Pre-history and "post-history" of Feats

tenbones · November 03, 2015, 04:13:52 PM

There are a LOT of factors that played into that problem.

HP not in balance with means to deplete them.

Armor not in balance with bonuses to hit.

Saves not in balance with means to target specific saves for insta-kill/stoppage.

Stats for casters only require one or two exceptional scores. Non-casters need usually need more.

Spell/Feat acquisition completely not in sync, nor were they in terms of power.

Bloody Stupid Johnson · November 03, 2015, 04:44:38 PM

I think mainly there's a problem if your class feature is something anyone can pick up. It doesn't matter much how powerful your feat is, if anyone can take it.
As is in 3.5, you can pump your entire feat output into something and still be wanting more, but equally shorter chains would be a problem because more feats isn't a useful class feature when 2-3 are all you need. Its the dilemma you prong upon, when a class doesn't have abilities that are uniquely its.

tenbones · November 03, 2015, 05:32:32 PM

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;862925I think mainly there's a problem if your class feature is something anyone can pick up. It doesn't matter much how powerful your feat is, if anyone can take it.
As is in 3.5, you can pump your entire feat output into something and still be wanting more, but equally shorter chains would be a problem because more feats isn't a useful class feature when 2-3 are all you need. Its the dilemma you prong upon, when a class doesn't have abilities that are uniquely its.

*warning* this might turn into a big side-discussion...

So I used to think that too. After doing a lot of writing in 3.x/PF for various publications... and playing metric-shit-tons of 1e/2e... here's what I realized.

In 1e/2e I could conceptualize my character (fighter) completely free of this notion I had to be 20th level to see him "complete". It's a conceit of old-school D&D that with a few proficiencies and Weapon Specialization/Double-specialization - it meant both figuratively and mechanically I was a badass with that specific weapon, by level 6. By the time I was 9th, I was a lord and probably had mastered 2 or 3 forms of combat, as is befitting a 9th level fighter of those editions.

The conceits of those editions were that a 6th level character WAS a badass. This is something a lot of people starting with 3.x and later do not understand. This is important to remember because this is precisely one of the big reasons things go haywire.

In 1e/2e (and before that) the mere fact you were an adventurer meant you were already head and shoulders above the 0-level commoners. There wasn't some level-track that demanded you get to 20th-level. In fact, ask any old-timer around here and we'll all point to various discussions St. Gygax himself said that (paraphrase) there 'was never an intent to go beyond 10th level... they just extrapolated everything out beyond that because people wanted more'. or something like that.

So this conceit is baked in the principles that mechanically would allow your party of 7th-level adventurers that excelled in their respective skillsets to take on crazy-ass adventures. If you wanted to be a dual-wielding katana-master? Not a problem. A spear-and-shield wielding Spartan? Not a problem. There was far less requirement of optimization.

Along comes MMO's and then the notion of "progression" became the basis of level/powercreep. It's funny, I was in on day three of EQ1 and I remember thinking "Wow! this is like 2e D&D!" when within 5-years WoW would streamline that down to a bunch of level grinding-to-max that would find its way into the design concepts of 3.x

'The Problem of the Fighter'
So with this idea that 20th level is the new standard, which is mirrored by the fact that non-adventurers could likewise level in their shitty non-PC classes. The Fighter suddenly found himself having to wait on levels in order to "flesh out" his concept.

On the surface this seemed okay - he got a Feat practically every level.

Issue #1 - The Feats broke up assumptions that were already part of the concept of the non-caster classes.

Being good with a style of fighting in 3.x meant you had to pay heavily to actually be GOOD at fighting a certain way. In most cases - specifically if you're Dual-Wielding or Sword-and-Boarding you'll be at a big deficite compared to being a Two-Handed user.

Issue #2 - The Feats themselves were not balanced against one another or against the mechanics of play.

In order to keep some perceived advantage that a Dual-Wielder might have over a Two-Handed hacker, they tacked on an extremely convoluted dual-wielding matrix that literally made you a horrible character until you had the sufficient Feats in the tree, and your payoff was mediocre at best.

Meanwhile spellcasters could just get spells that grew progressively powerful merely by leveling (So why not just let a Greatsword specialist accrue d6's as he leveled? or something?)

Issue #3 - Feats did *not* level the playing field on their own. Itemization was part of the assumption of class-balance.

Probably the WORST conceit of 3.x is the idea that magic-items were part of the bizarre calculus that balanced the character classes. While magic items were certainly part of previous editions, what a lot of people didn't realize initially was that the assumption would always be that the non-casters would "balance" out based on some assumed formula of how many GP's in magic-items a character of level should own.

Rather than design the system where the classes are balanced based on their own roles they were supposed to play. They were designed based on mechanics assumed in some self-contained white-room environment that everyone plays the same.

The outcome was that non-caster classes were chained to these Feats that originally were cooked into the lighter mechanics of the older editions.

What 3.x/PF has done is render the point of the Fighter as a class "meaningless". It wasn't until I found Fantasy Craft and to a lesser extent d20 7th Sea, that I realized what was fundamentally missing.

I have a litmus test I normally challenge 3.x/PF/4e fans with to show what I'm talking about in terms of accuracy.

Create a 6th level 'Spartan' from the movie '300'. Try doing that in 3.5/PF/4e. You'll see three very very different characters that do not in any way resemble a Spartan in terms of realism or cinematic asskickery. No, you'll have a cut-rate sub-optimal piece of shit that will get destroyed in most standard encounters against optimized PC's.

... and then do it in Fantasy Craft. And then you'll see Leonidas take the field on your table.

tenbones · November 03, 2015, 07:01:50 PM

I did a "quick" mock up, if you care. TL/DR - I perfectly understand as I tend to detest white-room examples... but when comparing different but similar systems it might worth a look.

Spoiler

So for sake of argument - let's assume normal stats, no bonuses. No magic items. No extra books. Human 6th level.

The purpose of this is not to prove some kind of accuracy, it's to show what you're really capable of fresh out of the box. Even if you never played Fantasy Craft, if you have passing familiarity with d20 you'll understand 98% of it.

So let's keep it to Pathfinder vs. Fantasy Craft. My expectations of "Spartan" is a lethal spear/shield fighter that can go toe-to-toe with anyone and be able to whip that ass and look good doing it. But their real benefit will be when fighting alongside others. BUT they shouldn't be limited to just formation fighting. Remember I'm not going for "realism" I'm erring on some cinematic flair.

We can let the numbers reflect that based on each system's conceits of what is expected in outcomes.

Pathfinder "Spartan" -

6th Level
+6BAB, 6d10 HP, Fort: +5, Ref: +2 Will:+2

Special Abilities: Armor Training (+1AC), Weapon Training (+1 hit/dmg) Bravery: +2 save vs. Fear.

Feats: Two-Weapon Fighting(-4/-4), Improved Shield Bash (keeps AC while Shield Bashing), Shield Focus (+1AC), Weapon Focus: Short-spear (+1 hit)* I chose Shortspear because it's the only spear a fighter can use one-handed. Weapon Specialization: Shortspear (+2 Dmg), Shield Slam (free Bullrush with Bash attack)

So in this configuration - he'd technically need a 15 Dex (let's waive that), but he'd have a short spear/shield. His standard attack would be:

First attack - Spear +4/Shield -2 for 1d6+3/1d4+1
Second attack- Spear -3 for 1d6+3

Pretty limpdick. You can barely use your weapons/shield at the same time. You can't effectively/mechanically fight in an effective phalanx, people can walk up to you and bash your brains out. You have penalties to hit. All in all... pretty shitty. You could spruce it up with other books (just like I could do it with Fantasy Craft... which would make things a whole lot worse for Pathfinder).

Fantasy Craft
Human Soldier 6th level. Stern Shield Bearer* (you have to pick a background like 5e. This nets him:

Stern
• Grueling Combatant: Each time an adjacent opponent attacks you and misses, he suffers 2 points of subdual damage.
• Light Sleeper: Sleeping is never a Terminal Situation for you.
• No Pain: You ignore the first fatigued or shaken condition you gain in each scene.
• Relentless Attack: You gain the Relentless Attack trick.
• Unbreakable: Each time you suffer attribute impairment, it decreases by 1 (minimum 0).

Shield-Bearer
• Bonus Feat: Shield Basics
• Agile Defense: Your base Defense increases by 1. (AC +1)
• Blunt Proficiency: You gain the Blunt proficiency.
• Melee Combat Expert: You’re considered to have 2 additional Melee Combat feats for any ability based on the number of Melee Combat feats you have.
• Shield Block: You gain the Shield Block trick

6th Soldier - Armor User 1 (+1 Def/AC), Weapon Specialist: Decisive Attack (+1 free attack)* there are other choices. Fight on: +5 Feats.

Feats:
Shield Basics
Benefit: You gain a +4 gear bonus when Bull Rushing with an armed shield. Also, you gain a stance. Phalanx Fighting (Stance): Each adjacent ally gains a +1 bonus to Defense and Reflex saves. This bonus increases to +2 when you wield a weapon with guard +2 or higher. The maximum bonus a character may gain from allies in this stance is +4.

Shield Mastery
Benefit: When you wield a shield the armor-piercing and keen qualities of attacks targeting you decrease by the number of Melee Combat feats you have. Also, you gain a trick. Shield Slam (Shield Attack Trick): This trick may only be used when inflicting subdual damage. If the target fails his save against subdual damage, he’s also stunned for 1 round.

Shield Supremacy
Benefit: When you wield a shield its guard quality increases by +2. Also, you gain a trick. Throw Them Back! (Shield Total Defense Trick): Each opponent who tries to move into a square adjacent to you must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + your Str modifier + the number of Melee Combat feats you have) or end their movement in the previous square.

Spear Basics
Benefit: When you wield a 1-handed spear its Reach increases by 1 and when you wield a 2-handed spear its gains bleed. Also, you gain a stance.
Monkey’s Grip (Stance): You may wield a single 2-handed melee weapon With one hand.

Spear Mastery
Benefit: You may use a spear to perform staff and polearm tricks. Also, you gain a trick.
Falling Lightning (Spear Attack Trick): You may substitute your Athletics (Str) bonus for your melee attack bonus. If the attack misses you become flat-footed at the end of your Initiative Count. You may use this trick as many
times per combat as you have Melee Combat feats.

Polearm Trick: Topple and Gut (Polearm Trip Trick): You also inflict your
polearm’s damage with a successful Trip attack.

Wall of Branches (Staff Total Defense Trick): Each opponent who tries to move into a square adjacent to you must make a Reflex save (DC 10 + your Str modifier + the number of Melee Combat feats you have) or end their movement in the previous square.

Wrestling Basics Why? Why not. I'm already covered and all Spartans can fight bare-handed right?

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus to Defense against adjacent
opponents. Also, you gain a stance.

Open Stance (Stance): Once per round when you have 2 hands free and an opponent misses you with a melee or unarmed attack, you may immediately Grapple or Trip him as a free action. You may not take move actions (though you may still take 5-ft. Bonus Steps as normal).

Gear: Boar Spear or Throwing Spear. D8's - Boar Spear has Reach and +1AC (Guard 1) and the Throwing Spear has Hurl. TECHNICALLY - your Soldier doesn't need it because his Spear Feats let him use Hurl with most spears ANYHOW....

His abilities allow him to use a 2h spear with the shield without issue. But effectively can keep people out of range by forcing them back. Or close in melee for Spear/Shield asswhipping at no penalty. He gets a healthy bunch of AC, and he can fight with/without a weapon. Shield/No-shield. Still viable. His spears are properly sized as opposed to his PF counterpart. And he'll be pulling off THREE attacks per round with a Shield Bash if he so chooses, at no penalty.

And it just gets better from there. The game scales up to and is consistent and requires *no* itemization (and in FC magic items scale with you. That +1 spear you got at 3rd level? It's a sweet-ass +3 Flaming Spear of Fury at 14th - or whatever). The THING is... with Fantasy Craft, *EVERY* possible weapon/style combination is awesome. I could use a pair of fucking chopsticks and it would be badass.

Meanwhile 3.x/PF hits its "sweet spot" at 9-12 then plummets into insanity beyond that...

Phillip · November 03, 2015, 07:15:01 PM

A Spartan in old D&D:

"Hello, I'm Anaxilas, of Sparta."

Done, and we're already playing!

kosmos1214 · November 03, 2015, 09:26:37 PM

Quote from: tenbones;862901Meanwhile - 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.

i agree i was referring it the fact that you are adding up exceptionally large numbers of small bonuses to be effective not necessarily that they where strong enough to be effective or balanced because they whernt im as familiar with the problem as any other 3.x player

Quote from: tenbones;862901And 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)

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

and no where did i disagree that they are under powered the power attack example is one i use when this comes up because it is a feat that every one who has played 3.x under stands and yes ether they needed to get more feats or they could have done the smart thing and given the fighter actual class ability's and put the feats on top of that likely with a buff to feats as they where in need of help most of the time

also most ppl that are playing 3.x/pf under stand the problems in my personal experience they simply arnt playing the game for its balance and are playing it usually for the large amount of material thats out there

Quote from: Willie the Duck;862905I 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.

and im not saying the idea is bad its honestly a rather good concept but the execution was rather lacking

tenbones · November 03, 2015, 10:55:06 PM

Quote from: Phillip;862943A Spartan in old D&D:

"Hello, I'm Anaxilas, of Sparta."

Done, and we're already playing!

Ah the good ol days

Christopher Brady · November 03, 2015, 10:56:22 PM

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

And that was because Monte Cook thought of them like 'trap cards' in Magic: the Gathering. (Which is totally incorrect as to what makes a 'trap card') He was very much into system mastery, which to him, apparently meant putting useless things into the game for other classes to suffer with. Because Magic should be king, in his universe.

Christopher Brady · November 03, 2015, 11:08:33 PM

Quote from: tenbones;862930*warning* this might turn into a big side-discussion...

So I used to think that too. After doing a lot of writing in 3.x/PF for various publications... and playing metric-shit-tons of 1e/2e... here's what I realized.

In 1e/2e I could conceptualize my character (fighter) completely free of this notion I had to be 20th level to see him "complete". It's a conceit of old-school D&D that with a few proficiencies and Weapon Specialization/Double-specialization - it meant both figuratively and mechanically I was a badass with that specific weapon, by level 6. By the time I was 9th, I was a lord and probably had mastered 2 or 3 forms of combat, as is befitting a 9th level fighter of those editions.

The conceits of those editions were that a 6th level character WAS a badass.

I'm going to cut this off right there: the Fighter SHOULD have been Badass at 6+ levels. The issue is that everyone seemed think that every single guardsman, bandit, mook with a sword was a Fighter of some variant.

And when you have even the designers of D&D doing it, things get wonky and weird and suddenly, you have things like Monte Cook's favouring of magic, and including factoring (as you point out later in your post, Tenbones) Magic Items into the base system math, because it's the 'only way' that non-casters can somehow 'compete'.

It didn't help the focus of 3.0 being 'System Mastery' as if it was somehow analogous to a CCG. The issue with that train of thought is that a CCG has randomized addons that help flesh out a deck, and unless you trade for them, each time you get a packet it's complete chance to get something that might add to your deck. In terms of an RPG, everything you need is right there, you're not going to get anything new, nothing coming on a yearly basis that will change the metagame.

Feats as an idea, a bunch of prepackaged abilities that add options to non-casters is a good one. Because not everyone can think outside of the box, and as I've said numerous times, for a lot of people if it's not mentioned specifically, you're not allowed to do it, even if the rules say 'Make shit up'. A lot of gamers like things codified in some fashion, Feats should have. They didn't.

Orphan81 · November 04, 2015, 03:52:39 AM

Savage Worlds is a game that was created entirely around the concept of Feats and how they help customize a character...

Only Savage Worlds gives the option of taking a new Feat (Called "Edges" in their system) every level in lieu of Skill Points..It's an either or thing as you level up... You either get more competent in your skills, or open up new options in combat (and outside as well)

Examples: "Marksman" gives you a bonus with ranged attacks when you don't move in a round. "Improved First Strike" allows you to make a melee attack against any opponent who comes with range.."Clear Headed" allows you to take the best of two Initiative Totals every round, while "Fleet of Foot" increases your movement speed..

The system is a lot of fun, and very quick and easy. While you do get some synergy from Edges very rarely do you get stacking bonuses...it's more "This particular Edge is very awesome when paired with this other Edge".

I think Feat style systems can work and can be very cool, it's just all about execution.

Bloody Stupid Johnson · November 04, 2015, 06:18:16 AM

Quote from: tenbones;862938I did a "quick" mock up, if you care. TL/DR - I perfectly understand as I tend to detest white-room examples... but when comparing different but similar systems it might worth a look.

Myself speaking of FantasyCraft I've read the book (...and run it once). I think if someone could build a version with about 50% as many moving parts I'd be quite fond of it; as is, I'm probably play it but wouldn't want to GM it overly. Not because of NPC creation specifically - I know that uses its own streamlined system - but from having to know and manage all the rules that interact with whatever the PCs are doing.

On the example here specifically, its interesting. Its clear that the feats do something, what I'd be concerned with (in light of my theory above) is whether the 'soldier' class is worthwhile. I'm rusty on the rules but it seems like by 5th level an Expert, Scout or Lancer gets 2 bonus feats to the Soldiers' 3 and so would likely to make almost as good a spartan.

tenbones · November 04, 2015, 11:08:13 AM

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;863011Myself speaking of FantasyCraft I've read the book (...and run it once). I think if someone could build a version with about 50% as many moving parts I'd be quite fond of it; as is, I'm probably play it but wouldn't want to GM it overly. Not because of NPC creation specifically - I know that uses its own streamlined system - but from having to know and manage all the rules that interact with whatever the PCs are doing.

I usually tell people the same thing that I was told when I first looked at FC - read the book like three solid passes (more to break the standard 3.x conditioning than anything else). Then discard about half the rules.

It even says that *in* the book. There is a page where it tells you how to strip down everything to the bare bones, then you add rules that work for your game you want to run. Crafty doesn't expect anyone to use all the rules in play at once... but everyone misses that little line. But with as dense as the book is, it's easy to miss.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;863011On the example here specifically, its interesting. Its clear that the feats do something, what I'd be concerned with (in light of my theory above) is whether the 'soldier' class is worthwhile. I'm rusty on the rules but it seems like by 5th level an Expert, Scout or Lancer gets 2 bonus feats to the Soldiers' 3 and so would likely to make almost as good a spartan.

I think it's a good point. But having run it, I can tell you that Soldiers are, pound for pound the straight-up badasses of melee combat. This is not to say Lancers, Scouts, and Experts can't go toe-to-toe, they have advantages in their respective areas of specialty. Soldier's advantages are that they tend to have higher HP (Vitality) and AC (Defense) and most importantly - they tend to be more heavily armored (DR). That bit of attrition plus their offensive force makes it very difficult to fight them at their own game. It's possible, but just unlikely. By 7th+ Soldiers are death-dealing slaughterhouses.

But then everyone else is crazy-dangerous in their respective spheres as well. A mounted Lancer at 7th can do some insane mounted carnage. The Lancer is still good on foot too, just not as good as a Soldier.

tenbones · November 04, 2015, 11:11:25 AM

Quote from: Christopher Brady;862987I'm going to cut this off right there: the Fighter SHOULD have been Badass at 6+ levels. The issue is that everyone seemed think that every single guardsman, bandit, mook with a sword was a Fighter of some variant.

Very much this. When I have new players, I keep with the classic notion of what a Fighter represents. They're not JUST a guy with sword/armor. They're a medieval Navy Seal. They're good with all weapons and armor. They are highly trained and dangerous. BEING a Fighter implies a lot about that person beyond just a guy with a sword.

tenbones · November 04, 2015, 11:14:37 AM

Quote from: Orphan81;863006Savage Worlds is a game that was created entirely around the concept of Feats and how they help customize a character...

Only Savage Worlds gives the option of taking a new Feat (Called "Edges" in their system) every level in lieu of Skill Points..It's an either or thing as you level up... You either get more competent in your skills, or open up new options in combat (and outside as well)

Examples: "Marksman" gives you a bonus with ranged attacks when you don't move in a round. "Improved First Strike" allows you to make a melee attack against any opponent who comes with range.."Clear Headed" allows you to take the best of two Initiative Totals every round, while "Fleet of Foot" increases your movement speed..

The system is a lot of fun, and very quick and easy. While you do get some synergy from Edges very rarely do you get stacking bonuses...it's more "This particular Edge is very awesome when paired with this other Edge".

I think Feat style systems can work and can be very cool, it's just all about execution.

I'm currently having a torrid affair with Savage Worlds. Despite the meta-mechanics, I find I can bend the system with very little effort into my style of gritty. The Edges are generally well done, there's FAR less moving parts than Fantasy Craft and I seem to get the same "Ooo"-factor.

Not sure if this is just a fling... but my Savage Worlds collection is growing weekly... Oh Deadlands... I just can't quit you.

Bloody Stupid Johnson · November 05, 2015, 12:05:29 AM

Quote from: tenbones;863030I think it's a good point. But having run it, I can tell you that Soldiers are, pound for pound the straight-up badasses of melee combat. This is not to say Lancers, Scouts, and Experts can't go toe-to-toe, they have advantages in their respective areas of specialty. Soldier's advantages are that they tend to have higher HP (Vitality) and AC (Defense) and most importantly - they tend to be more heavily armored (DR). That bit of attrition plus their offensive force makes it very difficult to fight them at their own game. It's possible, but just unlikely. By 7th+ Soldiers are death-dealing slaughterhouses.

I read this as meaning that actually class features are doing some of the heavy lifting, perhaps more than you'd expect but that's fine...
I understand FC actually snipped the casters a bit as well, which likewise is fair enough (e.g. IIRC they actually need to spend some of their feats to get better at spellcasting, instead of that being built in.