Quote from: nightwind1;514653And, yet, so many people on this board appear to have a hate-on for "Old School" grognards.

They have their reasons; the system is not perfect, and can be abused or (more frequently) just plain misused by players and GMs alike. This has happened, in my experience, most often when players and GMs are not firmly on the same page regarding what sort of game they want (e.g. player wants over-the-top, improbable, cinematic action straight out of Michael Bay; GM is running a gritty, grimy, bloody epic a la Norse sagas; player does stupid stunts expecting success all the time, GM perceives player as stupid and punishes him constantly).

I don't begrudge anyone for not liking it. It's still my favorite sort of game, though.

Quote from: B.T.;514575No, there's a specific feat that he's thinking of.  I can't remember it at the moment, but it imposed a -4 penalty on Spellcraft checks to identify your spells or something.

Well, that sounds utterly moronic. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Quote from: B.T.;514575No, there's a specific feat that he's thinking of.  I can't remember it at the moment, but it imposed a -4 penalty on Spellcraft checks to identify your spells or something.

I'm telling you, it was in the "Magic of Faerun" supplement. And it was exactly as you describe.

Yeah, that's the problem with things like feats. People imagine that it lets you do "more" stuff, when in fact it makes it so that you CAN'T do stuff, without the feat.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;514779Yeah, that's the problem with things like feats. People imagine that it lets you do "more" stuff, when in fact it makes it so that you CAN'T do stuff, without the feat.

Only if you've got idiots designing the feats. In reality, they should be no more artificially restricting than spells, skills, or ability scores.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514797Only if you've got idiots designing the feats. In reality, they should be no more artificially restricting than spells, skills, or ability scores.

Unfortunately, it appears that many people who like feats only want what I call "special snowflake feats." They don't want feats that give them a bonus to something anyone can do, they want feats that give special abilities only someone who bought the feat can even try to do. Every time I've seen a major discussion on the problems with 3.x feats online or offline, a number of people who don't want feats that only give a bonus to something anyone can try seem to come out of the wooodwork.

Unfortunately, there really aren't than many fantasy adventuring things that can only be attempted with even a minimal chance of success by someone with special training/abilities, so to please the "special snowflake feat" people designers end up taking interesting things that anyone should be able to try to do with some chance of success and turn them into feats that only those buying the feat can try.

Reflavouring is generally a little more out there than saying "My fireball is blue instead of the standard red and yellow." Like, say, reskinning an archer as a gunslinger, or using beholder stats for a sentry robot.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514797Only if you've got idiots designing the feats.

That's the problem: inevitably, you will.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;515135That's the problem: inevitably, you will.

RPGPundit

It wouldn't be such a problem without supplement treadmill though.

If you stuck to a small core set of carefully designed feats, and never made any more, than maybe you could make them work.

Quote from: RandallS;514839Unfortunately, it appears that many people who like feats only want what I call "special snowflake feats." They don't want feats that give them a bonus to something anyone can do, they want feats that give special abilities only someone who bought the feat can even try to do. Every time I've seen a major discussion on the problems with 3.x feats online or offline, a number of people who don't want feats that only give a bonus to something anyone can try seem to come out of the wooodwork.

Unfortunately, there really aren't than many fantasy adventuring things that can only be attempted with even a minimal chance of success by someone with special training/abilities, so to please the "special snowflake feat" people designers end up taking interesting things that anyone should be able to try to do with some chance of success and turn them into feats that only those buying the feat can try.

Because you have classes who rely upon feats as a main class feature.  If you get rid of the "special snowflake feats", those classes while already craptacular become even shittier.

The problem as I see it is that they have too many feats that are generic.  Feats should be tied to either race of class 80% of the time.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;515228It wouldn't be such a problem without supplement treadmill though.

If you stuck to a small core set of carefully designed feats, and never made any more, than maybe you could make them work.

Possibly, but the problem is that the supplement treadmill always happens. And in any case, unless you're talking about a positively tiny list of feats, there's always going to be a way to minmax and manipulate the feat system, even with a limited set standard of feats, there's always going to be ones that are what you "must take to be a kickass melee combat guy" and ones that are useless for just about anything.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sommerjon;515271Because you have classes who rely upon feats as a main class feature.  If you get rid of the "special snowflake feats", those classes while already craptacular become even shittier.

I don't limit what characters/NPCs/monsters in my games can try to do based on poorly designed rules. My house rules state that in games that have feats players should remember that reality trumps rules -- that is, if you select a feat that gives you the special ability to do something anyone can try to do those who did not take the feat can still try to do it but without the success bonus that those with the feat will have. If this gimps someone's build, they known in advance to do something else.

Quote from: RandallS;515285I don't limit what characters/NPCs/monsters in my games can try to do based on poorly designed rules. My house rules state that in games that have feats players should remember that reality trumps rules -- that is, if you select a feat that gives you the special ability to do something anyone can try to do those who did not take the feat can still try to do it but without the success bonus that those with the feat will have. If this gimps someone's build, they known in advance to do something else.

That's the problem with feats though. If you build a feat that allows you to say, swing your sword to hit several opponents next to you, this means that, AT BEST, someone else without the feat might try it with a penalty, or WORSE, might not be able to accomplish at all. Whereas in a system where you play a fighter without feats and declare "I swing my sword at my enemies to try and get past them" well, as a DM you just adjudicate the action and the net effect is that anyone can try, no ifs or buts.

Feats and similar abilities basically build "boxed in" abilities that some might attempt, but not others, or less well. What you're doing is comparmentalizing what type of character can and can't do, what's worth to do and isn't worth to do in the course of play, so in effect, you are impeding and preselecting choices, not adding more to the table.

Quote from: Benoist;515287That's the problem with feats though. If you build a feat that allows you to say, swing your sword to hit several opponents next to you, this means that, AT BEST, someone else without the feat might try it with a penalty, or WORSE, might not be able to accomplish at all. Whereas in a system where you play a fighter without feats and declare "I swing my sword at my enemies to try and get past them" well, as a DM you just adjudicate the action and the net effect is that anyone can try, no ifs or buts.

Unless you're playing in some hypothetical system where there are no rules governing how many attacks you can make in a single round: Bullshit.

IOW: Your statement is bullshit for every edition of D&D ever published and has pretty much nothing to do with feats whatsoever.

Quote from: Benoist;515287That's the problem with feats though. If you build a feat that allows you to say, swing your sword to hit several opponents next to you, this means that, AT BEST, someone else without the feat might try it with a penalty, or WORSE, might not be able to accomplish at all.

I don't like feats because that does seem to be the design goal. However, if stuck running such a game, I just unbox the feats with house rules, changing (most of) them from special ability that no one else can do to something everyone can still do but without the bonus you get because you took the feat and are therefore good at it.

QuoteWhereas in a system where you play a fighter without feats and declare "I swing my sword at my enemies to try and get past them" well, as a DM you just adjudicate the action and the net effect is that anyone can try, no ifs or buts.

Exactly, which is why I don't run or play in feat-based games if I have a choice. Since I'm not interested in charop type play, I don't miss them. When I first read through D&D 3.0 core rules, I thought feats were a great addition to the game. After thinking about it for a few days, however, I decided they just limited what characters could do more often than not. Actual play proved this to be correct -- even more so once the "cult of RAW" took hold.