Quote from: Justin Alexander;515289Unless you're playing in some hypothetical system where there are no rules governing how many attacks you can make in a single round: Bullshit.

How? That's not an argument.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515289IOW: Your statement is bullshit for every edition of D&D ever published and has pretty much nothing to do with feats whatsoever.

How?

PS: What I am saying is actually true of any type of rule. The moment you create a rule, any rule, you are in effect saying "that is OK, and that is not," "you can do this, but not that." You need some rules for the game to feel like it functions as a coherent make-believe, that there are logical principles on which the shared experience can indeed be shared efficiently, but like everything, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, when the structure and frame that provides logic to the game world becomes a box, a mechanical trap in which the players find themselves railroaded and pigeon-holed by the game system itself, up to the point the game system becomes the point of the act of play, and not the make-believe it is supposed to help come to life.

There are different ways to get overboard with this, as feats on one hand, or martial dailies on the other hand, can attest. But in the end, I feel that the vast majority of feats simply shouldn't exist as such. In the case of elements like Whirlwind Attack and such (to use my example above), these should be standard combat moves anybody may attempt, described in the combat chapter as a possibility like charging or withdrawing from combat are. They shouldn't be considered on/off, can/can't do abilities.

Quote from: Benoist;515292

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

How? That's not an argument.

What you're saying is actually true for any type of rule. The moment you create a rule, any rule, you are in effecting saying "that is OK, and that is not"; "you can do this, but not that".

QuotePS: What I am saying is actually true of any type of rule. The moment you create a rule, any rule, you are in effect saying "that is OK, and that is not," "you can do this, but not that."

Oh... You knew that already. Why the heck are you pretending you don't understand it?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515295Oh... You knew that already. Why the heck are you pretending you don't understand it?

So.. we actually have a mutual understanding here, since you didn't quote the rest?

Defining implies limitation; what is v. is not, and can v. can not be is inherent in the act of defining. However, we already have other defining delimiters: race, class, kits, etc. If feats are to provide anything, what are they contributing mechanically without stepping on the toes of already extant tools? In contrast advantages and disadvantages, at one point, were generally of a fluffier nature using soft-coded setting leashes for game defining limitation.

What feats were to provide in theory was tailoring of previously defined builds into something more flavorful. What feats ended up in practice was poorly designed mechanical enhancements that threw everything out of whack in the chase for optimization. This was inevitable when you have more and more people throwing their hat into designing hard-coded mechanics instead of designing soft-coded setting flavor.

In turn this granted a RAW interpretation for task exclusivity and chargen build hierarchy, as has already been noted in the latter part of 3.5. This might be pleasurable for some. For me, and I'm guessing several others, it most definitely has not.

Quote from: Benoist;515296So.. we actually have a mutual understanding here, since you didn't quote the rest?

Okay, I'll break it down for you (since you apparently can't follow through on your statements).

Let's take AD&D, since you run it. In AD&D, only the fighter is allowed to make multiple attacks per round. In order to let other characters make multiple attacks in a round, how would you handle that? Well, you'd ignore that rule.

Let's take the hypothetical system you posit in which the only way a fighter can make multiple attacks per round is to take a specific feat. In order to let other characters make multiple attacks in a round, how would you handle that? Well, you'd ignore that rule.

But what happens if we look at this hypothetical system and remove the feat? Well, not much. The basic rules of the game still define how many attacks a character gets in a single round. In order to let characters make multiple attacks in a round, how would you handle that? Well, you'd ignore that rule.

Which highlights the core mistake being made here: Yes, all rules limit the potential actions which characters make.

But a properly implemented feat system does the opposite of that: In addition to allowing characters to be better at certain activities everyone can attempt within the basic structure of the rule system, it also gives you framework for allowing characters to take actions which are normally prohibited by the basic structure of the rule system. (Other examples include most spells and many class abilities.)

Removing a properly implemented feat system doesn't give the characters more options; it just leaves them completely restricted by the basic structure of the rule system.

Now, as I've stated elsewhere, it's pretty easy to pull up examples of poorly designed feats. But your example isn't one of them. Your example, in every edition of D&D (and virtually all other RPGs ever designed), is an example of a well-designed feat.

I just feel like we're talking two completely different languages, Justin.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515322Removing a properly implemented feat system doesn't give the characters more options; it just leaves them completely restricted by the basic structure of the rule system.

Now, as I've stated elsewhere, it's pretty easy to pull up examples of poorly designed feats. But your example isn't one of them. Your example, in every edition of D&D (and virtually all other RPGs ever designed), is an example of a well-designed feat.

I feel that you and Ben are making essentially the same point, and that Ben might potentially have chosen a poor example (the Cleave feat), for the reasons you've mentioned (every edition of D&D I've played, run or read is fairly explicit on the number of attacks per round that characters get). Nevertheless, I believe Ben's point stands, because for some people (sadly, many people with whom I've gamed over the years), that which is not clearly and explicitly codified into the rules is not allowed. For example, those people would look at, say, B/X D&D and declare that, since there are no rules on (say) using your attack to disarm an enemy in combat, that it could not be done.

Several Feats offer explicit codification for many such actions (e.g. Disarm, Trip, Sunder, Bull Rush etc.), but again, for many people with whom I've played, they do so by penalizing those without the Feat. Compare with TSR-era D&D Thief abilities, and the idea that only Thieves can climb walls, or sneak, or disarm traps, because they're the only class with an explicit, built-in subsystem for these actions.

I think one of the defining characteristics of "old school" gaming as I see it is the idea that it's the GM's responsibility to mantain the emulated world up and running in a lifelike (or genre-appropriate) manner, even when faced with situations not explicitly predicted and managed by the ruleset in use, often extrapolating from existing systems, but above all using common sense.

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.

Weird.  Since like, what the majority of the feats are about what you say.  Giving a bonus instead of the negative.  Yeah! you made a house rule for a couple corner cases.  W00T.

Do like the 'reality trumps rules' line.  Great touch.

Quote from: Sommerjon;515634Weird.  Since like, what the majority of the feats are about what you say.  Giving a bonus instead of the negative.  Yeah! you made a house rule for a couple corner cases.  W00T.

It's not a special rule for a couple of particular cases in a single game. The general ruling on feats is a warning to players who expect to be able to take certain feats and have an ability that no one else can have (even if in reality anyone could probably do it) that this is NOT the way it will work in my games and therefore they need to take that into account when selecting feats. Like the fact that I consider the Rules as Written as just ignorable guidelines for the GM, this is something potential players need to know before they decide to play in a campaign if I'm GM.  I have a number of these type of "general house rules" so people can understand the page my campaigns are on before devoting time and effort to something they might not like.

I thought it might be interesting to look at the 3.5 PHB and actually look at what the core rulebook feats actually do in that game.

Provide Flat Bonus to Things Everyone Can Do: Acrobatic, Agile, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Athletic, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Diligent, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Improved Initiative, Investigator, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Magical Aptitude, Mobility, Negotiator, Nimble Fingers, Persuasive, Point Blank Shot, Self-Sufficient, Skill Focus, Stealthy, Toughness, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization

Provide Complex Improvement to Things Everyone Can Do: Blind-Fight, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Far Shot, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Critical, Improved Disarm, Improved Feint, Improved Grapple, Improved Overrun, Improved Shield Bash, Improved Sunder, Improved Trip, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Unarmed Strike, Mounted Archery, Mounted Combat, Precise Shot, Rapid Reload, Ride-By Attack, Run, Spirited Charge, Two-Weapon Fighting, Trample

Grant a Class Ability: Armor Proficiency (light/medium/heavy), Weapon Proficiency (exotic/martial/simple), Shield Proficiency, Stunning Fist, Tower Shield Proficiency

Provide Bonus to Class Ability: Augment Summoning, Combat Casting, Extra Turning, Greater Spell Focus, Greater Spell Penetration, Improved Counterspell, Improved Turning, Natural Spell, Spell Focus, Spell Mastery, Spell Penetration

Allow You To Do Something the Rules Normally Prohibit: Cleave, Diehard, Great Cleave, Improved Precise Shot, Quick Shot, Shot on the Run, Spring Attack, Weapon Finesse, Whirlwind Attack

To this list we can add all metamagic feats (which generally grant bonuses or allow you to do things the rules normally prohibit) and item creation feats. For the latter, I'm guessing some argument could be made that anybody should be allowed to try making magic items. But that particular ability has been traditionally limited going all the way back to 1974, so it would be a tough case to make.

What does that leave us with?

Deflect Arrows/Snatch Arrows: I think a strong case could be made that anyone should be allowed to attempt to deflect an arrow being shot at them. However, the specific ability granted by this feat -- to automatically deflect one arrow per round as a free action when not flat-footed -- is clearly not the mechanic you'd be using for that general attempt.

Dodge: It could be argued that the general concept of "I'm going to pay particular attention to that guy and try really hard to avoid getting hit by him" might be something that should be generally attemptable. But isn't "trying really hard not to get hit by that guy" what characters are just generally assumed to be doing? So while I include it here due to the possibility of making the argument, I'm comfortable assigning this to the "provides complex improvement" category above.

Leadership: I include it here because it tends to get mentioned in the sense of "you need to take a special feat to have a hireling?!". But that's not actually how the feat works. Leadership gives access to cohorts (which are improved allies) and followers (which are improved hirelings). So this is another feat that falls in to the "provides complex improvement" category.

Rapid Shot/Manyshot: As with Deflect Arrows, I think anybody should be allowed to try shooting "two arrows at once". Mechanically, however, this feat chain is similar to the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. This suggests that the appropriate mechanic for shooting two arrows at once is, in fact, the rules for two-weapon fighting. So I'd argue that what you want to do is just add the general rules for two-arrow shooting and then let Rapid Shot and Manyshot fall comfortably into the "provides complex improvement" category.

Power Attack: The general idea of "I want to sacrifice accuracy in order to hit really hard" is, IMO, generally attemptable. I've personally generalized the mechanics for Power Attack so that anyone can accept a -2 penalty to attacks for a +1 bonus to damage. (This, again, transitions the feat to a "provides complex improvement category".)

Snatch Arrows: See Deflect Arrows, above.

Track: As I mentioned earlier in the thread, this is the one really problematic feat. It exists for legacy reasons relating to the Ranger, so it technically belongs to the "grants a class ability" category. But it probably shouldn't have been.

So out of all this, what do we see? 1 truly problematic feat (which exists for legacy reasons which pre-date the feat system) and 3 sets of feats which are appropriate in their design but could have been accompanied by general rules for which they are the improved version.

Deflect Arrows also exists for legacy reasons – it was a monk ability in AD&D. As for the change, the idea was to make it less fiddly than the 3.0 version. But I've still never seen anybody elect to take the feat.

On the broader topic of feats: I think they're fine, but if you want to simplify things they should be the first to go, and when using feats you need to aggressively look at them and decide if anybody should be able to do that, or nobody should be able to do that. Then, they are fine. Feat chains are bad, though, and usually never worth pursuing as a character except for RP reasons.

As for Whirlwind Attack, I definitely don't think it should be a standard combat move. The problems with Whirlwind Attack are 1) it's the end of a feat chain and 2) in 3.x, there probably isn't enough to distinguish that stunt from the other methods by which a fighter can unload on everyone that's surrounding him. I mean, I know the mechanical difference, but then there are other feats and just plain iterative attacks that do something close to the same thing.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515679I thought it might be interesting to look at the 3.5 PHB and actually look at what the core rulebook feats actually do in that game.

This is fairly convincing for me - I was formerly leaning more toward Benoists' camp but yeah looks like most of the PHB feats are improvements, rather than things that are explicitly forbidden...  Although I'm still occasionally irked by how specific some of the rules are, that feats provide exceptions to (needing Quick Draw to make multiple attacks with thrown weapons at higher level)  or the size of the default penalties for attempting some of these things without the feat (e.g. Two Weapon Fighting).

As an aside, I have to nitpick your definition of Manyshot. Rapid Shot is very similar to TWF; manyshot doesn't grant any additional attacks,  it effectively lets a character move as well as shooting two arrows (the normal number of arrows for a +6 BAB)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;515713Definition of Manyshot. Rapid Shot is very similar to TWF; manyshot doesn't grant any additional attacks,  it effectively lets a character move as well as shooting two arrows (the normal number of arrows for a +6 BAB)

Fixed.

QuoteAlthough I'm still occasionally irked by how specific some of the rules are, that feats provide exceptions to (needing Quick Draw to make multiple attacks with thrown weapons at higher level)

I understand the impulse behind saying "crossbows take a long time to load" and so forth, but I'd generally agree that the underlying rule here is a mistake. And there are other feats that I'd re-design (and frequently have): Dodge, for example, has been granting a flat +1 AC in my campaign since 2001 or 2002.

Quote from: Imp;515699Deflect Arrows also exists for legacy reasons – it was a monk ability in AD&D.

Good point. I never actually played AD&D1 and am very unfamiliar with the monk class from that game.

Feats are terribly done in 3e.

Quote from: B.T.;515740Feats are terribly done in 3e.

:rolleyes: