I never got into D&D 3e, but I saw enough of it to recognize a similarity in newer games that had a whole parallel system of character powers alongside of skills. I know there were some complaints about this mechanic appearing in Mongoose Runequest I (though not in a huge way). I really noticed it in Myriad Song, a scifi game from Sanguine, then in Legends of Anglerre, and now in the Khepera edition of Atlantis: The Second Age.

While Feats are similar to GURPS Advantages (and I think I saw Advantages in subsequent games such as Waste World), they seem different in a couple crucial ways. First, Ads generally don't step on the toes of skills and abilities, at least not as strongly. If there's a way to be good at something via increasing a skill or ability, then that's usually the way to do it, rather than a shortcut via an Advantage. Second, Advantages usually provide fairly straightforward bonuses and calculations, while the powers I've seen in the newer games (that I believe are influenced by Feats) have effects and interactions where the math creates complicated synergies.

For example Atlantis has the "Great Escape" Talent, that lets a character add triple his Intelligence or Perception score to attempts to escape, up to a number of times per game equal to Dexterity. Then there's Advanced Missile Training,which lets one make multiple missile attacks (Dex+3) per round, up to a number of times per day equal to one's Combat Rating, which is a base, non-derived attribute. One can also add triple one's Perception to a ranged attack by taking a turn to aim.

I don't have GURPS in front of me but I think these sorts of things would either be a direct result of certain skills, or would be expressed as Advantages that provide a flat bonus (say, +4) to task resolution in certain defined situations. Not to mention, the "x times per day/game" element seems resembles Daily Powers in D&D 4e. My point here isn't condemn Feats but to distinguish them from Advantages or Skills.

And having done that, I'm wondering if Feats in 3e had any clearer precedent than Advantages. And also, after 3e, how big the trend is of non-D&D games including Feat-like elements.

Now the part where I editorialize: I don't care for these sorts of mechanics. Even in GURPS (3e), there are Advantages that seem justified only because there aren't enough attributes for what might be a derived effect in other games, and some Advantages just seem like they're alternate math for accomplishing the same thing--for example, unless a character has thick fur or a literal shell, what's really represented by Damage Resistance that isn't covered by high Health? But--to each his own. What really concerns me is the possibly that Feats have become a kind of cargo-cult design, something included in games just because the creator assumed it was a standard element of RPGs.

EDIT: In GURPS 3e the Advantage was "Toughness", and apparently the designers agreed that it was redundant, so in 4e they changed it to DR that literally means inhumanly thick natural armor, and forbade it for humans.

Quote from: Arminius;860576And having done that, I'm wondering if Feats in 3e had any clearer precedent than Advantages. And also, after 3e, how big the trend is of non-D&D games including Feat-like elements.

2nd Edition's Kits often served up similar mechanical functions. Feats also hoovered up any Non-Weapon Proficiencies that couldn't be conveniently slotted into skills (like Ambidexterity or Lucky).

The Traits, Gifts, and so forth in World of Darkness games also share a lot in common with Feats.

Also Advantages/Disadvantages from L5R. They feature mechanics like, "A character who has Strength of the Earth may ignore some effects of Wound Levels on their rolls. The Wound rank penalty is decreased by one die for every level of Strength of the Earth."

(I'm basically just naming random '90s games here. These ideas were all over the place.)

Quotesome Advantages just seem like they're alternate math for accomplishing the same thing--for example, unless a character has thick fur or a literal shell, what's really represented by Damage Resistance that isn't covered by high Health?

That logic holds for a system like GURPS where you have a pool of points and complete control over where those points are spent. In systems where that isn't true (which, IME, is most of them), you end up with Feat-like systems specifically to give people the ability to say "my character has a little more Health than normal".

Systems like this can also be employed to easily provide limits on how far outside of the norm characters can be pushed. (For example, if you've got a Feat that lets you increase your Health but you can only take it once, that would prevent someone from dumping all their resources into cranking up their Health stat.)

Maybe not a straight precedent, but Hero System has had the Skills / Perks / Talents / Powers distinction for a long time.
Think Perks and Talents in particular appeared for the first time in Danger International, 1985.

I think the defining traits that makes a Feat a Feat is the fact you can gain it in play (rather than only in character generation) and the fact you are limited to only gaining so many.

YMMV

Within D&D itself, alot of feats existing as either Non Weapon Proficiencies or Weapon Proficiencies e.g.

Weapon Proficiency
Weapon Specialization (and I believe Point Blank Shot may have been rolled out of the 'bow specialist' perks).
Blind Fight (NWP)
Alertness (NWP)
Endurance (NWP)
Two Weapon Fighting (WP, Complete Fighter)
Ambidexterity (WP, Complete Fighter)

I don't think they're an especially bad basic idea (specific implementation is another question). A 3E feat is:
*often a combat ability, whereas skills are largely non-combat
*usually you have it or you don't, whereas skills are bought in ranks.

Some feats are more geared toward non-combat too of course, but overall the setup lets you spend combat ability to get more skills, but not vice versa (no giving up skill points for another +1 to hit with bastard sword).

The distinction I'm trying to make isn't just a matter of abilities that are tracked separately from skills. GURPS advantages fall into that category, and if I'm not mistaken both Ambidexterity and Luck are in GURPS. (Though of course implementation may be different from AD&D 2e S&P's Lucky.)

I think jadrax is onto something---in the games where they appear, Advantages tend to be more fixed, while gaining Feats (Talents in Atlantis, etc.) is part of natural character progression.

However the mechanics of use are also different. Atlantis has Powers for the various species/races which while innate, are also Feat-like in this way. To wit: their math synergizes with Attributes instead of just adding a flat bonus.

Also, they seem very math-centric. In the GURPS decision to do away with Toughness, I think there's a refinement of design philosophy which says, "what effect are we trying to simulate, and what math will we use to do it?" From that came the realization that a human who is good at soaking up damage has high Health (hit points/constitution in D&D terms), not the ability to reduce incoming damage via the same math as armor.

If some other game wanted to give characters more hit points but didn't want to modify the characteristic(s) from which HP are derived, then the straightforward approach would be to have an "advantage" that did just that--directly add HP. But in a math-centric system you might have a variety of "feats" that all contribute to surviving longer in combat--one might give more HP, another would reduce damage from each attack, another might allow regaining lost HP by spending a resource. It would give a different name to each (say, Tank, Toughness, and Resiliency) but there wouldn't really be much reason, if you thought of the name first, not to have a single mechanic. Different mechanics in fact seems to be the point, along with mathematical synergies.

This is what I find to be the major difference between Advantage-like systems and Feat-like ones.

Okay, I'm beginning to lean more strongly toward "3e did it", but maybe not at the outset.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=354955#post354955

QuoteIn a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done. Well the problem with that is, that you get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=157291&postcount=16

QuoteThe warlock is evidence of a philosophical shift within D&D R&D. When we did the 3.0 classes, we sort of asked ourselves "What would a barbarian be like?" and "What would a ranger be like?" The warlock arises from a different sort of question: "How can we design a class that provides this-or-that game experience for the player?"

Although granted, these refer to classes, not feats.

"Dissociation" is closely related to what I'm seeing with the "Feat" phenomenon, but not always the same. In some cases the dissociation is only there in the trivial sense of the math of the mechanic being visible to the player but not the character--except that the math is very visible due to taking a circuitous path through through other character elements. In other cases it's more a matter of having the same effect be expressed by diverse math on vague semantic grounds (a sort of reverse Occam, "causa vere multiplicanda sunt!").

Quote: "EDIT: In GURPS 3e the Advantage was "Toughness", and apparently the designers agreed that it was redundant, so in 4e they changed it to DR that literally means inhumanly thick natural armor, and forbade it for humans."

I liked that one, once had a character with the 2 levels of it. Even named him Von Pynehide. Think he was a Dwarf though.

Quote from: Arminius;860601"Dissociation" is closely related to what I'm seeing with the "Feat" phenomenon, but not always the same. In some cases the dissociation is only there in the trivial sense of the math of the mechanic being visible to the player but not the character--except that the math is very visible due to taking a circuitous path through through other character elements. In other cases it's more a matter of having the same effect be expressed by diverse math on vague semantic grounds (a sort of reverse Occam, "causa vere multiplicanda sunt!").

?
GURPS may be more 'simulational' but character elements that are largely 'meta', and manipulateable for character optimization, isn't a new idea either - e.g. Champions/Hero's "effect based" system for powers, where you pick mechanical doodads and fit whatever concept you want on top.  

Partly feats operating at a more 'mechanical' way (deliberately devoid of in-world fluff) may be due to increasing numbers of systems that are being built in that way, fairly abstractly. e.g. FATE based games.

What's always bothered me about feats is that they let you do things you should already be able to try without them or things that could just as easily be a skill.

GURPS Advantages are a messy hodge podge but GURPS Martial Arts Techniques are pretty close to Feats, though they just let you buy off the penalty for things you can already try to do in combat.

HERO's Martial Arts Attacks are actually bought as powers, which is really very appropriate for super martial artists.  I'm pretty sure the current Olympic Judo champion can't throw down with Superman.

I expect you'd find the roots of 3e's Feats in Ars Magica, but I don't know for sure.

I remember the recent AFoIaF game, it seemed like there they were going out of their way to try to use as many different kinds of math for the bennies in as many different possible ways. IIRC it went something like:
-Flat bonus.
-Bonus equal to a separate attribute.
-Allows you to reroll ones.
-Makes 6's explode.
-Various ways to screw with your opponent's rolling.

And on and on and on. All just fidgeting with the numbers, nothing you could really sink your teeth into.

I'm more and more turning back to 2ed-style NWPs: something really specific that your character can just DO without having to worry about a list of modifiers or what the DC is. The only real change they needed is to make them more specific and interesting so that they wouldn't be required to do stuff that any adventurer with a brain should be able to do automatically (swim, start a fire, etc.) and focus in on interesting things like lip reading and contortionism.

I think 1E's unearthed Arcana has level-based "Perks & Shticks" that can be interpreted as precursor to feats in the close D&D sense.

Partially, I think the way the GURPS Advantages were re-imagined by the CRPG Fallout (Perks) was also influential, as well as Palladium level based power increases.

The last one can be backed up IIRC, Mearls and/or people like him are on record saying this specifically.

To me the crucial difference is that Feats tie into a certain kind of 2e consciousness. Do not forget how LIMITING AD&D was viewed before 3E! Why can't mages wear armour? Why can't they wield a sword like Gandfalf? What about Clerics and their forced endorsement of blunt weapons? Etc.

Feats were done to customize beyond the very limiting interpretation that 2E made the mainstream.

So, pre-historically, feats were actually more freedom. Their own success overtook them and early feats now look limiting. Like the certain kind of feats that implicitly forbid you to do X without it. Feats made things optionally available that used to be FORBIDDEN for eternity for certain classes.

Huh? Plenty of examples of exactly that kind of flexibility in 2ed. 2ed specialty priests can use all kinds of weapons and plenty of ways to get a 2ed MU woth a sword.

Speciality Priests were definitely not mainstream, but yes, they point the way towards Feats.
And if you think longer about it you will see that a "one specific god" solution is rather not generic and it was rightfully lampooned at the time.

Weapon specialization is an early example of a feat (cost a weapon proficiency in 1e) and also arguable the cleave feat was inspired by the 1e's fighter ability to attack multiple less than 1 hd opponents.

You also had some stuff in BECMI D&D. For instance, there was a "smash" attack for 9th level fighters that worked vaguely like the Power Attack feat. You took a -5 penalty to hit, but in return you did more damage (your whole strength score, not the bonus) and then it had a weapon mastery system with all sorts of different effects depending on the level of mastery and the weapon used.

Similarly, some of the skills in that game gave bonuses like feats. For instance, if you had Acrobatics, you'd get a +2 to saving throws that involved dodging out of the way. If you had the "Muscle" skill, you had a +2 bonus to strength checks for opening doors and such.

Feats were just a way of perhaps codifying stuff more.