing.

JaronK

[ZeroSum]

So rebalance familiars and it should work out?

[JaronK]

That might work.  I just don't want to see any changes that power up Wizards, nor do I want to see changes that power up Sorcerers without some heavy hits against them somewhere else.

JaronK

[Kuroimaken]

That might work.  I just don't want to see any changes that power up Wizards, nor do I want to see changes that power up Sorcerers without some heavy hits against them somewhere else.

Oh come on. It's a single point of initiative. Easily a drop in the bucket when you consider shit like Celerity.

[JaronK]

Celerity doesn't work when flat footed.   Further, we're trying to fix the broken spells, and I certainly hope Celerity is one that gets fixed.

As a rule, if a Wizard goes first, he wins.  Giving Wizards any free initiative is a step in the wrong direction.

JaronK

[Kuroimaken]

Celerity doesn't work when flat footed.   Further, we're trying to fix the broken spells, and I certainly hope Celerity is one that gets fixed.

As a rule, if a Wizard goes first, he wins.  Giving Wizards any free initiative is a step in the wrong direction.

JaronK

And we're working to fix the brokenness of the Wizard so this isn't true anymore.

Besides, there's already tons of ways for a wizard to boost init. This would barely even be considered icing on the cake.

[SiggyDevil]

Celerity doesn't work when flat footed.   Further, we're trying to fix the broken spells, and I certainly hope Celerity is one that gets fixed.

Celerity = broken. That turd is first on the list IMO. I hate it when people use it as justification that spellcasters are automatic wins even before their turn has arrived.
Shitastic spell inserted in to 3e just before 4e's debut to ruin the game, etc.

As a rule, if a Wizard goes first, he wins.  Giving Wizards any free initiative is a step in the wrong direction.

There really should be a fallacy for this.
Like, the assumption that spellcasters easily win any combat depends on their spell selection and is not guaranteed, and therefore can only be compared on an individual basis. Non-casters, though, are defined by lack of option, and can never get the same possibilities.


Fixing the spells will fix the class. Spellcasters are some of the easiest classes to break or unbreak.
Hell, you can make a Wizard even worse than a Fighter with the "right" spell choices!"

[SiggyDevil]

This probably isn't exactly what you meant, but I think these feats do gain power as you gain levels, in a matter of speaking.

Hmmmm true, I meant more that a feat gains X bonus and/or option at Level 1, but then gets another bonus or option that may or may not be related (or stack) at Level 2 or later.
Tome (of The Gaming Den) feats 'levelup' in the power of options at levels 1, 6, 11, and 16.
While that might be too much for Heritage feats, something as simple as a stage at levels 1, 3, and 6 would work.

The level dependency of values in the feat's wasn't quite what I meant by that, but it's better than a static bonus.

[JaronK]

Celerity = broken. That turd is first on the list IMO. I hate it when people use it as justification that spellcasters are automatic wins even before their turn has arrived.

Exactly, so we shouldn't use it's existance to justify making Wizards go even more firster on the grounds that it doesn't matter, they'll win anyway.

There really should be a fallacy for this.
Like, the assumption that spellcasters easily win any combat depends on their spell selection and is not guaranteed, and therefore can only be compared on an individual basis. Non-casters, though, are defined by lack of option, and can never get the same possibilities.

I tend to assume competant playing, and that includes having spells prepped to target any save (and usually some that target touch attacks instead of saves).  Now, a Wizard could be drained of spells, but that's rare.  Certainly, it holds true currently that Wizards will indeed win unless they've swapped out their combat spells if they're in a situation they can control, such as a battle where they act first.

Fixing the spells will fix the class. Spellcasters are some of the easiest classes to break or unbreak.
Hell, you can make a Wizard even worse than a Fighter with the "right" spell choices!"

Actually, they're the hardest to fix. 

JaronK

[SiggyDevil]

Well on further thought, Wizards and similar spellslot-based classes measure power in the maximum capability of options available even if those options were not chosen.

For others, I see time and time again as more of a wholistic average since some classes like Barbarian pretty much smear variants of the same thing all over; charge, Rage, and 2-handed weapons. Simple. Predictable.

I saw Wizard and similar as easy to restrict (if one cares to do so) because all you must do is knock out the top notch spells.
The range of power as a whole is reduced as a result even if the Wizard didn't pick those spells because now they can't.

Maybe I'm just stating the obvious. I dunno. Thinking some more on the issue.

[Elennsar]

The problem is that wizards also have swarms of options.

A druid (to use my experience, but its not just druids) can make the rest of the party redundant.

Even if they're not "weak" in terms of their power relative to the CR, the druid can kick ass by himself. Same with a wizard or cleric.

That is the problem. Being only a "meatshield" is one thing. Being irrelevant is what wizards and clerics and druids do to the fighting classes.

In other words, its not just top notch, its that wizards can do anything they want to do. -And- do it better. Not just the do it better.

[RobbyPants]

In the Classes thread, JaronK said the following regarding S&B characters:

Well, so I'm saying that Sword and Board still needs help (because yes, I optimized the heck out of them to make them work) but at the same time I'm saying they're doable, and thus if we go to far in making them better then you'll allow something overpowered.

I really think Animate Shields can be left alone as long as the best shield feats/enchantments only work when you're holding the shield.

JaronK

Generally, I agree.  I'd like to see some good feats to help make S&B a viable fighting style.  This guy needs some stuff to make up for the decrease in damage he'll have compared to the THW fighter.  Some of this might come from a hybrid S&B - TWF style utilizing shield bashes.  Still, I'd like to focus on things that the S&B guy could do while holding his shield.

That being said, below is a tactical feat I put on the boards a couple of months ago.  It isn't exactly a S&B-only feat, but you get an advantage using a shield.  It might need some tweaking.

Bodyguard [TACTICAL]
You are trained at protecting someone, even at your own expense.

Prerequisite: Base Attack +6, Alertness
Benifit: You may select a charge, a person whom you protect.  The charge must be willing to accept your services to gain any benifit from this feat.  You may only have one charge at a time.  Selecting a new charge is a free action, but you can only do this once per round.  This feat gives you three manuevers to use to protect your charge. 

• Defensive Block - If your charge is attacked with a melee attack, you may attempt to block it as an free action before the attacker's attack is rolled.  Roll opposed attack rolls with the attacker.  If your attack roll exceeds the attacker's, the attack is blocked and has no effect.  If you use either a light or heavy shield to perform the block, you get a +4 bonus on your opposed attack roll.  If blocking with a weapon, you need to be within your weapon's reach of your charge.  If blocking with a shield, you need to be within the normal reach for your size.  You may make a number of defensive blocks in a round equal to the number of attacks allowed by your base attack bonus, but each opposed attack roll is made at your full base attack.  For example, an 11th level fighter can make three blocks in one round.
  
• Take the hit - You may swap places with your charge as an immediate action.  This allows you to take attacks and other damage for your charge, assuming the space you put your charge in is safe.  You need to be adjacent to your charge to swap places.
  
• Take Cover! - If your charge is willing, you may push him prone and step into his square as an immediate action.  While he is prone and you are in his square, he receives several benifits, in addition to the normal modifiers for being prone.  You grant him cover (+4 AC and +2 on Reflex saves) and you add your shield bonus (if any) as a shield bonus to your charge's AC.  The charge gains Evasion, or Improved Evasion if he already had Evasion.  If you and your charge make a Reflex save to resist the same effect, your charge automatically succeeds if you succeeded.  You need to be adjacent to your charge to use this ability.
  

[Elennsar]

On a glance (as in, without having an idea how it compares to another feat with similar requirements and ease of use), it seems fine.

Problem with S&B...

S&B (historically) is "your attacks fail, sucker."

So animated shields that allow for that grossly erodes what "S&B" guy does. If "S&B guy can bash people with his shield", its becoming a form of TWF.

I am not entirely sure if that's a bad thing per se. Personally, I'd prefer to drop animated shields, as they do  very much make "I use a shield" far less advantageous. After all, if you get +5 to AC and the benefits of THF or TWF, and S&B gets +7 to AC and neither of those benefits, S&B guy is feeling gimped. Even though that extra +2 to AC might be useful.

So...do we need to keep animiated shields? Because if we do need to, then we need to find a way that they're not "you get benefits from being a guy with a shield" the way that S&B has "benefits from being a guy with a shield".

And as stated, offensive shield use just make S&B be TWF with different tools.

[RobbyPants]

I am not entirely sure if that's a bad thing per se. Personally, I'd prefer to drop animated shields, as they do  very much make "I use a shield" far less advantageous. After all, if you get +5 to AC and the benefits of THF or TWF, and S&B gets +7 to AC and neither of those benefits, S&B guy is feeling gimped. Even though that extra +2 to AC might be useful.

That's why I don't want it to count as a shield.  This keeps the S&B guy farther ahead AC wise.

And as stated, offensive shield use just make S&B be TWF with different tools.

Well, typical TWF is about per-attack damage output.  S&B TWF often involves infilicting negative status effects on your opponents.

[Elennsar]

Right, but its still "S&B is competing for offensive value", instead of "you give up some offense in exchange for attack-pwning defense".

Whether that's good or bad, it does make the numbers need to compare differently.

If shields could be used to eat damage (instead of their users), having an animated shield would not eat into the S&B's basic turf as much.

At least, I think so.

[veekie]

Well, by the time the other guys got their animated shield, you'd have an animated shield AND a vanilla shield, that you can bash for effects with. Just need more compelling things to do with a shield, even ToB left them mostly neglected.

[Risada]

Well, by the time the other guys got their animated shield, you'd have an animated shield AND a vanilla shield, that you can bash for effects with. Just need more compelling things to do with a shield, even ToB left them mostly neglected.

Maybe make feats so shield bashes stun(I guess there's one feat makes dazing shield bashes), nauseates, and what not... or a feat to allow a free trip attack at the end of a full attack...

Just throwing some ideas around....

[SiggyDevil]

1. Treat the shield as a Martial weapon. Easy part.
2. Supply those Stun and other effects to weapons in another way, such as "On a natural 20 attack roll you may Stun your opponent for 1 round" or use a per-encounter ability setup like ToB without all the fancy names. Quite plainly, "A successful weapon hit causes stun for 1 round. 1 + 1/2 BAB uses per encounter."
3. TWF a weapon and shield.
4. Shields then have the weapon effects, rather than forcing characters to spend feats just to get a stunning shield bash.

[JaronK]

Right, but its still "S&B is competing for offensive value", instead of "you give up some offense in exchange for attack-pwning defense".

Whether that's good or bad, it does make the numbers need to compare differently.

This is the basic logical flaw that destroyed S&B for the most part.  You NEED S&B to defend other people, not yourself.  Is it realistic?  Not really.  But D&D, a tank needs to be a threat, or else people ignore him and focus on the real threats.  If you give up offense for greater defense, the result is just that people ignore you and attack someone else.

So yeah, shield bashes that mess people up (much like the Shield Charge and Shield Slam feats that currently exist) are one good step in the right direction.  Ability to apply your shield's defense to adjacent allies is another great step.  But it CANNOT be about giving up some offense to gain defense for yourself.

JaronK

[Elennsar]

Nothing wrong with giving up some offensive ability for better defensive ability. Fighting defensively should be a valid option, not a failure to recognize you might as well say "I go off and play Mario." if you don't attack-attack-attack.

Everyone ought to be competent offensively. If you want to be more threatening (but less capable of avoiding being hurt), you take THF (or TWF). If you want to be better at dealing with defense but not more threatening than the baseline, you go S&B.

That should be workable without having to totally rewrite 95% of the system.