A Question About Feats

[cplmac]

With the feats that are available in 3.x and beyond (with 4E coming out), does that give the scenerio of a mage being able to be as effective in physical hand to hand combat as a fighter of the same level and with strength bonuses? I've been thinking that if that is possible, then why would any PC need to actually have a class? It would also seem to let every PC be able to do every thing that any class can do. If that is the case, then there would be no need for separate fighters, thieves, mages, & clerics. Is there something in place to keep a PC from becoming a super character that can do everything? Thanks in advance for your responses.

[Kilrex]

I don't think the mage could match combat prowess of the fighter. Fighter gets better BAB and more attacks earlier. HP keep him alive longer. Plus access to better armor and weapons without having to use feats like a mage would. Sure you could play an alternate class that gets better weapons and armor like the warmage but they have a limited spell list which hampers their usefullness.

Armoring spells like Greater Mage Armor and Shield give you a huge boost to AC without armor check penalties or resticting Dex. But they have duration, can be dispelled, don't work in antimagic fields, and there are feats/abilities which can negate them. One in particular actually lets you pierce magical defenses and dispose of them in one hit. Some spells like barkskin and ironskin provide more effective HP but again can get removed.

As for weapon selection, fighter gets much better weapons. The damage and crits on simple weapons are not that great. Granted as a spellcaster with item creation feats you can probaly get a better magical weapon than the fighter in the group. But the fighter chance of hitting and criting are better. Weapon Focus and Specialization available only to the fighter make a great difference in average damage.

As for getting rid of classes, some systems do this with point buys for abilities and spells. I always liked the distinction between classes. If you try to multiclass, you can turn into a Jack-of-all-trades but you are a master of none. I always like how the mage can fill in different party roles, except healer, by wisely choosing his spells. But he can never match the prowess of the fighter, the finesse of the rogue, or the stanch support provided by the cleric.

[Farcaster]

It would seem that 4e is changing the way multiclassing works pretty drastically. If you haven't already read it, take a look at this article Wizards put out recently:

4th Edition Excerpts: Multiclassing

[cplmac]

It would seem that 4e is changing the way multiclassing works pretty drastically. If you haven't already read it, take a look at this article Wizards put out recently:

4th Edition Excerpts: Multiclassing

Thanks for the link, Farcaster. I read the article. It seems to basically confirm what I was thinking about the problem of having a super Jack of all Trades character in 3E, and put in constraints in 4E to help prevent this from happening.

[cplmac]

A second question/ thought has just popped into my mind, are feats actually just an elaboration of proficiency slot items in 2E?

[tesral]

A second question/ thought has just popped into my mind, are feats actually just an elaboration of proficiency slot items in 2E?

Something different. Proficencies became skills. Feats are something more except when they are something less.

[cplmac]

Something different. Proficencies became skills. Feats are something more except when they are something less.

OK. I wasn't sure if they were the same or not.

When you say "except when they are something less," does that mean that a feat can have a negative effect?

[tesral]

OK. I wasn't sure if they were the same or not.

When you say "except when they are something less," does that mean that a feat can have a negative effect?

I am not a fan of feats. They are poorly balanced at best.

[cplmac]

I am not a fan of feats. They are poorly balanced at best.

I am of the same mind set about feats. However, I guess if I get into a group that goes with 4E, I'll have to learn to use them.

[Kilrex]

I am not a fan of feats. They are poorly balanced at best.

That is why I like how Pathfinder is handling them. They broke most combat related feats into their own combat feat category and only allow a character to use 1 combat feat a round.

[tesral]

That is why I like how Pathfinder is handling them. They broke most combat related feats into their own combat feat category and only allow a character to use 1 combat feat a round.

I'll have to see how that is working. I can see where it is not only logical but reasonable that several feats would be used a round, again depending on the feats. Many feats are not "something you use" they are simply something you are good at if you will.

I still don't like them, but I don't want to see a broken method of controling feats on top of the broken feats.

[cplmac]

I will anxiously await tesral's assessment of the Pathfinder way of handling feats.

[tesral]

I will anxiously await tesral's assessment of the Pathfinder way of handling feats.

Don't hold your breath. I'll get around to it, someday.

[Kilrex]

Don't hold your breath. I'll get around to it, someday.

Yeah, he's too busy on the forums to read anything else!

[tesral]

Yeah, he's too busy on the forums to read anything else!

I wish. I'm in the middle of painting my computer room. I have one wall finsihed and now I can start moving things back in there and moving other things out to get to the NEXT wall.