Feat progression and rebalancing

[Ryltar/ Robert Archer]

So I just had a thought here today regarding the extra feats one gets vs class abilities and all.

Ok so I agree fighters gain the most all their class gets standard is wep spec nothing fancy there as well as all armor/shield types so they should gain the most feats to help with boosting them in other ways or to match the 'everyday warrior/hero/villain man' idea.

But I have to ask after some recent test building just WHY wizards come in next with the most feats gained? 20 in all! (21 if human) assuming straight class build why? They get spells that are FAR superior to anything other classes get barring clerics perhaps. As we know almost any caster is a far better overall choice on this server then a pure non-caster sort, sure in party they work wonders but try telling a level 20 pure fighter to go whallop certain places without spells or items etc, they'll die vs ive seen casters solo places at half that level

In my opinion progression of gaining feats might want to be looked at. I know it'd mean rebuilds for all and a hak update but I think its worth considering in the longer term for gameplay balance. To me fighters should still get the feats they got now, followed by this rangers and barbarians should get the same feat table. Rogues should come into play how wizards are now with a feat every level. With paladins/clerics/bards/wizards/sorcerers gaining feats like 'every other class' is listed. This to me seems far more fair in balance and yet still lets folks build assorted concepts

I think this is worth a discussion at the least, thoughts?

[julienchab]

Rogues should come into play how wizards are now with a feat every level.

Rogues are already the class that are present in the most builds in the server, because of the number of skill points, skills available, sneak attacks, and also evasion. I really don't think that they need more feats to be more effective, as they are already one of the most versatile and effective class on the server right now.

As for wizards, they come a little short of sorcerors, when you know the server pretty well. The number of useful spells that you need and use isn't that high, so sorcerors dont have to make that many hard choices when leveling up. Since sorcs have less spells, they will usualy focus on one or two schools of magic, getting the focuses for those schools, which will give them higher DCs for these schools.
Wizards, on the other hand, are suppose to be more versatile and be able to use many different spells to more effectiveness than sorcerors. Having more feats means they can specialize in more schools of magic, making more of their spells effective since they will have higher DCs.

As we know almost any caster is a far better overall choice on this server then a pure non-caster sort, sure in party they work wonders but try telling a level 20 pure fighter to go whallop certain places without spells or items etc, they'll die vs ive seen casters solo places at half that level

Have you actually tried to solo anything with a caster level 10? You might be able to solo dungeons that are made for levels half of yours, but it is extremely difficult, and usualy not very good XP wise. I think your comparaison is pretty weak here as places in this server weren't made to be soloed.

[Syl]

The only casters often soloing which again as pointed out this server was not built for you to solo. but most are sorcs, specially once you can get enough spells of the ones you like.

And as pointed out Wizards get more feats to specialized in more schools. I believe my level 8 wizard is like starting to specialize in 3 and already specialized in 2 with another to go. ( numbers might be wrong haven't logged them in, in a while.)

I honestly think the feat gain is just fine. if any of my rogues gained more feats they would be insane. Rangers also get a insane amount of feats. specially since you do not have to take a Favored enemy and can use that feat for something else.

[TheFury]

 One thing Robert didn't mention about wizards is the skill point issue. Their casting stat affects skill point numbers, while all other casters (sorcerers and bards especially) use a stat that's almost for RPing purposes only--no feats that I know of have a charisma requirement (save the perennial divine might and shield, which sorcerers and bards cannot get) and there are few wisdom requisite abilities, though it does admittedly raise will saves. Intelligence tends to be better (disarm, expertise, etc) and the skill points are killer.

[Syl]

warding gesture is Cha feat. or is it a wisdom feat... I believe it's a charisma feat.

and wizards don't really have a skill point issue. They are smart cookies and can learn a bit of different things. because they are smart enough to learn the skills.

[Mayvind]

 (Have you actually tried to solo anything with a caster level 10? )
Let me answer that yes it is easy to solo wizard class from level 2 to level 20 and at level 10 is easy to level 13.  As for the feats well is nice perks frankly instead of nerf wizard. We should make fighter class great again with special feats for fighter. Barbarian got nice perks with damage immunity and super nice Rage. Fighter has nothing special. Except weapon specialist

[Syl]

(Have you actually tried to solo anything with a caster level 10? )
Let me answer that yes it is easy to solo wizard class from level 2 to level 20 and at level 10 is easy to level 13.  As for the feats well is nice perks frankly instead of nerf wizard. We should make fighter class great again with special feats for fighter. Barbarian got nice perks with damage immunity and super nice Rage. Fighter has nothing special. Except weapon specialist

What like a pure fighter level 16 gets the feat Epic weapon specialist?

Edit: suppose would need to get epic weapon focus as well since that is the pre requirement for Epic weapon spec

[Mayvind]

I was thinking more devastating critical but that will do as well

[Bad_Bud]

Haha, don't worry, I was wondering about this, too.

The majority of our classes gain bonus feats as follows:

Standard Bonus Feat Table

Code: [Select]


Level:    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20

Feats:    0   1   0   0   1   0   0   1   0   0   1   0   0   1   0   0   1   0   0   1


Ranger Bonus Feat Table

Code: [Select]


Level:    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20

Feats:    1   1   0   0   2   0   0   1   0   1   1   0   0   1   1   0   1   0   0   2


This means that rangers retain the original bonus feats the class received at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20. If you look, the ranger has an extra feat compared to the standard bonus feat table, for levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.

Rogues are supposed to get bonus feats at levels 10, 13, 16, and 19, but don't. They still follow the standard bonus feat table.

Are we giving rogues the shaft? Should we fix this?

As a side note, Wizards in NWN receive 4 bonus feats normally. On our server they receive 6 more than the standard bonus feat table, which I'm not convinced they need at all. I realize it's to make the feat progression 1 feat per level for a pure wizard.

[BahamutZ3RO]

I think wizards really rely on those extra feats for Greater Spell Focuses, which are pretty necessary considering how insane a lot of saves on PotM are.

[Ryltar/ Robert Archer]

I think wizards really rely on those extra feats for Greater Spell Focuses, which are pretty necessary considering how insane a lot of saves on PotM are.

But why should wizards be the only ones who can DO that? veristatle or not with spells most people i talk to focus in only one or two schools with focus and greater focus then the rest is taking skill focus and other such things to boost their cross class or class skills. rogues got alot of skills sure but they ALSO as a result got hte most freedom to build a variety of rp types those feats could help mold out a better style

furthermore you say wizards depend on such feats a MECHANICAL factor for roll playing this is a roleplaying server true a harder one then usual but RP should trump mechanical buffing always. Perhaps a better solution could be to adjust things like i perhaps said but then for wizards limit when certain focus/greater focus feats show up so by level 20. I just think any of these extra feats should be limited to more rounding for roleplaying

[Pav]

furthermore you say wizards depend on such feats a MECHANICAL factor for roll playing this is a roleplaying server true a harder one then usual but RP should trump mechanical buffing always.

Let's nerf all the classes to a roleplay viable standpoint, then. Let's just lower the cap to 10. No more hankey pankey high levels Stronger-than-Strahd-but-not-really going around. Maybe we could remove all the gear, too.  /s

Good grief. Mechanics are part of the fun of this server.

Wizards are fine as they are. Without those extra feats they'll forever and ever be inferior to Sorcerers, not to mention - it DOES make sense on a roleplay standpoint, as wizards spend ALL OF THEIR TIME in study, of magic and other things. Perhaps the extra feats could be adjusted, instead, to only include magic-related feats. I could get behind that.

[Ryltar/ Robert Archer]

furthermore you say wizards depend on such feats a MECHANICAL factor for roll playing this is a roleplaying server true a harder one then usual but RP should trump mechanical buffing always.

. Perhaps the extra feats could be adjusted, instead, to only include magic-related feats. I could get behind that.

This could also be a change i could get behind, this is why i brought it up i still think non-casters like rogues and rangers need a little more feat love (rangers skill points too but yeah) but it mainly was to discuss ideas overall

[Syl]

I was thinking more devastating critical but that will do as well

I might say more so Overwhelming crit over dev.. Nothing against it I love Dev crit had ot convince a DM on another server that it wasn't OP and i was playing a all STR build character at that time.

[McNastea]

Wizards may gain more skill points because their primary ability modifier affects their total skill points, however skill point aren't retroactive so they only gain those new skill points as they level, and the number of class skills they have is very very small. To be perfectly honest I don't think the number of feats they get is inappropriate, they have far less casts per day than a sorcerer and having the ability to take more feats for spell focuses and the like just plays in to the fact that they are a more knowledgeable caster.

As for rogues having the same feat progression, I would have to say no.. As much as it would benefit me, which it would tremendously  , just no. They do not need that at all.

[APorg]

Rogues and associated PRCs already dominate PVP and are amazing against anything vulnerable to sneak attack.

Admittedly they're more dependent on good gear and there's a lot of stuff that's immune to sneak attack.

But if everything were vulnerable to SA then there's pretty much nothing rogues couldn't do.

The idea that they need a boost to Feats begs the question: why? What weaknesses are you trying to address? Bear in  mind all classes should have weaknesses.

Just what do you expect Wizards to do with all their points, anyway? My wizard spent a LOT of her Feats on Skill foci towards Stealth1, and trust me, even with her best stealth gear she's barely a decent stealther. For me this was an OK RP choice but it's still weak.

[Arcibel]

To me fighters should still get the feats they got now, followed by this rangers and barbarians should get the same feat table. Rogues should come into play how wizards are now with a feat every level.

In my opinion i think that the fighters, barbarians, rangers should  count as the same class in the engine with the same feat table, i'm not talking that they should be one class (it's different), i'm talking in the concept of od&d when in the old times the fighters, rangers and babarians were one class(as the pure-class romantics does). The rouge should have the same table of the fighter, but should count as a different class. The bard should have a d8 as a hit dice but with the same feat table of the caster classes. Every level of pale master should count as a caster class.

Edit: And the range weapons should be reconsidered, from how you hold it to his damage.(i do archery i know what im talking about)

[peps]

To me fighters should still get the feats they got now, followed by this rangers and barbarians should get the same feat table. Rogues should come into play how wizards are now with a feat every level.

In my opinion i think that the fighters, barbarians, rangers should  count as the same class in the engine with the same feat table, i'm not talking that they should be one class (it's different), i'm talking in the concept of od&d when in the old times the fighters, rangers and babarians were one class(as the pure-class romantics does). The rouge should have the same table of the fighter, but should count as a different class. The bard should have a d8 as a hit dice but with the same feat table of the caster classes. Every level of pale master should count as a caster class.

I don't want to take this post seriously, because it feels like you're kidding. On the off-chance you aren't, there would be 0 reason for anyone to go anything but bard or cleric when it comes down to melee.

Also, if we simply just gave barbarians the same feat table as fighters, fighters would become obsolete. The only bonus is fighters get weapon specialization as a feat. Barbarians will easily outclass fighters before level 10.

[Arcibel]

To me fighters should still get the feats they got now, followed by this rangers and barbarians should get the same feat table. Rogues should come into play how wizards are now with a feat every level.

In my opinion i think that the fighters, barbarians, rangers should  count as the same class in the engine with the same feat table, i'm not talking that they should be one class (it's different), i'm talking in the concept of od&d when in the old times the fighters, rangers and babarians were one class(as the pure-class romantics does). The rouge should have the same table of the fighter, but should count as a different class. The bard should have a d8 as a hit dice but with the same feat table of the caster classes. Every level of pale master should count as a caster class.

I don't want to take this post seriously, because it feels like you're kidding. On the off-chance you aren't, there would be 0 reason for anyone to go anything but bard or cleric when it comes down to melee.

Also, if we simply just gave barbarians the same feat table as fighters, fighters would become obsolete. The only bonus is fighters get weapon specialization as a feat. Barbarians will easily outclass fighters before level 10.

No one is kidding, If that sounds excesive,  the fighters, rangers and barbarian could count as one class but with a diferent feat table.

[Bad_Bud]

I think wizards really rely on those extra feats for Greater Spell Focuses, which are pretty necessary considering how insane a lot of saves on PotM are.

But why should wizards be the only ones who can DO that?

I agree here. Wizards do get bonus feats, but the strange thing is that they get a proportionally inflated number compared to other classes, and I personally see no reason for it. They get two more feats than they should. At worst you only get to greater focus three schools instead of four. Considering that's a ridiculous situation already, I wouldn't feel sorry for anyone if the number of bonus feats ever got corrected.

[booksarefun666]

I think wizards really rely on those extra feats for Greater Spell Focuses, which are pretty necessary considering how insane a lot of saves on PotM are.

But why should wizards be the only ones who can DO that?

I agree here. Wizards do get bonus feats, but the strange thing is that they get a proportionally inflated number compared to other classes, and I personally see no reason for it. They get two more feats than they should. At worst you only get to greater focus three schools instead of four. Considering that's a ridiculous situation already, I wouldn't feel sorry for anyone if the number of bonus feats ever got corrected.

Wizards, take control! Take control of your feats! This... this is the cat picture of your oppression!

+4 DC in three different schools is pretty crazy though.

 

[Bad_Bud]

Considering I've had other casters still manage to end with three greater spell focus feats, and wizards get an additional 6 feats, I imagine with a little work you could focus almost every school.

[Indigocell]

Edit: I agree that Fighters could use some more specialized feats.

However, does the Wizard feat progression really need to be "rebalanced" at this point? It's worth considering how a change like this affects the server in terms of cost versus benefit. Are a lot of people upset about Wizards feat progression? I'd be wary of making any sweeping changes for a class based on a random whim. I play a caster (wizard specifically) so make of that what you will. It is hard not to argue out of self-interest more than anything else.

[Arcibel]

i think that talk about rebalance a caster class is a contradiction, have you tested a mage?, but anyways i think that they could have 1 point more in the skill  progression, this means 23 points more at level 20 ( 2 epic skill focus and 1 skills focus)

[APorg]

I infer from my own assumptions about game balance that the reason Wizards are given more Feats is because the real strength of Wizards in DnD is having a wide selection of spells, which in NWN was rather narrow. Thus Sorcerors were generally considered stronger than Wizards; hence extra Feats.

While there are more spells now on PotM, the selection is still overall limited compared to tabletop; heck, I think based on the SRD alone, PotM still doesn't quite have half the spells on it (or perhaps just above half, I've not sat down and listed them) -- largely due of course to engine limitations.

And it's the Sorceror - Wizard axis that bares the most comparison since they are more closely equivalent classes. I've played my Wizard in parallel with equal level Sorcerors, and frankly it's never seemed to me like the Sorcerors were underperforming. Some extra Feats and Skillpoints (which, incidentally, are mostly spent on Cross-Class Skills, thus not particularly efficiently) don't really make up the difference of extra spell slots -- especially when you consider that you have to account for Generalist Wizards, who don't specialise in a Spell School and therefore have even less slots.

Put it this way: a level 20 Sorceror can cast 6 level 8 & 9 spells, a Generalist Wizard 4 of both, a School Wizard 5 of both. Feats are merely icing on the cake of difference.