Yes, it may not be the influence of feats per se that I'm seeing in the three games I mentioned. Rather how these powers (in Atlantis, Talents and innate racial powers) operate on a very mathematical plane.

In 3e, the skill system is quite robust, no? So maybe at some point the idea of Feats shifted from filling in for skills, to providing "special moves", and beyond that to these sorts of near-metagame powers with math-first synergies.

The Atlantis QuickStart PDF is on DTRPG and provides some examples that are easy to C&P out of the sample characters section.

QuoteBeast Language

Tritons have the ability to communicate with aquatic life to a limited degree. Thalmia has a +3 to Animal Handling Skill rolls involving sea life.

This is a straightforward special ability, some as an Advantage you'd find in GURPS.

QuoteRighteous Words

Benefit: The Hero and those of his group gain a bonus to any ONE action equal to double the Hero's CHA (minimum of +2). The bonus will stay in effect until the task is completed or the Hero stops speaking. The bonus only applies to the first action taken by a character in a round.
The Hero may use this ability a number of times a day equal to his WIL (minimum of once).

Why isn't this a skill?

QuotePrimordial Might
The Hero can perform great feats of strength. This allows the Hero to make a roll involving Strength with a bonus +5. The Hero may perform a number of such feats once per game.

QuoteLogic of the Lawgiver
Precepts handed down from the Lawgiver are ingrained into the thinking of every Lemurian. The laws of science and the natural world allow the Lemurian to use his prodigious intellect to overcome any type of problem. May add +10 to one roll per game.

Note that these two powers are for the same individual. So basically they do the same thing, except one is more restricted and gives a smaller bonus; both have a 1/game limit, too.

QuoteHuman Racial Abilities
Zeal
Donobey [character name] may add +2 to one roll per adventure

Tyche
Donobey can force a re-roll of any dice action that affects them directly, 1 time a game session. The roll need not be made by the Hero and may affect rolls made by the GM or other players when it pertains to the character. The re-roll must affect the Hero and may not manipulate fate for the benefit of others.

So these are also somewhere between straight-up metagame abilities and very general character abilities. Note that Zeal is a much less powerful version of Logic of the Lawgiver, mechanically.

QuoteGreat Escape

Benefit: The Hero may add triple his INT or PER (minimum of +3 and player chooses Attribute) to any roll involving escape. The Hero may do this a number of times per game equal to his
DEX (minimum of once).

As mentioned above.

I've sold off my hardcopy of Legends of Anglerre but I think the element that would apply here was Stunts.

I have Myriad Song in PDF; if I get a chance I'll look for some examples.

Quote from: Arminius;860576Not 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.

Others have mentioned AD&D Second Ed, UA, BECMI, but I would point to a much earlier precedent: For me feats were a more codified, and elective, suite of what were character class special abilities in AD&D.

AD&D characters received new abilities at various levels, and some of those abilities had uses "per day" (like the paladin's "lay on hands").

The way I interpreted the origin of feats was that someone decoupled them from their fixed level (and sometimes even their class), invented a slew of additional ones, and said "here are lots of class special abilities, decide for yourself (within limits) which you would like to have when".
I saw it as a means to make different paladins, and even provide cross-class abilities without the need to multiclass.

(But that fine idea was diluted by 3e entering super multiclass mode, making the concept of classes meaningless.)

If it helps any, here's my take on how feats changed/evolved during 3E.

3.0 PHB: alot of feats here show very clear 3E antecedent (TWF, Blind-Fight, Endurance, etc.). Fairly narrow selection. Notable 'new' things are mostly fairly obvious and include the improved save feats [Iron Will, etc.], Improved TWF, and Skill Focus (though you could consider this equivalent to devoting extra NWP slots, sorta. Also new are some of the higher-level feats like Whirlwind Attack, designed to give fighters more 'high level' abilities. Metamagic and Item Creation feats are also new abilities.
At this stage options are pretty limited, and feats are obviously combat focussed; if you're a priest or wizard its not overly clear what to take [I remember one early Myth Drannor adventure  where most NPCs wizard  are running around with Exotic Weapon - claw bracer, for instance].

Early 3.0 splatbooks: Song and Silence, Tome and Blood, Defenders of the Faith etc. - expanded things a bit. A lot of new Exotic weapons, chain of improved toughness feats (something that would later be obsoleted by Improved Toughness, which auto-scaled). These often provided more options for specific classes (e.g. new bardic performance types), or made existing feats more useful by making them prereqs for prestige classes.  These also pioneered the various '+2 to two skills' feats.

Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting had a bunch of slightly more diverse (and deliberately more powerful) 'regional feats' which were more background-based, e.g. dealing with bloodlines (e.g. +1 to fire spell save DCs because as a Calimshite you're descended from efreeti); the same idea showed up in (Lot5R based) new Oriental Adventures. Epic Level added epic feats (and Manyshot as a plug on the stuck-in-the-mud action system). Miniatures handbook was mostly combat stuff - martial arts power type stuff (exchange places with an enemy, 'second wind' type healing) as were as 'sudden metamagic'. Savage Species included a lot of monster-specific feats (Extra Magic Item Space, Multitasking, Grappling Constriction, more save-boosters,etc.). Unearthed Arcana experimented a bit with 'spelltouched' feats. Psionics Handbook also adds a bunch of psionic-specific feats.

3.5: in the 3.5 revision (2003) they culled much of that back into Core, including the '+2 to two skills' feats, Manyshot (part of the rebuilt ranger). Also fiddled with two weapon fighting again, and Power Attack. Regional feats remained out of Core (though were released again, somewhat more powerful). Some epic feats moved into the DMG. Skill focus was bumped up to +3. Improved Expertise added for rogues, reworked from Song and Silences' Quicker than the Eye. Monsters also got more feats (1/3 HD rather than 1/4), and they included a few monster feats into the MM, though most of Savage Species didn't make it in.

From then on in the 3.5 books, Complete Warrior adds extensive warrior-type stuff again [a bit rehashed from Sword and Fist, mostly new though IIRC), the other Completes again are a mix or rebalanced and new content. 3.5 also had the terrain-specific books (Sandstorm, Frostburn, etc.) with some feats appropriate to those (nothing pivotal), the race-specific books which naturally include more racial feats [in some cases, just by tacking 'Race X' onto the prereqs.).

Notably developments midway through IMHO were the 'Substitute X for Y' feats, letting a character substitute an ability score mod for a different ability score (such as Int to Reflex saves, or Str to will saves by spending a Rage) - this being an idea that went all the way back to Weapon Finesse in 3.0, but not being used indescriminately as being 'balanced' mathematically, regardless of verisimilitude), starting from Complete Adventurer.
This also released the first multiclass patch feats (stack ranger and paladin for determining smite and wild empathy bonus, etc.), though most of the early ones are low-powered, with useful ones not really appearing until Complete Scoundrel. CS also added a 'skill trick' system; these do stuff actually resembling some of the early and now-underpowered/obsoleted feats (e.g. 'Flick of the Wrist' was a feat in early 3.0, now a trick only costing 2 skill points).

I think ultimately the 3e version of feats was a terrible mistake.

Quote from: RPGPundit;862077I think ultimately the 3e version of feats was a terrible mistake.

The single worst thing about it was putting in feats that synergized with other feats. If they all provided compartamentalized bonuses that didn't interact with each other it'd be a bit annoying at high levels but not really a problem.

But being able to string together 8 feats that all help you do "run at this guy and hit him REALLY hard with a two-handed sword" and all stack then things are seriously screwed up.

Quote from: Arminius;860601In 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

"Seeing that math" has nothing to do with a mechanic being dissociated. By that standard, ALL mechanics are dissociated.

Quote from: David Johansen;860704What'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.

I recall getting that impression as well.

The Fantasy Trip had Talents that were "got it or not" but sometimes with multiple 'levels' (Expert Naturalist, Martial Arts III, etc.). They generally made sense as things that should require training or practice. Lacking a weapon skill, for instance, a figure could still use the arm but took a penalty on the attack roll.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;862082"Seeing that math" has nothing to do with a mechanic being dissociated. By that standard, ALL mechanics are dissociated.

The point was the entire sentence, not the bit you've snipped.

Quote from: RPGPundit;862077I think ultimately the 3e version of feats was a terrible mistake.

I would amend this to be: they were terrible in execution.

Conceptually, I think GURPS with their Advantage/Disadvantages were the first time these things kinda crept into my consciousness. I also remember the D&D Options and Powers getting very close to it.

WoD with Merits and Flaws also greatly resembled the 3.x Feat system.

The big problem with Feats, to me, were that they completely were misunderstood in terms of impact and conceit to their own game by the designers themselves. The very problem of LFQM is a byproduct of this among other issues.

Feats should have occupied the same place as Spells in terms of balance and power, especially for non-caster classes. I generally do not like Per Day mechanics, but I've long accepted them since 1e... but it's clear there was nearly ZERO thought in how they balanced Feats against the rest of the game.

The only d20 game that handles Feats well, to me, are 5e and Fantasy Craft.

Quote from: Arminius;862155The point was the entire sentence, not the bit you've snipped.

When your premise is flawed, the rest of your argument is irrelevant.

That's not the case here.

QuoteIn 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.

An example:

Suppose we have a feat that says the character can substitute Wisdom + Charisma for Strength as the basis for a certain type of physical attack. In the character's POV, there's nothing dissociated about this--it just means that in certain circumstances he has a better attack than others (assuming the character has reasonably high values in the substitute stats). From the player's POV, though, there's just an arbitrary manipulation/substitution of mechanical elements.

The trivial sort of dissociation is barely worth mentioning, except to note that it's a familiar fallacy brought up when arguing against the general concept. But when the design takes cute mathematical pathways, even if there's no intelligible metagame effect for the character, the mechanics are drawing attention to themselves to the point of distraction and incomprehensibility to the player. If you'd like to play the pedant you can say dissociation is a binary classification without degree. I'm not sure that's true; in any case it's completely irrelevant to the discussion of the way that "Feat" mechanics have developed.

wfrp 2e added divided 1e skills into talents and skills. i don't lie although it never did get out of hand like in 3e D&D.

Quote from: JeremyR;860752Weapon 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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;862077I think ultimately the 3e version of feats was a terrible mistake.

Quote from: Daztur;862080The single worst thing about it was putting in feats that synergized with other feats. If they all provided compartamentalized bonuses that didn't interact with each other it'd be a bit annoying at high levels but not really a problem.

But being able to string together 8 feats that all help you do "run at this guy and hit him REALLY hard with a two-handed sword" and all stack then things are seriously screwed up.

yes as a 3.x fan its one of the systems big flaws is the +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 that causes issues rather then a set of ranked feats that say the 1st rank is +2 and the 2nd rank raises it appropriate amount with out having the feat stacking who ha in that manner

Quote from: tenbones;862162I would amend this to be: they were terrible in execution.

Conceptually, I think GURPS with their Advantage/Disadvantages were the first time these things kinda crept into my consciousness. I also remember the D&D Options and Powers getting very close to it.

WoD with Merits and Flaws also greatly resembled the 3.x Feat system.

The big problem with Feats, to me, were that they completely were misunderstood in terms of impact and conceit to their own game by the designers themselves. The very problem of LFQM is a byproduct of this among other issues.

Feats should have occupied the same place as Spells in terms of balance and power, especially for non-caster classes. I generally do not like Per Day mechanics, but I've long accepted them since 1e... but it's clear there was nearly ZERO thought in how they balanced Feats against the rest of the game.

The only d20 game that handles Feats well, to me, are 5e and Fantasy Craft.

well i agree with you ten bones i find a good example of feats in dnd 3.5 being an after thought is power attack (yes you read that right ) if you make the right choices its the core of a few very good fighter builds
(relatively speaking ) but if you aren't using the right other feats its near worthless

Quote from: kosmos1214;862689yes as a 3.x fan its one of the systems big flaws is the +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 that causes issues rather then a set of ranked feats that say the 1st rank is +2 and the 2nd rank raises it appropriate amount with out having the feat stacking who ha in that manner.

Meanwhile - they will call that "balance" for non-casters. But then a caster can get a spell for free in-game that will be far far far more powerful than any Feat.

Quote from: kosmos1214;862689well i agree with you ten bones i find a good example of feats in dnd 3.5 being an after thought is power attack (yes you read that right ) if you make the right choices its the core of a few very good fighter builds
(relatively speaking ) but if you aren't using the right other feats its near worthless

And the problem is: Feats in 3.x come too few in number (and yes, I'm speaking specifically about Fighters - who get the most) and the Feats are horribly under-powered and oddly out of balance with the rest of the system conceits on damage output, utility, saves, and pretty much everything else.

This is exacerbated by unnecessary choke-points in Feat-trees that were crippling.

They need to be BEEFIER and/or come in greater numbers (which should have been fulfilled by PrC's with smaller level ranges, imo.

As I stated above, I think hands-down Fantasy Craft handled Feats perfectly. no Feat-Tree was larger than three Feats deep. Every Feat was BEEFY and you literally can make no bad choices.

Example - This is the Power Attack Feat for Fantasy Craft (as recommended by their conversion document)

QuoteALL-OUT ATTACK
You hit hard. Really hard.
Benefit: At the start of your Initiative Count you may accept
a penalty with your attack and skill checks of up to –4 to gain
an insight bonus with melee damage rolls equal to twice that
number until the start of your next Initiative Count. If any of
your attacks miss this round, you become flat-footed at the end
of your current Initiative Count.

Most of the Fantasy Craft Feats take your non-casters from "struggling" to being big goddamn heroes. Any fighting style can be replicated with ease. Any weapon can be turned into a deadly fighting form without having to rely on a class to flesh it out. Even casters can be deadly hand-to-hand combatants. 3.x should have been this. I *still* don't understand how people can defend and play 3.x games while their Feat system is so broken.

But then I think it's also because they may not even realize it. /shrug

Quote from: kosmos1214;862689i find a good example of feats in dnd 3.5 being an after thought is power attack (yes you read that right ) if you make the right choices its the core of a few very good fighter builds
(relatively speaking ) but if you aren't using the right other feats its near worthless

I don't think I would hang that on feats, though--excepting that feats were supposed to give fighters something on par with what spell casters had at higher levels, and they didn't.

That fighting type characters and spell casting characters diverge in power level early in the game in 3e is, in my mind, a separate criticism of 3rd edition.

I for one don't find the idea of feats that bad, simply the execution in 3e.