Well, its interesting. Worth keeping an eye on.

RPGpundit

I read that feats are optional, and that the list is very trimmed. Are classic feats like Power Attack and Cleave there?

Quote from: Claudius;613006I read that feats are optional, and that the list is very trimmed. Are classic feats like Power Attack and Cleave there?

Feats:

Alertness
Bull Rush
Cleave
Disarm
Dodge
Empower Spell
Enlarge Spell
Expertise
Extend Spell
Fast
Grapple
Great Fortitude
Iron Will
Knack
Lightning Reflexes
Magical Aptitude
Power Attack
Pugilist
Silent Spell
Still Spell
Sunder
Two Weapon Fighting
Toughness
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
Weapon Proficiency
Widen Spell

Most of them have just one or two lines of description, they all fit on page 32 of the book.

Thank you!

Less feats is better, but I'd still prefer no feats.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;613288Less feats is better, but I'd still prefer no feats.

RPGPundit

They're optional.

Sold me on it - I ordered the softcover from Lulu. Pretty reasonable for a 300+ page book. Whether I'll ever run it is another matter, but cheap enough to have sitting on the shelf without a great deal of angst.

One other thing I should mention on the feats. There are no feat chains and no feat has a prerequisite. They are enough to allow customization but there isn't the giant bloat you might expect to see. Also, as was already mentioned, they are optional.

The combat is non-grid as well, which is pretty much a requirement for me.  The combat maneuvers have a pretty simple mechanic they are tied to. I will probably fiddle with that part a bit, but it doesn't require a lot of complex work for things like grappling and so forth.

Quote from: RPGPundit;613288Less feats is better, but I'd still prefer no feats.

My preference for a D&D type game would be no skills, with feats taking the spot of the class abilities (paladin's lay on hands, fighter's 3-attacks-per-2-rounds, ranger's favored enemy, etc.) and the player not only choosing both how and when to customize the class (probably killing paladin, ranger et al as separate classes since their feats would be in the basic fighter list).

Quote from: Warlord Kro;613496One other thing I should mention on the feats. There are no feat chains and no feat has a prerequisite. They are enough to allow customization but there isn't the giant bloat you might expect to see. Also, as was already mentioned, they are optional.

Optional is good.
As to the rest, while this sounds infinitely better than 3.5e, the "feat" structure in and of itself is just not a very good mechanic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;613740Optional is good.
As to the rest, while this sounds infinitely better than 3.5e, the "feat" structure in and of itself is just not a very good mechanic.

RPGPundit

What do you mean? Specifically the "feat structure" part.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;613526My preference for a D&D type game would be no skills, with feats taking the spot of the class abilities (paladin's lay on hands, fighter's 3-attacks-per-2-rounds, ranger's favored enemy, etc.) and the player not only choosing both how and when to customize the class (probably killing paladin, ranger et al as separate classes since their feats would be in the basic fighter list).

Totally agree with the last part.

AD&D class abilities are just feats you can't customise and the downside is that some classes like Paladins and Druids get loads where as others like fighters get very few.  

However I like skills as well as I think the thief pick pockets works better as a skill than a feat and I think the rogue class in particular is better suited to a number of skills they can customise (al a 2e) than a host of feats that can only be used for thief skills and then need a mechanism for measuring sucess.

Quote from: Claudius;613761What do you mean? Specifically the "feat structure" part.

I mean the idea of special powers that are in a big list (though in this case, not as big a list), that players have to choose from, making very open "character optimization" decisions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;614095I mean the idea of special powers that are in a big list (though in this case, not as big a list), that players have to choose from, making very open "character optimization" decisions.

How about the (AD&D1) Paladin class abilities?
Would you be against opening up when the character gets them?

Or the other way round - how would you feel about a 3e with set feats at set levels?

Quote from: RPGPundit;614095I mean the idea of special powers that are in a big list (though in this case, not as big a list), that players have to choose from, making very open "character optimization" decisions.

RPGPundit

Thank you, I get it now, and I agree, partially, with you.

One thing I like about the OSR is the return to simpleness. When you're an adult, your life is too complex, having a game where you can create a character in 20 minutes and start playing, is a bless.

On the other hand, sometimes simple is too simple for me. See, I love skills, I love feats, I love advantages, I love disadvantages, what I dislike, is long lists of them. They overwhelm me. My problem with a lot of OSR games, is that there is no middle term. You think a long list of feats is a problem? No feats then!! Tired of having to spend skill points every level? Let's get rid of skills altogether!

This is why I'm getting more and more intrigued about Blood & Treasure. It looks like it's simple like the other OSR games, but you can have feats and skills if you want them, just not too many. It's like the difference between GURPS and Capitán Alatriste.

Like you, I dislike very open character options, but I don't think the solution is to remove those options, just restrict them.

Does it make any sense?