I have long been of the opinion that adding Feats to D&D was a good thing, even a necessary thing. However, starting some few years back I came to the realization that the designers did not think through the process very well. Specifically they failed to identify what, exactly, feats were meant to represent, what they did.
Not having that codified purpose, there was nothing to communicate to the third party developers, and you see further muddying of the waters from otherwise excellent game designers. I have spoken on this before, but never with the intent of redoing feats for my own use. However with the coming of 4e and the various 3e grognards setting their heels for a long siege... lets just say it is time. Who knows, perhaps some WOTC designer might read this and go: Yes, we SHOULD have thought of that... there is still time to set it right!
Or not.
So, What is a feat: In D20 as it stands a feat is just about anything. Often they are rules exceptions or keys to certain rule use. Sometimes they are skill boosters, sometimes they are nigh unto supernatural powers. In some iterations they are memberships or innate abilities. In short they are a grab bag of goodies used to flavor your character. I'm all for goodies, but the grab bag has led to problems.
First of all: Feats should EITHER represent learned abilities or innate abilities, not both. That's just damn confusing. Given the current process of 'learning' feats from classes and as one grows with expirence, the use of Feats as innate abilities (including: Snake blooded, Merchant Family, Dragonmarks and others...) leads to... issues. Lets just say that it destroys the in-game logic of Feats in favor of metagaming balance.
Second: Feats should not provide exceptions to rules. This is just bad game design and makes 'rules mastery' a joke. Memorizing each of a thousand Feats, in addition to the rule chapters is not the way to learn a game. But this is cloudy territory, a fuzzy line, if you will. Let us take two feats, one good and one bad: Mobility provides the character a bonus to AC when provoking attacks of opportunity from movement. This is good, its not an exception, its a boost. Improved Disarm however, removes the attack of opportunity that disarm provokes. This is bad: It provides a direct contravention of the existing rules, an exception. There is middle ground, of course. Monkey Grip (a marginal Feat in more ways than one...) provides an exception by way of boosting. A more clear demarkation between exceptions and boosting, and rewriting margin cases to more clearly folllow the guidelines, is a worthwhile endeavor.
Third: Feats should never be necessary to perform basic abilities that anyone can do. THis is explicitely obvious when dealing with various gun involved incarnations of hte game (d20 Modern, Spycraft, others) where a minimum of three to four feats can be necessary to hose down an area with autofire... something that any schlub with a gun should be able to do. Ditto: unarmed combat, though to a lesser degree. It can be argued that any schlub CAN spray and prey, or punch a fool, but often the penalities for 'unfeated use' are so egregious as to make unfeated use nigh unto impossible. D20 Future added to this with mandatory feats to use space ships... on top of the pilot skill. My line of demarkation: Can unnamed NPC's do it? If so, it doesn't require a feat. Countless hordes of unnamed, unclassed NPC's pilot starships on everyday duties, they fire assault rifles into fleeing refugees or hostages in banks, they punch fools in the mouth for backtalk. They don't need feats to do so, and these things are hardly 'signature ability' worthy tricks. They ain't feat material...
Feats should never be necessary for a sub-optimal choice: Okay, so I can't really describe this as clearly as I'd like, so I'll leave you with the example of the worst offender: Exotic weapon proficencies: While few, if any, exotic weapons are fantastically overpowered compared to the ordinary weapons, simply by virtue of needing an exclusive feat to use one they become sub-optimal choices. Instead of Joe playing his off the wall cool fighter who uses Nun-chucks, we get Joe Mark VII who continues to use a longsword because the feat requirement to be a nunchucker fighters is too painful for the benefit (sub-optimal weapon, reinforced by the wasted feat). Ditto with speed fighters requiring 'Weapon Finesse' feats. A player's concept should not be penalized further. We could go so far as to suggest that any weapon that qualifies for 'weapon finesse' automatically uses Dex to hit with... strength still provides bonus damage.
Feat Chains=Bad: I'll admit that my reasoning here is less solid than earlier, but: A feat should represent something special, some trick or ability that the character has mastered that sets them appart from the common rabble. Metamagic feats are ideal examples of this thought: any wizard can cast a fireball, Joe Wizard can cast his in the blink of an eye, or use it to take out small villages. Some feat chains are fine as written: Dodge, mobility, spring attack comes to mind here. Every step in the chain is a unique ability and usefull at multiple levels of play. However, they do not require a chain. The Armor chain fails on multiple counts:Few fighters are ever going to bother with light armor, and any schlub can wear light armor anyway. The Two Weapon Chain and the Unarmed Combat Chains are failures of chaining, however: Joe the two weapon fighter must continue to take feats in two weapon fighting throughout his career to stay current. He is paying over and over again for the same trick. If he ever stops buying in, then two weapon fighting becomes less and less optimal for him as he levels out of the initial payout, the feats become wasted.
Sliding scale feats are unplayable: At the risk of sounding condecending, the sliding scale feats (power attack, combat expertise) are difficult for players to use properly, and they slow down the game significantly when they are used to their full potential (Ie, scaling PA so that the player's damage is optimized vs that AC). Any feat should be at most binary on/off... Redone PA should be a fixed amount when used: half the attack bonus as damage, say which also scales it to level more exactly.
Feats should never be used to fill things done in character: Society feats, Favored in House... these are things that characters should be able to earn IN GAME, as characters and through roleplaying. Forcing them to take a feat in addition is bollocks, and allowing them to bypass it by feat selection is also bollocks. This, ironically, also falls under the 'Nameless NPC' rule. Nameless NPCs belong to these organizations, are favored in their houses. Nameless NPCs should not, IMNSHO, have feats.
This takes us to our core concept: Feats should be used primarily as 'boosters', either providing a specific bonus or a unique 'signature' ability. Most of the skill feats are prefect representations of this, the character is simply better than everyone else at that one thing... at least at a given level. The intial Feat of two weapon fighting (reducing penalties) is fine. Ranged combat feats need the most overhaul, though several are fine as written, though many should be disconnected from the existing chains.
It could be argued that by stripping away the vast hordes of feats that characters will soon start to suffer 'sameitus' as they all take the same feats from the shallow pool available to them. Not so: First of all, in the end we don't reduce the pool of available feats nearly as much as it sounds, second, recall that other than the fighter, the average character only gets some seven feats throughout their career. Even if we reduce the starting pool of some 200+ feats from the PHB by half that's still less than 10% of the feats available.
I hope to attach a document or a link to a scrubbed listing of how I would handle the current feat list, with an addendum for Modern's gun feats.
Also: I apologize if this is somewhat disorganized. I am attempting to dump a couple of years of internal monologue into one post without adequet planning, as this was an ad hoc posting...
It's beautiful, Spike. You've managed to capture many of the things that cause me indigestion with respect to Feats - hence the desire to create a "Featless d20"
But you've given me food for thought - you have quantified the way in which feats bother me, so I can see instances where something like feats could exist, but in a better form.
What if we went crazy, and linked "feats" to certain levels of skill? Hmm...I won't derail. I'll just say thanks for the ideas...
well said, spike. one of the big things that has bugged me about 3.x.
By all means, James, expand on that idea. My sole intent personally was to strip out the bloat, the excess and the non-sensical. It might be valuable to make a player work to keep 'current' with certain 'powerful' feats like two weapon fighting by maintaining some sort of linked progression. Its not too terrible just to strip out the 'improved' and 'advanced' feats, you still have two weapon defence and a few others to make for a difference between the part time two weapon guy and the full time guy.
I do need to sit down this week and compile the streamlined list, possibly including lists for other books (the Eberron setting has a massive host of dragonmark related feats that obviously need to be touched on, fer ex...)
(long response deleted as I am a long-winded narcissist)
...your comment about Role Playing feats also leads to wonder about how you feel of such skills as intimidate, diplomancy, whatever the skill for LIE is, etc.
I find two main disadvantages to this in play:
First, the end result is that roleplaying is turned into rollplaying. "I use my diplomacy skill to persuade the king to attack our foes with his army" A die is rolled.
Rather than have an excellent bought of in-character roleplaying, we now have a die role.
Secondly, roleplayers are penalized for their excellent roleplaying and let at the mercy of the dice...
Wizard Player: "The evil wizard used tgree main spells in that battle. I saw him cast two of them (and I know those spells) , but he didn't cast the third, it followed right after that amulet glowed. Therefore, the lightning bolts he fired must be cast by that amulet, which we know is magical, but we don;t know what it does!"
DM: "ROll your spellcraft.....sorry, you rolled a 1, your character didn't think of that."
Now I agree with everything that you said about feats in general, and most points in specific, but I am also wondering if you see the same problem in the useage of skills; most especially where roleplaying is countermanded by rolling the dice?
Quote from: SpikeBy all means, James, expand on that idea. My sole intent personally was to strip out the bloat, the excess and the non-sensical. It might be valuable to make a player work to keep 'current' with certain 'powerful' feats like two weapon fighting by maintaining some sort of linked progression. Its not too terrible just to strip out the 'improved' and 'advanced' feats, you still have two weapon defence and a few others to make for a difference between the part time two weapon guy and the full time guy.
I do need to sit down this week and compile the streamlined list, possibly including lists for other books (the Eberron setting has a massive host of dragonmark related feats that obviously need to be touched on, fer ex...)
Hey - I'll trade you for that list. Ya know, something like a compilation of your original Races essays ;)
Seriously - if you do compile a list, I'd love to see it.
Gladen:
To be succinct, taking a feat of 'beloved by the king', if there is one in some book somewhere, is about as interesting as simply rolling the dice for, say, Gather Info and going 'So, everyone in the bar tells me the goon is in the alley'... which from the tone of your abbreviated post you suggest you dislike.
I'm all for social skills. Not every player is willing to go into deep roleplaying scenes, and even those that do might still like a little dice adjucation now and then (the dice are impersonal and you can't cry they are unfair if things don't go your way, you see). Never mind the fast talkign PLAYER should not have an advantage over the player whose actual character concept is 'fast talking smooth con man bard dude'.
But: the process of joining a group, a society, should never fall upon a single dice roll or 'feat selection'. First of all, as a GM I would LOVE for a player to say 'Hey, I think my dude should totally join the Grey Wizards of Khador!'. Talk about adventure hooks and the grist of many sessions of subplotting: And you can beleive that after WORKING for that membership he'll do a hell of a lot with it more than if he just said 'Hrm.. I get a feat next level... I guess I can join the 'Grey Wizards'. The bonus to ice spells is alright."
Yeah: Talk to an NPC, roll some social dice, pick up a few adventures and THEN you are a member. Not: So, I took this feat, I'm totally a member.
Ditto 'Favored in House' (totally Canon Eberron Feat). You want your House to love you and give you stuff? Fine, do shit for them, earn that love and trust by ADVENTURING for them, sweet talking the daughter of the head of the house, whatever.
EDIT::: No GM I've ever played with has decided the player didn't think of something just because he rolled a one on a check. In your example: Yeah, you saw it, but you think it might be X (when its really Y) or something to that effect. Most of the people I am willing to game with will accept that the GM flat out lied to their face and run with it. Previous exceptions to that rule at least knew they didn't know. That's what the one mean. Not that the player didn't see what he thought he saw.
Spike, your whole post is seriously fucking good! Well thought out. I want to address a few things, though. I'm working on my homebrew D20 fantasy game and considering some stuff. Hope it won't be considered heresy.
Quote from: SpikeFirst of all: Feats should EITHER represent learned abilities or innate abilities, not both. That's just damn confusing. Given the current process of 'learning' feats from classes and as one grows with expirence, the use of Feats as innate abilities (including: Snake blooded, Merchant Family, Dragonmarks and others...) leads to... issues. Lets just say that it destroys the in-game logic of Feats in favor of metagaming balance.
Good stuff here. There needs to be a clear purpose with feats. However, I'm still undecided as to whether there needs to be
something else not called feats. I'm undecided. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Quote from: SpikeSecond: Feats should not provide exceptions to rules. This is just bad game design and makes 'rules mastery' a joke. Memorizing each of a thousand Feats, in addition to the rule chapters is not the way to learn a game.
See, this was the part that spoke the most to me. There needs to be a real stand taken here, I agree with you... except I'm going the other way.
I think all feats *should* be clever, elegant exceptions to the rules. And not simply crappy stacking bonus. That's what I will be shooting for in my design. They're going to take the system in completely different direction from standard stuff.
And the current mundane feats will be just special moves that anyone can try without the need for feats.
I disagree with you that it is in any way "bad design". But I totally see where you are coming from when you say it is rather important to not mix "rules of exceptions" with standard rules.
I want feats to make the game a totally different experience. I don't want too many of them, though.
Quote from: SpikeFeat Chains=Bad
That's another interesting thing you pointed out. I'm not sure I agree. If feats aren't going to be wild systemic exceptions, then I think feat chains are good. But they sucked in 3e. I think they needed to be reworked.
I think WotC will explore the concept eventually. They are bound to. It's what made them a rich company (M:tG addictive combos and deck building). More thought simply needed to be put in it.
I would compare 3rd edition D&D and its feats to early M:tG. Promising but flawed. I think there's room to fine tune and I don't think this particular edition and its suck chaining feats make the whole concept flawed.
But anyway, it's still a great analysis, very articulated. And even the stuff I disagreed with actually made me think about the design decisions I am taking with D20!
Fair enough, Spike: and well said, I might add.
So your main point with role playing feats is that unlike roleplaying skills, which (in so many words) put all players on an even keel, the Role Playing Feats are so much deus ex machina that detract from the experience of playing the game by means of forcing what should be played out into background story.
Yeah, pretty much spot on. I don't mind advantage systems when they represent innate traits.
Therein lies the problem for D&D. If you can't add special feat-like abilities that aren't unique snowflake later in the character development, a certain segment of the gaming population will be upset. Not me, mind you, but some.
They want to be able to come upon a temple of the Snake god and be so enthralled by the Brotherhood of the Scale that they can join and gain all of it's benefits, including access to the new Lightning Strike, Venom Strike feat chain. Have to sell those d20 books, ya know?
In LG, they did this outside of feats and through affiliations (an option from PHBII I believe, though I'd have to go look). You had to gain affiliation points over time (or for a cost) to join an organization that then provided certain benefits. As far as I know, they did not include innate abilities - but don't quote me on that, I'm not an LG expert.
CD: I don't think you have to have 'exceptions' to make Feats more interesting than just a bonus, though obviously, exceptions can be easier to think up than non-exceptions that have the feel you are looking for. A less absolute ruling on exceptions in my mind would be that the Feat exception could not alter someone elses 'rules'. For example: A feat taken by Joe should not prevent Frank from getting his attack of opportunity off. Then again: recall that I felt Monkey Grip was less of an 'Exception' and more of a 'non-numeric booster', so there is precedent for a middle ground.
On the innate traits: I borrowed my roommate's Neverwinter Nights 2, during character creation everyone gets a 'background feat', sort of an innate ability as an extra. In D20 Modern everyone gets to pick a background and there is already a precedent in 'everyone gets one starter feat'. In my upcoming Eberron game I plan to allow everyone a free 'Dragonmark' feat (and in fact the Eyes of the Lich Queen adventure gives a free Dragonmark as well...) if they chose. I don't think a seperate system is needed so much as a clear guidance: Everyone picks one background/innate feat or no one does. Don't muddle it with feats as learned abilities. The infrastructure is there in many setting books with 'backgrounds' with certain recommended feats, just adapt that to provide an innate feat instead.
Gladen: It seems we are on the same page then. :)
James: Not sure what you are saying. Joining the temple of the Snake Cult is an adventure, and the feats you mention would be normal feats: Learned tricks not available to the ordinary thug. I can see it now: the grizzled adventurer returns from the Jungles and has to deal with some bandits
"Now let me show you what I learned from the Monks of the Snake God.... Twin Viper Fang STRIKE!"
:what:
LG?
Quote from: SpikeJames: Not sure what you are saying. Joining the temple of the Snake Cult is an adventure, and the feats you mention would be normal feats: Learned tricks not available to the ordinary thug. I can see it now: the grizzled adventurer returns from the Jungles and has to deal with some bandits
"Now let me show you what I learned from the Monks of the Snake God.... Twin Viper Fang STRIKE!"
:what:
LG?
Spike,
My fault for not including the assumed caveat that the entire feat chain is based on an innate attribute, not a learned skill.
LG = Living Greyhawk, the RPGA campaign. The region in which I live, Verbobonc (IL and IN), is/was fairly progressive - coming up with rules for a Town project for characters to buy homes, build businesses, etc (essentially become a part of a community in the region). One of things they did was offer this affiliation point system (actually a revamp of an earlier attempt) that used WotC published optional rules (IIRC).
The idea being that if you were going to get that feat, you were going to have a meaningful (read: cost resources) relationship. A way to avoid everyone running around with every feat from every organization just because. Instead, you had to kind of pick and choose what was important to the character in question. Kinda off topic, accept that it was a way to control this kind of "setting feat" access...
James: Yeah, I figured out the LG right after I hit send.... I'm a little slow :p
The thing is: Membership feats shouldn't exist. The Affiliation points thing (I think I've seen that in Star Wars, actually...) is perfectly fine. If a feat doesn't exist, it can't be a prerequisite! Huzzah!
Actually: Iron Kingdoms does that. In order to learn to make 'gunpowder' you have to be a member in the golden order. Two feats in order to use your alchemy skill to make the one alchemical item that is canon in the setting. Personally: joining the Golden Order is adventure/roleplaying stuff, as is learning the secret formula for gunpowder (obvoiously easier if you are member of the golden order). Now: IK did offset the fact you were buying membership by providing other bonuses (Grey wizards got bonuses to ice spells, fer ex), but the core reason for the feat was to 'be a member'... total fail in my book.
I like social situations as feats in at least one circumstance: the "you may only take this feat at first level" kind. Want to be beloved by your house from childhood, which will translate into kewl benefits during the game? That's fine, as long as you're spending chargen resources on it.
I agree that there is a use/place for character history and resource expenditure for same. I disagree that they should be mixed up with things 'learned'.
Quote from: SpikeI agree that there is a use/place for character history and resource expenditure for same. I disagree that they should be mixed up with things 'learned'.
Agreed - so the question becomes, for me spike, how do you encourage the kinds of daring creative things, like "I'm going to ride by and shoot two arrows while standing in the saddle" without Improved Riding or Many Shot?
Like I said in the D20 Haven thread (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30), I started out thinking of making them class features. But your posts have made me rethink it along the lines of additions to
skills. So if I have 10 levels of Archery, I can do Many Shot, or Rapid Shot - so tie the feats to the skills with which they are associated.
Cool. I personally don't care what each feat represents: learned, acquired, it's all the same to me. They're a game resource, not a sacred cow. Overthinking them seems pointless.
If you end up with 50 things called I-Learned-Ems and 50 things called I-Acquired-Ems, there would be ~0 difference if those 100 things were all called Feats.
Assuming that we don't eliminate iterative attacks (one of the first things to go in a simplified D20 game in my expirence), then an archer should be able to fire iterative arrows without recourse to feats. Manyshot is then superfluous on the face of it (unless we start adding 'many-swings' feats...).
Naturally the interaction between movement and iterative attacks should be discussed, but perhaps outside of feats. I will say this: At levels 1-5 fighters tend to be highly mobile, moving as needed around the battle field and generally enjoying the 30' of movement everyone gets. Once they start having to sacrifice attacks, however, fighter types get much more stodgy, preferring to get stuck in and stay there. If the GM keeps big bad evil guys highly mobile, the fighters become secondary to rogues as damage dealers (rogues have much less call to use their iterative attacks, their primary damage comes from sneak attacks, and they have fewer attacks to lose, making mobility based feats far more attractive/common among rogues than fighters... despite fighters having more feats to play with. High BaB melee-ists are the only 'class' penalized at higher levels for moving....).
My gut instinct is that shooting from horseback should be doable by anyone (hordes of mongolians can't be wrong...), but penalized. Useful feats would normally reduce the penalty or provide some minor buff. Improved riding, for example, could allow the character to ride without hands without a penalty for steering, or just at all. Anyone could ride without hands, but might face a stiff (-10?) penalty for any ride checks.
Adding in archery skills may seem like a good idea, but this adds a layer of complexity, something to track for too little added benefit. I think back to Jrients Wraethlu review for this one (in particular the combat skills portion...).
Quote from: James McMurrayCool. I personally don't care what each feat represents: learned, acquired, it's all the same to me. They're a game resource, not a sacred cow. Overthinking them seems pointless.
If you end up with 50 things called I-Learned-Ems and 50 things called I-Acquired-Ems, there would be ~0 difference if those 100 things were all called Feats.
Trust me: I'm not looking at them as sacred cows. Look at my Sig, man! :p
To be clear, while I am concerned with muddy waters (isn't that a band?), I'm also looking at a tendency to ignore things that tie the characters to the setting unless it has munchkin/min-max potential. If 'Snakeblooded' is utterly ignored by 99% of gamers because it's sub-optimal then it needs to be rethought. People shouldn't be thinking of snakeblooded in comparison to, say improved initiative, first of all. I'd rather it be weighed against likes, such as Merchant background or what have you.
As I said earlier the NWN2 character I made was illustrative of where my own thoughts were going: you took a background as part of character creation. It fell along the feats, but not taking one didn't add an extra 'combat' feat.
I hate feat chains. Hate 'em with the fire of a thousand burning suns. They hurt my brains. If I'm making my 12th-level Fighter, then I gotta do more than just pick feats. I need to know which feats are prerequisites for other feats, and I'm forced to backwards-engineer EVERY multi-levelled character from 1st-level to its current higher level.
I don't need the complication. :(
Now, one thing I could live with, is if the possession of two or more feats allowed you to perform a "stunt" that you normally would find difficult or impossible.
Let's say (and I'm just making this up), you have a "Rider on the Storm" feat :) that gives a DR 3 against electricity. There's a "Frenzy" feat, identical to the Barbarian ability, and you possess it. You also possess another feat called "Trollborn Legacy", allowing you to recover 1d6 Hit Points within an hour if you're resting completely, and succeed at a Fortitude save of 10.
Now what if you received an ability separate from, but triggered by those three feats? Say....what if you spontaneously regenerated 1d6 Hit Points per round every time you were damaged by an electrical attack? And it triggers the "Frenzy" feat, which is functionally equivalent to the Barbarian class ability "Rage"? You keep regenerating during the "Frenzy" (1d6 hps/round), but need to make a Will save vs a DC of 10 to avoid losing control, and attacking everyone around you.
The three feats themselves need no prerequisites, but there's a chance you'll go all "Frankenstein" if someone zaps you with lightning. :p Stuff like that would be interesting, but wouldn't necessarily FORCE me to know which feats have prequisites, and which don't. Stuff like this can make the game EASY TO LEARN, BUT HARD TO MASTER. :haw:
And that can satisfy more people more often. :)
What I proposed here might not be the most game-balanced thing in the world, but I think you get my point. :cool:
Sounds like a cooler version of synergy, a la the skill system. I would love to see something like that, but given how much money I make off of roleplaying (here is a hint, it begins with a negative sign....) I won't touch making one myself. ;)
As an aside, and to spin off something you said: I have long been of the mind that many 'class abilities' should be available in some form as feats. The Barbarian's Rage, for example, sounds like something featable. Barbarians do it better (what with all the extra uses a day), but why couldn't a straight fighter pick it up? I mean, two weapons used to be the sole purview of the Ranger from what I've heard!
Of course, then you have to decide where to draw the line, if at all. Turning? Why not! Clerical Domains? Sure. Sneak attacks?
From there Feats utterly eliminate the Class structure. Not that I'd complain, but I'm sure a few people would weep bitter, ashen, tears...
Feat permutations are a lot more complex than feat trees. At least with a tree you can put each tree on a sheet of paper. When permutations you'd need a constantly updated 3-d poster map to track which feats give extra bonuses when bought with others.
Alrighty then: I have pulled out the SRD feat list and given it a once over. Aside from consolidating some stuff I was disappointed with my 'once over' as far as shortening. Of course, this is just PHB feats. Before I post (in quotes) the rough draft, some notes:
None of the skill feats are listed, and most, but not all the item creation feats have also been removed. I was going to remove the greater and improved feat versions, collapsing them, but chose to leave them in place with the appropriate note.
The PHB feats are generally not bad in and of themselves, I think. A few misteps in implimentation.
Changing feats rapidly begins to resemble overhauling the rules as written, which is why I don't try to use the Unearthed Arcana stuff anymore. I left a few scattered comment notes, areas I am more open to discussion on (not that any decision is off limits, mind you...). A later draft won't have all the removed feats listed at all, and I initially wanted to do a straight list, including the feats from Eberron and FR main books and a few of the more popular feats from some of the expansions. Feat bloat is not solvable at this end, merely controllable.
Some of the changes are more or less off the cuff. There is a little power ramping involved: Removing higher level versions of initial feats either leaves characters weaker, or you give them the same benefit for free, making them 'more powerful'. I chose the later.
I need a rulebook in front of me to really do this justice. I admit that I have made little effort to memorize the entire rule set, that's why I own books.
QuoteSpike's Feats:
Skilled: This feat replaces Acrobatic and similar feats. The player may take +3 to one skill or +2 to two related skills. May be taken multiple times, each time for a new skill/skill set.
Armor Proficiency: Removed. Anyone may wear armor, however, certain feats/class abilities may be hindered by armor.
Armor Mastery: The character is extremely comfortable wearing a certain type of armor. Their Max Dex and armor check penalties are improved by 1, spell failure is reduced by 5%. Speed penalties are reduced by 5, if any. May be taken multiple times for different types of armor. (note: type, not class. Chain mail, not 'medium armor')
Augment Summoning: Unchanged.
Blind Fight: Unchanged.
Brew Potion: removed. Now part of Alchemy Skill. May require arcane and/or divine spell casting (not necessarily the brewer, can be an untrained assistant with spells) of at least 3rd level. Potions still require xp expenditure.
Cleave & Great Cleave: now a single Feat. If character BaB is +6 or higher, character may cleave repeatedly.
Combat Casting: Unchanged.
Combat expertise: Half the character's BaB is applied to defence when used, instead of sliding scale.
Craft Feats: Removed/subsumed under appropriate craft skills. See also Brew Potion.
Deflect Arrows: no longer requires Improved Unarmed strike. May be used with a melee weapon/sheild. At Dex 15/BaB +6 character may, if hand free, snatch arrows instead.
Diehard: Remove prerequisite
Dodge: Dodge Bonus increases to +2 at 10th level. Character may split dodge bonus between two attackers at this point.
Empower Spell: Unchanged
Endurance: Unchanged.
Enlarge Spell: Unchanged
Eschew Materials: Unchanged.
Exotic Weapon Proficency: Removed. Note: some 'exotic weapons' added after the PHB will require additional treatment to prevent unbalancing. (elven rapiers, broad bladed weapons etc... these weapons make non-exotic versions sub optimal).
Extend Spell: Unchanged.
Extra Turning: Removed. Suggestion: Turning times per day unlimited. Possible overhaul of turning implied.
Far Shot: remove Prerequisite.
Forge Ring: See Craft Item Feats.Removed.
Enhanced Save: Character gets a +2 bonus to save of choice. removes individual feats.
Greater Spell Focus: Removed
Greater Spell Penetration: Removed
Greater Two Weapon Fighting: Removed
Greater Weapon Focus: Removed.
Greater Weapon Specialization: removed
Heighten Spell: Unchanged
Improved Bull Rush: Remove PA prerequisite. Changed to: When performing a Bull Rush, character gains a +4 bonus. (pending rule reading, may add AoO does not interrupt)
Improved Counterspell: Unchanged.
Improved Critical: unchanged
Improved Disarm: Remove Combat Expertise prereq. Remove:Does not provoke AoO from text.
Improved Familiar: Unchanged
Improved Feint: Remove Combat Expertise Prereq. Pending rules reading.
Improved Grapple: remove prereqs. Remove text about AoO.
Improved Initiative: Unchanged
Improved Overrun: remove PA prereq.
Improved Precise Shot: Removed.
Improved Sheild Bash: Removed: Shield Bashing no longer removes sheild bonus from AC. Instead: bashing provokes AoO.
Improved Sunder: Remove PA prereq. Remove AoO text. Change AoO so sunder does not Provoke (if successful?)... notional.
Improved Trip: Remove CE prereq. Remove AoO text. Trip should not provoke (notional).
Improved Turning: Unchanged
Improved Two Weapon fighting: Removed
Improved Unarmed: Unarmed combat no longer provokes AoO. Improved Unarmed allows lethal damage without 'fist' weapon.
Leadership:Removed/changed. Leadership rules open to everyone. Note:Leadership feat may continue to exist, but as a specific improvement to normal leadership. Leadership rules available to all 6th level characters, dependent upon level, charisma and social skills, along with RP events.
Manyshot: removed. Archers can use iterative attacks based on BaB. Note: May signal a change to 'full attack option' for all combatants.
Martial Weapon Profiency: Removed. Classes may provide certain restrictions, but this is not viewed as necessary at this time. Gandalf used a Longsword.
Maximize Spell: Unchanged
Mobility: Remove Dodge Prereq.
Mounted Archery: Remove Mounted Combat Prereq.
Mounted Combat: Removed. Ride skill is limit to 'bonus to hit' in combat from a mount.
Natural Spell: Removed. Druids can cast certain spells in wild shape (notional)
Point Blank Shot: Unchanged.
Power Attack: Now fixed at 1/2 Bab. Note: using Power Attack does not change iterative attacks, just bonus to rolls.
Precise Shot: Remove PBS prereq.
Quick Draw: Removed. Due to abstract combat drawing a prepared weapon is no longer a move action. (particularly for throwing weapons, who can now use their full iterative attacks without this feat). A dropped/disarmed weapon can not be quickdrawn anyway, and retriving it still is a move action/AoO provoker at normal. For quick-draw specialists, get Improved initiative instead. (notional)
Quicken Spell: Unchanged
Rapid reload: Unchanged
Rapid Shot: Removed. See Also Manyshot.
Ride By Attack: Remove. Anyone can Ride By.
Run: Removed (notional).
Scribe Scroll: Removed; See also Brew potion and Craft Item
Shield Proficiency: Changed to Sheild Mastery: Anyone can benefit from a shield. This character is a master of a specific type of shield and gets an additional +1 AC and reduces penalty by 1. Note: Sheilds may interfere with certain feats/class abilities.
Shot on the Run: Remove Feat Prereqs
Silent Magic: Unchanged
Simple Weapon Proficiency: remove: Everyone has this automatically. (just a general clean up, as everyone really DOES have it...)
Snatch Arrows: Removed See Also Deflect Arrows.
Spell Focus: At caster level 10 increase bonus to +2
Spell Mastery: Removed. Casters may (notional) chose Int bonus in spells they 'permanently' memorize.
Spell Penetration: At Caster level 10 increase bonus to +4
Spirited Charge: Change prereqs: Ride skill must equal or exceed BaB to use.
Spring Attack: Remove Feat Prereqs. (note: Tempted to remove in favor of making multi-moves standard options. However: I've recommended too many changes as it stands)
Still Spell: Unchanged
Stunning Fist: Remove IUS prereq.
Toughness: Changed: +1 HP per level. Unstackable. (is the bonus too low?)
Tower Shield Proficiency: Removed
Track: Remove. Standard option with ranks in Survival
Trample: May be done without feat. Feat provides +4 bonus as written.
Two Weapon Defence: Unchanged.
Two Weapon Fighting: Anyone can 'two weapon fight' with full iterative attacks. This feat reduces penalties per PHB
Weapon Finesse: Removed: All Finesse weapons now use Dex for To-hit bonus.
Weapon Focus: At BaB +10, weapon focus bonus doubles.
Weapon Specialization: At BaB +10 weapon Specialization bonus doubles.
Whirlwind attack: Remove feat preqreqs. Increase BaB prereq to +8
Widen Spell: Unchanged.
I really wish you'd do this, at least cross post it, on d20 haven - bastard.
OK, I'll just steal it...
Quote from: James McMurrayFeat permutations are a lot more complex than feat trees. At least with a tree you can put each tree on a sheet of paper. When permutations you'd need a constantly updated 3-d poster map to track which feats give extra bonuses when bought with others.
Herein lies one of the things I don't like about feats. I don't know why.
I like skill synergy and I think SL's idea about the lightning zap sending someone with those feats into a frenzy. So why do I dislike the plethora of possibilities that come from people mixing up feats to get this one effect?
Quote from: James J SkachI really wish you'd do this, at least cross post it, on d20 haven - bastard.
OK, I'll just steal it...
I'm forum'd out. Besides, I'm an old skool hater (not a hater of old skool, a hater with a long history) who has set aside his hate in the name of gaming.
Do you really need that bile on your shiny new forum? :p
Steal away. I hope to have a much better, more complete list up later this week. Of course, any and all rule changes wouldn't be necessarily reflected in a list. As I said: You can't muck about with feats too much without necessarily altering the rules to match.
Quote from: James McMurrayFeat permutations are a lot more complex than feat trees. At least with a tree you can put each tree on a sheet of paper. When permutations you'd need a constantly updated 3-d poster map to track which feats give extra bonuses when bought with others.
You're right...if mastery of game mechanics is more important to us. :) The "Frankenstein" ability is something I'd make the player have to deliberately invoke as a free action (if he wanted it to happen), thus making sure the "Frankenstein" situation doesn't come up, UNLESS WE WANT IT TO.
Rules Mastery should be rewarded, but the basics should be quick and easy for beginners.
On that note, I believe that feat chains make things needlessly harder for both DMs and beginners.
If a player has the "Spirited Charge" feat (for example), I have to know what other feats he took, and at what levels he took them. If I'm making a mid-to-high level character, I need to build him from 1st-level on. Hell, if I'm making a 1st-level guy, I need to know if the feat has a prerequisite or not (though that's not as much of a problem). This is all a headache. For me. :(
I have some of the same problems with the skill system. Under the rules....a 1st-level rogue/2nd-level fighter has a drastically different amount of skill points from a 2nd-level fighter/1st-level rogue.
They should be the same, right? :) Wrong. :( They could have the same ability scores, feats, and equipment, but the second character is sub-optimal. Why? Character Number Two levelled in Fighter first, thus, he crippled himself in the skill department.
See this post I made on RPGnet in the thread called "why I will be bowing out of 4th Edition D&D"? It gives some ideas of what I'm going for.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=364805&page=56
I'll outline it here...
Quote from: Sacrificial LambMaybe there's a way for you guys to compromise. I have the Star Wars book, and have the D&D 3.5 Player's Handbook as well. The middle ground I'd choose would be this:
1.) Make the number of skill points constant. Give everyone 10-20 skill points per level. Intelligence doesn't give you bonus skill points. Many skills don't use Intelligence as a key ability anyway, and making Intelligence affect the number of skills or skill points you have needlessly complicates both games. For example, if your Intelligence increases in 3e, then two almost identical characters can have a drastically different amount of skill points from each other. So keep those skill points the same, level by level.
2.) Eliminate skill synergy bonuses. They're a needless complication.
3.) Eliminate or reduce the necessity to backwards-engineer a character from 1st-level to 30th-level, and back again. How? Eliminate prerequisites for feats. This makes it unnecessary for me to figure out what I want to be at 30th level. Also, characters would NOT multiply their skill points by four at 1st-level. They'd just get those 10-20 skill points at 1st-level, AND THAT'S IT. This eliminates problems, such as a 2nd-level Wizard/1st-level Rogue being drastically different from a 1st-level Rogue/2nd-level Wizard. It shouldn't matter which class you take first.
4.) Don't use Talents from Star Wars. Let's be honest here...."Talents" are just another fancy name for "Feats". Most class abilities are "Feats" by another name, as well. Talents LOOK like Feats, and SMELL like Feats, and have PREREQUISITES like Feats, so let's just call 'em "Feats". (or change the NAME of feats into talents, because that's what Warhammer Fantasy does, and it sounds better ) Just convert all "Talents" into "Class Feats". So just say that every class has a list of "Class Feats" that they automatically receive as they go up in level. This is separate from the "Non-Class Feats" that EVERYBODY gets.
I hope you're following my rambling so far...
5.) Half of the skill points should automatically be tied to specific skills, while with the other half of the skill points, you should be able to choose what you want. So....let's say I have a 1st-level Rogue named "Slappy". For the sake of discussion, let's say that character gets 12 skill points per level, okay? Soooo..."Slappy" has 12 skill points. Half of these points are FIXED. And these six skills are, for example: Bluff, Climb, Hide, Move Silently, Search, and Sleight of Hand. For the sake of this exercise, we'll assume that ALL rogues have these SIX skills.
BUT....
"Slappy", the 1st-level Rogue still has 6 skill points left. He can spend those other 6 points on WHICHEVER skills he wants. Whee! No more cross-class skills!
Now, you might be wondering if our Rogue has enough points. Only ONE skill rank per skill? Bleah! Well, you COULD adopt the Star Wars ability to be "trained" in a skill, and apply it to those initial 6 skills. As we all know, being "trained" in SWSE provides a +5 bonus.
So "Slappy" would be "trained" in Bluff, Climb, Hide, Move Silently, Search, and Sleight of Hand. He automatically gains ONE SKILL RANK each level in his "trained" skills. Every level he gains, he can spend the remaining half of his skill points on "non-trained" skills. To make things fair, we'll assume that you can't put more than 1 skill rank in any individual skill per level. This almost guarantees that you'll be more proficient when using your "trained" skills. Hence, you'll have the simplicity of Star Wars, but the fine-tuning of D&D!
And don't forget that it could be possible to gain feats that allow you to become "trained" in one of your "untrained" skills.
Am I on to something, or what?
I want to encourage players to develop their characters organically, more spontaneously deciding how they want their characters to develop. Removing feat prerequisites can help make this happen. Forgive me for focusing on BOTH skills and feats in this thread, but I believe both aspects of the game are related, and that a small modification of the two could speed things up BIG-TIME. :cool:
I hope I didn't babble too much, guys....:deflated:
By the way, Spike...I can see that you're attempting to remove many of the feat prerequisites yourself. I heartily approve. :)
Feats are good. But feat chains make me cry. :(
Good thread.
There certainly is much fault logic in D20 feats.
However, my personal main problem with them is the fact that they, as a whole, don't make powerful imression they should- namely to enrich the game with flavour and various abilites. Most of them should be default powers.
For a Fighter: Weapon Focus, Weapons Sp., Impr. Critical Hit, Power Attack...
Let me make demonstrate it more clearly through an analogy: Soul Reaver, the video game is an action adventure more or less the style of Zelda.
While in Zelda, a new power or gadget can be used in multiple, colourful ways and to kill enemies, the Soul Reaver Powers were nothing more then "keys". Technically, that was the same Zelda, but it hadn't such a cheesy feeling. You needed the grappling hook to continue but it was also fun to use it as a main weapon. Or to just play around. Or chase secrets. Or combine it with other special items etc...
Back to D&D: How fun is leveling, when my "special" feat choice is pretty much carved in stone anyways? I have to get a lot of key feats if I don't want to stink as a tank. Yawn.
Couple that with the fact that a character who tries to be versatile and picks an assortment of very unusual feats is just WAY weaker then his fellow conservative party member.