Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pauln6 08-10-07, 04:27 AM	In a relatively low magic campaign, what are people's thoughts on allowing characters to take a feat every other level?
DM Zoc 08-10-07, 04:56 AM	Yeah, there was actually a suggestion on the website to do this for low-magic campaigns.
skywyze 08-10-07, 04:56 AM	I've always wanted to do this. The more books WotC releases, the more feats we get to choose from, and the more feats will seem "necessary." As such, the demand for - and value of - feats increases dramatically.
Dalthbar 08-10-07, 06:58 AM	If you do this, you better offer a lot of the splat books because fighters can "run out of" good choices pending their build.
pauln6 08-10-07, 07:30 AM	Luckily nobody in our group has more than 2 levels of fighter... yet. I don't think it will be a problem for our group but I agree, we only have PHBII and at the very least, you'd need complete.. warrior is it now?
Amaril 08-10-07, 08:49 AM	I've considered a houserule of 1 feat per HD. I speculate that this will allow players to create the characters they truly want to play as well as open the door to taking some of the less combat oriented feats for the sake of rounding out the character. It helps to beef up the NPCs a bit, too. This also helps with those odd dead levels in some classes. Truthfully, I'm not sure why d20 didn't set it up that way to begin with.
Dalthbar 08-10-07, 09:20 AM	Truthfully, I'm not sure why d20 didn't set it up that way to begin with. Probably because over an adventuring career, if you're working only with core materials, then all players tend to accumulate all of the respective feat paths that they can. As it stands, it's a "I want to build a whirlwind attack fighter" or "I want to build a power attacking/cleaving fighter", etc. By allowing a feat per HD, plus feats granted at class levels, some classes will tend to converge, versus diverge at higher levels. And when you add in splat books, there's some super crazy builds that you can put together just because you have so many more feats to play with - combinations that were never intended due to the limitations on the number of feats people receive.
CrazyOzzy 08-10-07, 09:37 AM	I agree with Dalthbar to a certain extent. I believe 1 feat per HD is too much and also the Fighter becomes a less attractive option. It is also possible for optimizers to create things too powerful. 1 Feat every 2 levels is what I will be doing from now on and not in low magic campaigns. With all splat books and various material I agree that characters need more feats. You just feel that you can't do anything with 7 feats from level 1 to 20. I will also give out Feats as rewards and allow Flaws.
Dalthbar 08-10-07, 09:39 AM	The important thing to realize when we do this is that over time, we're changing a character's CR at any given level. Feats tend to be powerful, especially the ones that you start to accumulate after level 3 or so. So a level 15 fighter that's been gaining "a lot more feats than normal" is going to be a lot more potent if the player has made wise decisions. DMs need to make sure they're taking these things into account when designing encounters and rewarding XP.
RobbyPants 08-10-07, 09:43 AM	This is a nice idea for a low magic campaign. I'd suggest not allowing VoP in a low magic game though ;) If you do it right (allowcate out the right amout of magical items), you might not need to adjust the CR system at all. One question to the OP: how are you handling magical item creation? If there are no limits on it, the PCs might create a disproportionately large amount of items. One suggestion if you want to allow but limit item creation: increace the XP cost for creating items. Perhaps it's steeper for permanant items. One example (you could tweak the nubmers): Expendable, one-use itmes: no change Multiple use/charged items: x2 XP cost Permanent items: x4 or maybe x5 XP cost The only reason I bring this up is with all the extra feats, you might not want your casters blowing them on item creation feats and exploiting your low magic game. :)
Amaril 08-10-07, 09:44 AM	The important thing to realize when we do this is that over time, we're changing a character's CR at any given level. Feats tend to be powerful, especially the ones that you start to accumulate after level 3 or so. So a level 15 fighter that's been gaining "a lot more feats than normal" is going to be a lot more potent if the player has made wise decisions. DMs need to make sure they're taking these things into account when designing encounters and rewarding XP. Keep in mind that the more frequent feat acquisition would also apply to NPCs and monsters, so CR isn't much of an issue.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 09:49 AM	You could go the Saga route, that in addition to the normal feats characters get every 3 levels; every class would gain a bonus feat from a select list every 2 levels.
Amaril 08-10-07, 09:54 AM	You could go the Saga route, that in addition to the normal feats characters get every 3 levels; every class would gain a bonus feat from a select list every 2 levels. Yeah, but creating those lists is a PITA. :P Besides, I think allowing to pick any feat grants more flexibility in customization. As a side note, I can understand the concern about optimizers, but I typically don't allow that type of play in my game. I can see why it's not a standard rule rather than a house rule. I think after this current adventure, I might allow my PCs to take an additional feat per HD just to see what happens. I'll be applying the same rule to monsters and NPCs.
Watsyurname529 08-10-07, 09:57 AM	I allow a feat every other level and we play in Eberron and its high-magic. We don't have any problems, but maybe that's also because none of them are powergamers. But we use nearly all the Complete Series, RoW, and PHBII. So there are so many feats to choose from it helps to have more feats. And you only get 10 Feats instead of 7 in the course of 20 levels.
tarkin 08-10-07, 11:40 AM	I have an idea. Why don't we give everyone Sneak Attack! Yeah. I really like Sneak Attack, EVERYONE should Sneak attack. What you dislike giving every class the Rogue's signature ability? But feel fine giving every class the FIGHTER'S signature ability? You want Sneak Attack, play a Rogue or similar character. You want lots of feats? Play a Fighter.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 11:43 AM	I have an idea. Why don't we give everyone Sneak Attack! Sneak attack is not a feat…
Amaril 08-10-07, 12:32 PM	But feel fine giving every class the FIGHTER'S signature ability? You want lots of feats? Play a Fighter.Fighters still get their bonus feats. What's the problem?
Spikes01k 08-10-07, 12:33 PM	Its a fighter feat, UA. And only costs 14000 as a migic item (Heroics Spell; SC)
Roog 08-10-07, 12:35 PM	Sounds like a reasonable idea, although without knowing what you mean by low magic its hard to tell whats reasonable. @tarkin I have an idea... I have an idea - read the first post In a relatively low magic campaign, what are people's thoughts on allowing characters to take a feat every other level? (emphasis mine) I.e. How about taking away some stuff from the PCs (magic items etc), and giving them something in exchange (feats). The suggested system will give PCs an average of one extra feat every six levels. If you compare it to SA in power level thats equivalent to 1d6 SA every six levels - helpful but not game breaking. If you want to compare it to something with a reasonable level of flexibility, skills per level range from 2+ to 8+, so 1/3rd of that progression would give the PCs 2 extra skills a level. Maybe you will feel that this is the most idiotic idea you have heard in the last 15 minutes and that it would mean that no-one would want to play a rogue.
mtbOgre 08-10-07, 12:35 PM	Sneak attack is not a feat… And you apparently missed the point entirely. The fighter is very likely the weakest class in the game and you want to give away it's signature feature to everyone. I agree with Tarkin, giving sneak attack is merely one of many class features of the Rogue, give everyone tons of feats then there is no reason at all to play a fighter. If you wanted to move the game towards balance you should limit the spellcasting classes to one feat every 5 levels. As for low magic campaigns, rather than add to the characters abilities in a way that breaks game balance why not just have them face lower CR encounters?
Amaril 08-10-07, 12:38 PM	Again, fighters still have bonus feats. Besides that, so what if no one plays a fighter. Why does anyone have to?
mtbOgre 08-10-07, 12:39 PM	Sounds like a reasonable idea, although without knowing what you mean by low magic its hard to tell whats reasonable. @tarkin I have an idea - read the first post Even in the light of the first post this entire concept is broken and unfair to the fighter class... And brings more power to the classes that need it LEAST in a 'low magic' campaign. I.e. How about taking away some stuff from the PCs (magic items etc), and giving them something in exchange (feats). How about you adjust the challenge rating of the monsters to suite the characters? Drop the CR, take away some of the special abilities of the monsters, Little or NO magic for NPCs.
mtbOgre 08-10-07, 12:40 PM	Again, fighters still have bonus feats. Have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? Besides that, so what if no one plays a fighter. Why does anyone have to? This doesn't even deserve an answer.
Amaril 08-10-07, 12:41 PM	why not? If the fighter is obsolete under these circumstances, so what if they aren't played.
mtbOgre 08-10-07, 12:44 PM	why not? If the fighter is obsolete under these circumstances, so what if they aren't played. Indeed and for all the people that want to play a fighter? In spite of the fact that it is a weak class it is also one of the most popular to play classes.
Roog 08-10-07, 12:45 PM	And you apparently missed the point entirely. The fighter is very likely the weakest class in the game and you want to give away it's signature feature to everyone. It's one extra feat every six levels.
Amaril 08-10-07, 12:49 PM	Indeed and for all the people that want to play a fighter? In spite of the fact that it is a weak class it is also one of the most popular to play classes. You're exaggerating the situation, first of all. The characters aren't just getting fighter bonus feats per se. They are getting feats to help them create characters that are more customized, such as skill enhancing feats, metamagic feats, and feats that are related to their class abilities. Secondly, they don't get access to fighter-only feats such as Weapon Specialization. Thirdly, fighters get to take even more combat-related feats that make them that much more powerful than they are now. Seriously, it's a hypothetical house rule. Quit dumping on other people's campaigns and go back to your own.
Kouk 08-10-07, 01:11 PM	Check out the Iron Heroes ruleset. It is based on low (pretty much no) magic for the PCs, and there are new classes which all get feats every 2 levels (in addition to some getting bonus feats). Characters are pretty much equal in power to D&D counterparts that have normal access to magic - as long as you choose monsters keeping in mind that the PCs have no magic. EDIT: The feats are actually a bit different, there are longer feat lines for everything. In the same way there is Weapon Focus in D&D, which goes up a few times (Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization etc.) about every feat has a line of advancement like that.
DeathByRodent 08-10-07, 01:23 PM	I like the idea of more feats, especially since I prefer characters to be more about what they can do, vs. their gear (so I do a bit more toward granting players things that improve their char vs items than what may be typical). This is also a way to help give a little to classes and races that could use a little help. I originally thought about giving feats every-other level, but the fighter-feat issues kept nagging at me. So instead, I provide "training opportunities", some of which only certain classes and/or races can qualify for and these occur part of plot/story and quest rewards. Sometimes its fixed, like a half-elf bard getting the opportunity to acquire elf weapon (longbow for example) proficiencies, and sometimes a little open, like a deity granting a paladin a bonus divine feat of choice, and sometimes its wide open to pick any feat (provided pre-requisites are met). I’ve got a few “crazy” ones just for fighters – such as if a fighter picks up some dex based feats (such as dodge, mobility…) and has some ranks in tumble, can get one or more feats in that tree for free later on.
Shaftiel 08-10-07, 01:27 PM	The game I'm running right now is 1 feat/2 levels, currently 13th level high power/high magic and it's working fine. The extra feats let those ppl who want to min-max do so a bit more and ppl who want to take non min-max flavor feats do so without as much "power penalty." mtbOgre, I hear what you're saying about shafting Fighters but at this point in 3.5 trying to balance new rules against Fighters is like trying to decide if a typing test is too hard by having your cat take it. -Shaftiel
mtbOgre 08-10-07, 01:28 PM	Seriously, it's a hypothetical house rule. Quit dumping on other people's campaigns and go back to your own. Last first, the original poster asked: In a relatively low magic campaign, what are people's thoughts on allowing characters to take a feat every other level? Which implies that he is considering whether or not this idea makes sense. It implies that he is interested in other peoples opinions about the idea not that he wants a bunch of yes men telling him it's a great thought. You're exaggerating the situation, first of all. The characters aren't just getting fighter bonus feats per se. They are getting feats to help them create characters that are more customized, such as skill enhancing feats, metamagic feats, and feats that are related to their class abilities. Secondly, they don't get access to fighter-only feats such as Weapon Specialization. Thirdly, fighters get to take even more combat-related feats that make them that much more powerful than they are now. Again, have you ever heard of the Law of Diminishing Returns? In a nutshell, each additional unit of X you have diminishes is worth less than the previous one. In other words, since a fighter already has an abundance of feats adding feats to a fighter will benefit the fighter less than it will benefit any other class. So to sum it up, you are taking the weakest class in the game and making it even weaker (relative to the other classes). If you want to nerf the fighter then that's fine. My comments are targeted at the original request for comments. I would submit that nerfing the fighter is bad for the game overall and even worse for a low magic campaign.
Jaxgaret 08-10-07, 01:29 PM	Ah, pro-Fighter posters complaining that this houserule 'steps on the Fighter's toes'. Boy did I see that coming. It's 3 extra feats over 20 levels, first of all. The Fighter gets 11 bonus Fighter feats over 20 levels. Hardly comparable. Secondly, the problem with the Fighter class has nothing to do with its bonus feats or the number of bonus feats it has. This has been gone over a million times before, please search through the boards if you haven't read the innumerable threads on this subject. Third of all, the Fighter gets these extra feats too! They get the same benefit as everyone else. To mtbogre's complaint about diminishing returns: prove it. Lastly, to those complaining that this "nerfs" the Fighter: the Fighter is already nerfed. It's called "WotC decided that Fighters don't get any nice things, ever". Although even that is eroding as more and more splatbooks give love to the Fighter class.
Amaril 08-10-07, 01:30 PM	I also think PHII has a ton of new feats specifically designed for fighters at higher levels which adds a lot to the versatility and customization of the fighter. A lot of those feats are pretty powerful, too.
Endarrion 08-10-07, 01:37 PM	Feats are not a class ability. Sneak Attack is a class ability. Spells, turning undead, raging, bardic music: those are class abilities. The fighter receives, effectively, no class abilities. The fighter is unoriginal and I have no idea what the designers were thinking when they created it. The fighter is the only class that can be completely replicated with one word: feats. [/rant] EDIT: And if anyone says, "Lolz. The wizard can be replicated with 'spells.' Duh." My head might explode. Ahem. Now, as to the OP, I don't really think that it would be a big problem to give feats every 2 levels. Still though, to help out the fighter, your group should probably consider some fighter fix or alternative (or axing the class altogether). If someone wants to play a fighter bad enough, then I'm sure the group can help them come up with a viable fix.
pauln6 08-10-07, 01:40 PM	And you apparently missed the point entirely. The fighter is very likely the weakest class in the game and you want to give away it's signature feature to everyone. Hmm well I was thinking that fighters would still benefit from some of those tactical feats that have really restrictive pre-requisites but are really powerful in the long run. What seems to make them weaker to me is that to achieve great things they have to confine themselves to one fighting style. I think more feats would change that nicely. You can always restrict some of the better feats to fighter only feats to give them an edge if you're worried about aother classes qualifying. As I say, it's not a major problem for us as our principal characters are: Fg2/Rog3/Wz5/ArTr4 Rng1/Brb8/Fg2/Hunter of Kord 1 (custom prestige class) Clc11 Rog8/Fg2 Rog2/Beg1/Shc4/Noct3 Although it might affect some characters from our email campaign (http://www.postnuke.elminster.com/index.php?name=Sections&req=listarticles&secid=5): Fg8 Fg9/Wz(Div)1 Rog2/Brd1/Drd/6/FocLy1 Rog1/Fg2/Clc7/WarPr2 Rog4/Fg4 Sct1/Fg8 Overall, I think all the players will be keen.
tarkin 08-10-07, 01:41 PM	People told me to read the first post. I did. It is not relevant. In fact, if anything it makes things WORSE. Making a campaign Low magic, means effectively that it is lower power level. There is less magic around, which should mean less magical creatures, and the various opponents will not have magic to use against you. That makes the feats that people get MORE valuable. Worse he gives them away to everyone, not even systematically to people affected by the low magicness of the game. If he wants to be logical, he could instead say something like "How about creating a low magic campaign by removing magical abilities and giving peopel free feats instead." Now THAT would make sense. He could for example rule that all spell casters gain a free feat of their choice once every 4 caster levels, but they do not increase spells known and spells castable that level. Similarly, any magical creature would have 1 out of every four abilities removed and replaced with a feat (or similar reduction) But just giving everyone feats? Bad idea.
Pechvarry 08-10-07, 01:42 PM	Getting feats every other level (particularly odd) makes me want to play Fighter more... We did this once in a somewhat low magic campaign. Was fine and dandy. And back to making fighters obsolete: it's very likely that wizards, sorcerers, bards, clerics, or druids could be (any of the above or all of them) banned for the setting. That does quite a bit to any notions of balance.
mtbOgre 08-10-07, 01:44 PM	mtbOgre, I hear what you're saying about shafting Fighters but at this point in 3.5 trying to balance new rules against Fighters is like trying to decide if a typing test is too hard by having your cat take it. First, nice avatar. I respect your perspective, and people can play however they like. But too many of my players enjoy playing fighters for me to do something that nerfs the class even more. Personally, I tend towards a medium magic campaign and we don't use a lot of splat books. To help the fighters out a bit I seed more combat focused magic items and class benefiting items (healing) which should give the fighter types and rogue types a bit of a boost. The clerics and M-Us benefit from these items as well but not as much as the fighters. It seems to be working to some degree so far.
mtbOgre 08-10-07, 02:05 PM	In a relatively low magic campaign, what are people's thoughts on allowing characters to take a feat every other level? Let me answer your question more directly. Whenever you deviate from the rules as written you are going to change game balance. While your fix seems to be an easy way to make up for the lack of magic items it benefits different classes to different degrees. If you are comfortable doing this then go for it. Just going with a low magic campaign seriously affects your parties power balance. For example a fighters ability to damage opponents at higher levels is seriously impacted if they don't have access to magic. The primary offensive capabilities of the spell casting classes is only marginally impacted if you remove magic items. The irony here is that by going with a low magic campaign you are tilting the power balance in favor of the spell casting classes. Your proposal increases power to all classes and the impact of this change actually benefits spell casters more than fighters. As for the rest... I think this statement pretty much sums up the other side of the argument: Lastly, to those complaining that this "nerfs" the Fighter: the Fighter is already nerfed. It's called "WotC decided that Fighters don't get any nice things, ever". So ask yourself, how much sense does it make when the house rule in your campaign nerfs the fighter.
mtbOgre 08-10-07, 02:15 PM	Ah, pro-Fighter posters complaining that this houserule 'steps on the Fighter's toes'. Boy did I see that coming. Umm... I have never played a straight fighter and never will. I am not a 'pro-fighter' poster in any way shape or form. I am a pro "balanced game' poster. Third of all, the Fighter gets these extra feats too! They get the same benefit as everyone else. To mtbogre's complaint about diminishing returns: prove it. First, you are the one pushing to change the RAW not me. Seems to me if any "Proof" is required the burden of proof is on your shoulders. The law of diminishing returns is well established economic theory. If you don't understand it then your ignorance is not my problem. I suggest you Google it for some basics but to really understand it you should probably take a class in basic economics. It's way beyond what I can 'prove' to you on a forum. Lastly, to those complaining that this "nerfs" the Fighter: the Fighter is already nerfed. It's called "WotC decided that Fighters don't get any nice things, ever". Although even that is eroding as more and more splatbooks give love to the Fighter class. So the argument seems to be "The fighter sucks so who cares if we nerf it even more". If you want to play that way then more power to you. But when someone asks about a change in the RAW that upsets game balance I'm going to point it out. It seems to me that you agree with me then on the effect, just that you don't care how that effect changes the game.
Roog 08-10-07, 02:32 PM	Making a campaign Low magic, means effectively that it is lower power level. There is less magic around, which should mean less magical creatures, and the various opponents will not have magic to use against you. That makes the feats that people get MORE valuable. Worse he gives them away to everyone, not even systematically to people affected by the low magicness of the game. How are non magical characters effected by a low-magic game? - Less magical gear - Less support/buffs from magic users (but the other players will still be doing something else useful) - NPC Opponents in the same position - Monster opponents may be different, but without further description... Giving extra feats is an obvious idea, as it replaces special stuff with special stuff. At the suggested rate (1/6 levels), will it make feats less valuable? Only if the character has few feats that they still want. A fighter currently gets 18 feats and without a range of source book already suffers from a relatively small feat pool compared to their 18 feats. I suspect that 4 extra feats wont change that situation much. For a Rogue/Bard/Barbarian etc the suggestion doubles their feats from 4 to 8, which is a very significant change. How big is the pool of feats they want? Personally I'm not sure what classes this would encourage me to play. I probably would be less likely to multiclass into Fighter to qualify for a prestige class, but I might still do it for feats I particularly wanted. If he wants to be logical, he could instead say something like "How about creating a low magic campaign by removing magical abilities and giving peopel free feats instead." It's difficult to comment about the effects on magical characters without knowing what "low magic" means for their abilities. For example, if no full casters are allowed, then full casters are not disadvantaged - just not played.
pauln6 08-10-07, 02:34 PM	I think 3.5 mitigates against low magic somewhat since cold iron, adamantite, and silver can affect certain damage resistances. (Oil of) Bless Weapon & Magic Weapon spells will help fighter types since no smart wizard is going to want to enchant their own weapon to take on some fell beast themselves. Oerthblood items have minor magical abilities that are quite nice. Power Attack with a two-handed weapon can often inflict harm on damage resistant creatures by sheer weight of numbers. Allowing characters to use an equivalent of Tatto Magic/Rune Magic on themselves or weapons can give one hit magical abilities in an emergency. I think perhaps my campaign might qualify as low-to-mid magic, since everybody has one or two magical weapons, magical armour of some kind, and about 2-3 other permanent magical items. Over 17 years of play, it's unavoidable for them to have accumulated some permanent items. I'm also DMing Age of Worms and it's a real chore to pare down the items owned by the npcs while making sure they can still be decent villains. Giving them extra feats will help them as much as the players. What I hope it will do for the players is help produce characters with more, well, character, and increased versatility. Since I wont be able to assess how it affects the fighters until we playtest them on the email campaign I think I will let the genie out of the box. I can always give the fighters some magical items to beef them up if they seem to be suffering.
Thane26425 08-10-07, 03:41 PM	I agree with Dalthbar to a certain extent. I believe 1 feat per HD is too much and also the Fighter becomes a less attractive option. It is also possible for optimizers to create things too powerful. 1 Feat every 2 levels is what I will be doing from now on and not in low magic campaigns. With all splat books and various material I agree that characters need more feats. You just feel that you can't do anything with 7 feats from level 1 to 20. I will also give out Feats as rewards and allow Flaws. Mind giving a little detail on how you handle feats are rewards?
pauln6 08-10-07, 03:56 PM	One every other level give players 4 extra feats at level 20. One every level gives them 13 extra feats. It seems obvious to me that this method takes the issue too far. However, I do allow magical items to have feats added to them too. The Belt of Brawling gives a pc the Unarmed combat feat with +2 attack roll. Boots of Battle gives a pc the Unarmed combat & two weapon fighting feats(boots only) plus monk damage (1d6). The Juggernaut's Helm gives +4 vs Enchantment (mind affecting) spells. The Armband of Fimbrall Maximizes any Healing spell 3/day and so on.
Mulkr 08-10-07, 05:15 PM	To the OP: Great idea. even outside of a low-magic campaign, this is a great idea. after all, with 4 feats, u need bonus feats just to get whirlwind attack. and with this, ppl can have it by lvl 10, no matter wat race or class u are. u can also afford to put feats into stuff that migh not benifit u now, but will in the longrun. this'll make fighters and barbarians bigger powerhouses, monsters more like the unstopable creatures that only a seasoned adventurer can beat. its kinda sad that even at low levels, classic monsters like goblins cant even beat some of the stronger npc classes, and sometimes even be killed one shot with a dagger or sickle. i am so using this for my next campaing. thx.:P
TiwazTyrsfist 08-10-07, 06:47 PM	why not? If the fighter is obsolete under normal circumstances, so what if they aren't played. :D :P
WorldsLargestDungionFan 08-10-07, 07:00 PM	I've considered a houserule of 1 feat per HD. I speculate that this will allow players to create the characters they truly want to play as well as open the door to taking some of the less combat oriented feats for the sake of rounding out the character. It helps to beef up the NPCs a bit, too. This also helps with those odd dead levels in some classes. Truthfully, I'm not sure why d20 didn't set it up that way to begin with. The Problem with this is your houserule kinda Nuils Fighters, And for thouse who beleve fighters arnt worthwhile, think again, Theres been plunty of treads supporting the fact that fighters are indeed worthwhile Not only that but your houserule allso Nuils Humans, Humans start off with more Feats then there HD (1) at level 1 they have at least 2 feats, And with other things out there (Class's Flaws 0 LA Template) Your destroying the use of These templates and other class's, In short Bad houserule in my option, But its your houserule so dont let me stand in the way
WorldsLargestDungionFan 08-10-07, 07:07 PM	Originally Posted by Amaril why not? If the fighter is obsolete under normal circumstances, so what if they aren't played. The fighter is not obsolete under normol circumstances, Its been proven under multibol treads that what you just said is false, but hey its your point of view Anyways the Houserule you give I Can find alot of bad sides to it, Some class's out there (Besides fighter) Allows the player to have more "Feats" then there HD Not only that but what about Class's that gives the player free feats allready? For Example the Ranger, He gets Track and two weapon fighting for free or If you pick the Bow Path you get some feats on that line anyways, What about the Exalted Template? That gives a bonus feat just like the Fighter path, Should that be baned as well? I Beleve this houserule has alot of work to be done, it might be good for your players but I dont see many people I know (In RL and on these boards) taking that houserule for many reasons But again its allways up to the players and there DM On what they beleve or do, Even if its not correct or under normol ruleing
WorldsLargestDungionFan 08-10-07, 07:17 PM	Last first, the original poster asked: Which implies that he is considering whether or not this idea makes sense. It implies that he is interested in other peoples opinions about the idea not that he wants a bunch of yes men telling him it's a great thought. Again, have you ever heard of the Law of Diminishing Returns? In a nutshell, each additional unit of X you have diminishes is worth less than the previous one. In other words, since a fighter already has an abundance of feats adding feats to a fighter will benefit the fighter less than it will benefit any other class. So to sum it up, you are taking the weakest class in the game and making it even weaker (relative to the other classes). If you want to nerf the fighter then that's fine. My comments are targeted at the original request for comments. I would submit that nerfing the fighter is bad for the game overall and even worse for a low magic campaign. I agree with many options, However I disagree with the fact that the Fighter is the weekest class, In most of the games I see player say Bard is the weekest, or the Rouge, Its not that they dont know how to play them, But becouse they know how to do so much better things with other class's (Includeing the fighter) Recently Ive been hearing more and more of the Dwarf Fighter thife skills, And I have to agree with that, The Dwarf fighter in the example is a perfect example of how to replace many of the Thife skills/class abilitys, the only one it didnt beat was the SA, But there are so many ways on how to ignore SA that its not funny, Not only that but the Dwarf fighter did more damage on adverage then the Thife did with SA But its your point of view, I beleve the usefulness on any class is how people use that Class, In my games I play in, Players hate the Wizard/Scor/Druid/Bard/Rouge class, becouse they seem to keep dieing or are just replaced by a cleric or a fighter or a warblade or something eles, In fact in my games all Arcane casters are considerd pointless, the only one that is not considerd pointless is the Psi (We Consider him an Arcane caster becouse he has alot of the same spells to a point of view as the wizard) I Say its largely dependant on the Game, Way you use the class or view it, and the way the DM Plays However I Allready said some examples on why I beleve that characters should only have a Max Feats per HD they have
WorldsLargestDungionFan 08-10-07, 07:28 PM	Acording to the house rule where you cant get more Feats per HD, and increaseing the feat output of the other class, Im going to list some Class's/Race's that are shouldnt excist in your game, becouse for one reason or another they break your houserule Short List (I Could make longer): Human Monk Fighter Exalted Template Rouge Ranger Psi Psi Warrior HellBorn Template I Could make the list much larger, However I beleve you can see my point, I'll example to you how each one of the people I Just put above Breaks your Houserule in some way or another and thus shouldnt be allowed in your games Human - Bonus feat at first level, Which means HD +1 For Feats at level 1, Breaks the house rule where you cant have more feats then your HD Rouge - Bonus Feats and Class Feature Feats, Depending on the Level of your player Characters, you can get more Feats or Effectively feats (Feats you get for free being the class) Ranger - Again depending on the level and eveything you could result in having more feats then your HD Psi - Bonus first level feat I Beleve, Wait thats first level so HD +1 For feat Psi Warrior - Depending on the "Level" And eveything again you can get more feats on HD Fighter - Bonus feat as a class feature, If you dont ban the Ranger or Rouge becouse "There feats are class features" Then news flash, the fighters bonus feats is his class feature, And besides a Human Fighter at level 20 (Nothing special) Has I beleve 18 feats? That means HD -2, ! You shouldnt change the fighter at all now! in fact give him the same bonus eveyone eles is getting now Exalted Template - A character can get this (None Human) At level 3 if not sooner, They just got alot of nice Bonus Feats as there class/race feature, but that would mean that they have more Feats Per HD Well, This template should be baned then, HellBorn Template - Depending on how soon or late you get this feat (Along with other things) You could end up with more Feats then HD Monk - Bonus first level feat 2nd level feat so on so forth, Well at level one he allready has HD +1 For feats, Monk should be baned as well
WorldsLargestDungionFan 08-10-07, 07:37 PM	Ah, pro-Fighter posters complaining that this houserule 'steps on the Fighter's toes'. Boy did I see that coming. It's 3 extra feats over 20 levels, first of all. The Fighter gets 11 bonus Fighter feats over 20 levels. Hardly comparable. Secondly, the problem with the Fighter class has nothing to do with its bonus feats or the number of bonus feats it has. This has been gone over a million times before, please search through the boards if you haven't read the innumerable threads on this subject. Third of all, the Fighter gets these extra feats too! They get the same benefit as everyone else. To mtbogre's complaint about diminishing returns: prove it. Lastly, to those complaining that this "nerfs" the Fighter: the Fighter is already nerfed. It's called "WotC decided that Fighters don't get any nice things, ever". Although even that is eroding as more and more splatbooks give love to the Fighter class. Ive gone over alot of treads, At first I see people complaining that the Fighter is to week, Then I See some people come along and go, No Wait, thats not right, And prove that the fighter isnt to week, Sure its not "PunPun" But If your compareing eveything to punpun then the strongest class should be the Bard considering its the clousest thing that can beat punpun (Give Infinate Ability score to the Bard and have him make a skill check, his Ranks beat PunPun and he can use his class feature now) Im sorry so the fighter NEVER gets any nice things ever? That means Improve Toughness isnt nice? Or two weapon fighting? OR Ride by attack? Or how about the ability to take 10 on attacking? The ability to basicly Ignore Grapples? Clouse Quarters Fighting? Are you saying these feats are not Good what so ever? now Be careful about your answer, The Fighter bonus feat dosnt have to be "Weapon Focus" they can pick a nice list of other things just like Two Weapon fighting, So If your answer is the same, that fighters dont get anything nice ever, Then that would make that small list of feats (Along with other feats) Worthless correct? If thouse feats are not worthless then im sure the Fighter gets some nice things now yes? Come on, the player gets to pick the things he wants, Lets not have you pick feats for the fighter then start argueing over your own Creation
Jaxgaret 08-10-07, 08:31 PM	So ask yourself, how much sense does it make when the house rule in your campaign nerfs the fighter. It's not my houserule. Umm... I have never played a straight fighter and never will. I am not a 'pro-fighter' poster in any way shape or form. I am a pro "balanced game' poster. The game is not balanced. Balance your Fighter in some other way. Don't just malign a houserule that really doesn't unbalance the Fighter any more than it already is. First, you are the one pushing to change the RAW not me. Seems to me if any "Proof" is required the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Again, I am not personally pushing to change the RAW, as it is not my houserule. The law of diminishing returns is well established economic theory. If you don't understand it then your ignorance is not my problem. I suggest you Google it for some basics but to really understand it you should probably take a class in basic economics. It's way beyond what I can 'prove' to you on a forum. I suggest you go back and take a look at what the Law of Diminishing Returns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_diminishing_returns) actually means, my pompous friend. Feats stack upon each other in terms of power; adding more feats does not mean that each additional feat is less useful to the character. There IS some point at which there will be diminishing returns, but it is your burden of proof to say that it begins right here, at the transition from 7 feats to 10 feats over 20 levels. So the argument seems to be "The fighter sucks so who cares if we nerf it even more". If you want to play that way then more power to you. But when someone asks about a change in the RAW that upsets game balance I'm going to point it out. It seems to me that you agree with me then on the effect, just that you don't care how that effect changes the game. The Fighter needs balancing of its own which has nothing to do with this houserule. If you truly want balance amongst all the classes, it will provide minimal additional work to balance all the classes in a campaign that uses this houserule when compared to the mountain of balancing you will need to accomplish just to balance all the classes in a core-rules campaign. My responses in bold.
Jaxgaret 08-10-07, 08:39 PM	Ive gone over alot of treads, At first I see people complaining that the Fighter is to week, Then I See some people come along and go, No Wait, thats not right, And prove that the fighter isnt to week I've yet to see a thread that proves that the Fighter is not appreciably weaker than most other classes. These 'proofs' you speak of are usually smokescreens, using fuzzy logic or faulty comparisons to confuse the issue, which is fairly clear: Fighters are/were broken, and not in a good way. However, Fighters have gotten a lot of attention in recent splatbooks, and are definitely edging towards mediocrity, but only with full access to all splatbooks. In Core-only or with limited access to splatbooks, they are not up to par.
mtbOgre 08-11-07, 03:11 AM	It's not my houserule. Umm... whatever. It is a houserule which I feel moves the game even further away from a balance of power in the character races. You are apparently defending this change. Whether it's 'your' rule or not, it is one you are currently advocating. The game is not balanced. Balance your Fighter in some other way. Don't just malign a houserule that really doesn't unbalance the Fighter any more than it already is. So... Something is slightly broken so what the heck lets add some rules that skew things even further. Again you have this ridiculous idea that I need to prove something. I'm not suggesting any change. You are defending a house rule which is counter to the RAW. If you want some concocted proof then you figure out how to prove the relative values of feats. I will offer you this simple proof that Diminishing returns applies to feats in D&D. You have a character with 100 feats. Do you think the 50th feat is as important to your character as his 10th feat? You really don't even need to go that high, what about 50 feats? I'm certain that 30th feat is worth more than the 50th but it's certainly not as valuable as the 10th. Look at the other side of the spectrum now. Take away everyone's regular feats. Now the only class with feats is the fighter. Suddenly every feat is a huge deal and very important. -- Dennis
Jaxgaret 08-11-07, 03:53 AM	Umm... whatever. It is a houserule which I feel moves the game even further away from a balance of power in the character races. You are apparently defending this change. Whether it's 'your' rule or not, it is one you are currently advocating. I was not advocating this particular houserule. Go back and read my original post if need be. I was commenting on the ridiculous lengths to which pro-Fighter posters will go on these boards, and on completely unrelated non-Fighter-focused threads such as this one, no less. So... Something is slightly broken so what the heck lets add some rules that skew things even further. It is your contention that these additional rules skew things even further, so the burden of proof (as you so like to bring up) is upon you to prove that this houserule favors everyone else over Fighters. Again you have this ridiculous idea that I need to prove something. I'm not suggesting any change. You are defending a house rule which is counter to the RAW. If you want some concocted proof then you figure out how to prove the relative values of feats. I will offer you this simple proof that Diminishing returns applies to feats in D&D. Again, I am not advocating this houserule. You are attacking a houserule with no proof of your own, which I do not approve of. Diminishing returns applies to innumerable systems in broad categories, so no argument there. It does indeed apply to feats in D&D, but that proves nothing in and of itself. You have a character with 100 feats. Do you think the 50th feat is as important to your character as his 10th feat? You really don't even need to go that high, what about 50 feats? I'm certain that 30th feat is worth more than the 50th but it's certainly not as valuable as the 10th. You are absolutely certain that the 30th feat that a character takes is not as valuable as the 10th, I see. What about the 11th? Is that as valuable as the 10th? It is my contention that it is possible that the 11th feat may actually be more valuable than the 10th, because many feats work synergistically with other feats and with class abilities, so that that 11th feat may benefit the character more than the 10th feat. And so it goes, with the 12th vs. 11th, 13th vs. 12th, 14th vs. 13th, ad infinitum... at what point is the next feat less valuable than the previous one? Do you know, absolutely and incontrovertibly, where the transition to diminishing returns is? I think not. Look at the other side of the spectrum now. Take away everyone's regular feats. Now the only class with feats is the fighter. Suddenly every feat is a huge deal and very important. Indeed. Feats are very important to any character, as a limited static resource. I see where you are coming from; it is possible that the Fighter's houseruled 19th, 20th, and 21st feats are not as valuable to it as Class X's houseruled 8th, 9th, and 10th feats. But it is also possible that they are equally or (less probably) more valuable to the Fighter. Note that 11 of the Fighter's feats are bonus Fighter feats with a limited selection; Fighters get the same 3 feats usable on any feat in the game - not just Fighter feats - that other characters get from this houserule. My responses in bold.
mtbOgre 08-11-07, 04:31 AM	My responses in bold. That is really annoying. I was not advocating this particular houserule. Go back and read my original post if need be. I was commenting on the ridiculous lengths to which pro-Fighter posters will go on these boards, and on completely unrelated non-Fighter-focused threads. It gets annoying. As I said I could give a damn less about fighters specifically. "Pro Fighter" does that mean you are "anti fighter"? What a ridiculous concept. Do you troll around from forum to forum jumping into any conversation where people talk about fighters to make sure your anti fighter perspective is represented? You are absolutely certain that the 30th feat that a character takes is not as valuable as the 10th, I see. What about the 11th? Is that as valuable as the 10th? You are simply wrong and do not understand the concept. I am absolutely certain that the first 10 feats are more valuable than 20-30. Take the other side of the equation. Take a fighter with 0 feats versus a fighter with 5. Everything else being equal the fighter with 0 feats has almost no chance to win against the fighter with 5. Even if the fighter choses a poorly optimized set of feats he will still own the zero feat fighter in a heartbeat. He will act first, hit 5-10% more often and if he's completed a feat chain the combat likely won't last 3 rounds. Compare a fighter with 10 feats versus 5. The fighter with 10 feats will win but the margin of victory is smaller and there is a small chance the 5 feat fighter will come out on top. Now take a fighter with 15 feats versus 10 (All other things equal). The outcome is much more dependent on chance. The 10 feat fighter has had a chance to complete one feat chain and possibly a second one. Are all feats and feat chains equal? No, you take the best first. After the best feat chain is taken then next one is by definition second best. Many feats are redundant, and a lot of them are just plain useless. Some feats require high dex, some high int, not a lot of fighters with both high INT and DEX. Now take two otherwise identical fighters with 30 versus 25 feats. The gap here is likely negated by a poor initiative roll. Do you honestly think a fighter with 30 feats would pwn a fighter with 25 feats the way the 5 feat fighter would pwn the 0 feat one? Not a chance. Take the zero feet guy against the tripmaster and he will likely never even get a chance to enter melee range even if he wins initiative.
Disciple_of_Salsa 08-11-07, 04:34 AM	If you are gonna play feats every other level, don't allow fighters. They will just be out classed.
Jaxgaret 08-11-07, 04:59 AM	That is really annoying. How so? As I said I could give a damn less about fighters specifically. "Pro Fighter" does that mean you are "anti fighter"? What a ridiculous concept. Do you troll around from forum to forum jumping into any conversation where people talk about fighters to make sure your anti fighter perspective is represented? No, pro-Fighter posters troll around the boards and hop into discussions with pro-Fighter posts even if the thread has nothing to do with Fighters, such as this one. Thus my response. You are simply wrong and do not understand the concept. I ask you to please read up on what the Law of Diminishing Returns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns) actually says. You are patently wrong. I am absolutely certain that the first 10 feats are more valuable than 20-30. That was not my point. Is feat 10 more valuable than feat 9? Is feat 20 more valuable than feat 19? Take the other side of the equation. Take a fighter with 0 feats versus a fighter with 5. Everything else being equal the fighter with 0 feats has almost no chance to win against the fighter with 5. Even if the fighter choses a poorly optimized set of feats he will still own the zero feat fighter in a heartbeat. He will act first, hit 5-10% more often and if he's completed a feat chain the combat likely won't last 3 rounds. Compare a fighter with 10 feats versus 5. The fighter with 10 feats will win but the margin of victory is smaller and there is a small chance the 5 feat fighter will come out on top. Now take a fighter with 15 feats versus 10 (All other things equal). The outcome is much more dependent on chance. The 10 feat fighter has had a chance to complete one feat chain and possibly a second one. Are all feats and feat chains equal? No, you take the best first. After the best feat chain is taken then next one is by definition second best. Many feats are redundant, and a lot of them are just plain useless. Some feats require high dex, some high int, not a lot of fighters with both high INT and DEX. Now take two otherwise identical fighters with 30 versus 25 feats. The gap here is likely negated by a poor initiative roll. Do you honestly think a fighter with 30 feats would pwn a fighter with 25 feats the way the 5 feat fighter would pwn the 0 feat one? Not a chance. Take the zero feet guy against the tripmaster and he will likely never even get a chance to enter melee range even if he wins initiative. Again, you are referencing the Law of Diminishing Returns incorrectly. Perhaps you are referring to some other concept or theory, but even so, your point holds no water. My responses in bold.
pauln6 08-11-07, 07:12 AM	LOL - you guys crack me up - every debate on these forums seems to descend into a ***** fight. Chill. I've read all the posts with genuine interest but I still can't see that awarding 4 extra feats to all classes by level 20 will be unbalancing FOR MY CAMPAIGN (this is a house rule after all). At their current levels they will get an extra 2-3. 1. Theoretically, some classes could access more powerful feat builds at lower levels but none of my pcs would qualify to do that since they've already chosen their feats. 2. Most pcs were converted from 2e so their feats reflect their original background rather than power gaming. Because of the above, none of the builds are optimised and probably are weaker to start with. 3. Fighters may or may not be weaker on paper. A good DM can present unique challenges tailored to the players and their class or tailor magical items to redress any imbalance. If one player plays his fighter well and the other pcs play their classes poorly, a fighter could easily be the most powerful member of a group. It's all down to the individual even though some rules may help or hinder. 4. We don't really use the classes from the other rule books much. Generally, we're happy with core classes, the exception being my own pc who is a beguiler/shadowcaster build (and many think that shadowcasters are weaker than fighters btw - lol). She waso only built that way because they screwed up converting 2e shadow mages. 5. We all think monks suck. I'm going to go with feats every other level and thanks for all your insight. It was a very useful debate.
skywyze 08-11-07, 10:35 AM	Well said! ^_^ Honestly, if your players are using those horrible, broken builds off of the Optimization board, you have bigger problems than a few extra feats imo. Whether you're pun-pun at level 1 or at level 2 doesn't make much difference. The big problem is players wanting to be pun-pun in the first place.
mtbOgre 08-11-07, 10:53 AM	LOL - you guys crack me up - every debate on these forums seems to descend into a ***** fight. Chill. I've read all the posts with genuine interest but I still can't see that awarding 4 extra feats to all classes by level 20 will be unbalancing FOR MY CAMPAIGN (this is a house rule after all). At their current levels they will get an extra 2-3. 1. Theoretically, some classes could access more powerful feat builds at lower levels but none of my pcs would qualify to do that since they've already chosen their feats. If you want to run this way then more power to you. The point is the OP asked for comments on the idea as a solution to a problem. I was pointing out that it's not a good fix for the problem. Certainly you can 'fix' any imbalances a change like this makes by good DMing. But the same could be said for any change you make to the game. A change you make may or may not make sense to another group. 5. We all think monks suck. This goes without saying.
mtbOgre 08-11-07, 10:58 AM	Because it makes it a PITA to reply to. No, pro-Fighter posters troll around the boards and hop into discussions with pro-Fighter posts even if the thread has nothing to do with Fighters, such as this one. Thus my response. There are no "Pro Fighter" Posters on this board that I have seen. I have suggested that a rule change will affect fighters more than it will affect other classes that is all. Why you think this amounts to being "Pro Fighter" is beyond me. I ask you to please read up on what the Law of Diminishing Returns actually says. You are patently wrong. That was not my point. Is feat 10 more valuable than feat 9? Is feat 20 more valuable than feat 19? Pick a class. Take every feat in the game and rank the value of that feat relative to every other feat in the game, taking in to account the value that feat has as a pre requisite to other feats. Since no two feats are identical every feat will be either better or worse than any other feat. Taking this list of ranked feats you can only select the best feat ONCE . Once you have chosen the best feat your only choice is to pick a feat that is by definition, not as good. If you are choosing feats in the optimal fashion then by definition your 10th feat is NOT as good as your first feat. I will use an example closer to my heart. The BEST feat for a Druid build is by far Natural Spell. There is other Druid Feat which comes close. Is the next Druid feat I choose going to be as good as Natural Spell? No. The good ones go first. By the time I get to feat number 30 you have already chosen 29 better feats. You have already filled up the best feat trees. What's left is the leavings. This exercise can be repeated for every class and the result is the same. The most powerful feats (and feat trees) will be chosen first. Feat trees complicate the equation because the give the illusion that feat number 5 in the tree is more powerful but in fact feat number 5 in the tree is worthless without feat number 1 in the tree. Therefore... Feat number one in the tree is MORE valuable. Augment Summoning is an awesome feat is it a better feat than Spell Focus (Conjuration)? Absolutely not. Augment Summon which is worthless without SF(C). Note, to avoid offending you further I will no longer use fighters in any examples I make. Keep in mind though that this applies to all classes.
Mulkr 08-11-07, 11:19 AM	Since im using this rule for my campaign, i need to know something about a feat combination... with whirlwind attack, can i use my two weapon fighting, or is that not allowed like cleave?
Jaxgaret 08-11-07, 03:38 PM	Because it makes it a PITA to reply to. Ah, I see. You are right, of course, and I will refrain from that type of response in the future. There are no "Pro Fighter" Posters on this board that I have seen. I have suggested that a rule change will affect fighters more than it will affect other classes that is all. Why you think this amounts to being "Pro Fighter" is beyond me. I was not referring specifically to you only, mtbOgre. There were no less than three other posters who brought up Fighters-getting-shafted by this houserule before your entrance to this thread. Pick a class. Take every feat in the game and rank the value of that feat relative to every other feat in the game, taking in to account the value that feat has as a pre requisite to other feats. Since no two feats are identical every feat will be either better or worse than any other feat. Taking this list of ranked feats you can only select the best feat ONCE . Once you have chosen the best feat your only choice is to pick a feat that is by definition, not as good. If you are choosing feats in the optimal fashion then by definition your 10th feat is NOT as good as your first feat. I will use an example closer to my heart. The BEST feat for a Druid build is by far Natural Spell. There is other Druid Feat which comes close. Is the next Druid feat I choose going to be as good as Natural Spell? No. The good ones go first. By the time I get to feat number 30 you have already chosen 29 better feats. You have already filled up the best feat trees. What's left is the leavings. This exercise can be repeated for every class and the result is the same. The most powerful feats (and feat trees) will be chosen first. Feat trees complicate the equation because the give the illusion that feat number 5 in the tree is more powerful but in fact feat number 5 in the tree is worthless without feat number 1 in the tree. Therefore... Feat number one in the tree is MORE valuable. Augment Summoning is an awesome feat is it a better feat than Spell Focus (Conjuration)? Absolutely not. Augment Summon which is worthless without SF(C). Ah, but you see, why does there have to be a best feat? Let's take one of my characters as an example- he is a Marshal2/Fighter2/Crusader5 currently. His feat selection has been Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Force of Personality, Powerful Charge, and Leap Attack. Which of those feats is more valuable than the other feats? Can you quantify how much more or less valuable Force of Personality is than Leap Attack? Or Powerful Charge? Or Power Attack? Or any combination of two of those feats? There is such a huge selection of feats to select from, and yes, there is going to be a point of diminishing returns - but at what point exactly is the next feat selected by your character quantifiably less powerful than the previous one? That is my point. Note, to avoid offending you further I will no longer use fighters in any examples I make. Keep in mind though that this applies to all classes. Okay. LOL - you guys crack me up - every debate on these forums seems to descend into a ***** fight. Chill. I think that we are having a reasonable argument. You chill.
mtbOgre 08-12-07, 09:25 PM	Ah, but you see, why does there have to be a best feat? Ahh, but this is the easy part, maybe there isn't one "Best" feat. But can you name 20 feats which are all equal? Maybe you could say that 5 are 'equal' but beyond that... 20 feats which all equal to each other and superior to all others? No way. Can you even come up with 10 feats which meet this criteria? Take two of the feats from your example, Power attack and Improved Bull Rush. Power Attack is by far superior to Bull Rush. Why? Because Im Bull Rush Requires Power Attack, as do several other feats. Say Again? Take a typical feat tree. You typically have a root (maybe two) feat, then one or more branches and a capstone feat for each branch. The capstone feat for each branch is usually the coolest feat. So the obvious conclusion is that that is the coolest/ most valuable feat. This reasoning is flawed. Going back to my druid example, Augment Summoning is a great feat. Spell Focus (Conj) is almost worthless, so bad that even if you had 30 feats you probably wouldn't take it. Even though it's the most worthless druid feat it is the first feat I took on my druid build. I must be stoopid! Well no, it turns out that Augment Summoning requires Spell Focus (Conj) and that A.S. is so good it's worth taking SF(c). In fact A.S. adds so much value to SF(c) that it is worth taking before any other feat. Look at it another way, the abilities granted by the capstone feat do not belong just to the capstone feat, but equally to every feat which is required in order to get that ability. So SF(c) is actually worth a little more that AS because SF(c) is worth 1/2 of the abilities that AS grants PLUS the stupid +1 on Conjuration DCs. Which is better Power Attack or Improved Bull Rush? Power Attack by a long shot, not only does it grant the PA ability, it also grants 1/2 of Imp Bull Rush, plus is required by a ton of other feats.
Jaxgaret 08-12-07, 09:37 PM	Ah, but you see, why does there have to be a best feat? Let's take one of my characters as an example- he is a Marshal2/Fighter2/Crusader5 currently. His feat selection has been Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Force of Personality, Powerful Charge, and Leap Attack. Which of those feats is more valuable than the other feats? Can you quantify how much more or less valuable Force of Personality is than Leap Attack? Or Powerful Charge? Or Power Attack? Or any combination of two of those feats? There is such a huge selection of feats to select from, and yes, there is going to be a point of diminishing returns - but at what point exactly is the next feat selected by your character quantifiably less powerful than the previous one? That is my point. Ahh, but this is the easy part, maybe there isn't one "Best" feat. But can you name 20 feats which are all equal? Maybe you could say that 5 are 'equal' but beyond that... 20 feats which all equal to each other and superior to all others? No way. Can you even come up with 10 feats which meet this criteria? Take two of the feats from your example, Power attack and Improved Bull Rush. Power Attack is by far superior to Bull Rush. Why? Because Im Bull Rush Requires Power Attack, as do several other feats. Say Again? As you can see above, I did not include IBR in the list of feats to compare to each other - I only included the feats that compose the end of a feat tree, due to the fact that I am ceding you the point that feats the compose the base of feat trees are less valuable than the end products of feats trees (I don't necessarily agree with that, but for the sake of this argument let's pretend that I do agree and move on to more important points). I am almost certain that I can come up with 10 feats to match your criteria of being equally valuable - for any character build. On the topic of Fighters getting these houseruled bonus feats: 11 of their feats are Fighter-only feats. Yes, you can say that a Fighter has 18 feats (21 with the houserule) - but only 7 (or 10 with the houserule) of those feats are completely customizable. So it is a bit different with a Fighter, or another class that gets bonus feats (PsyWars, for example), but the feats are not all lumped together. Even so, it is possible to find 20 feats (or fewer feat trees) that could be considered equally valuable to a Fighter.
mtbOgre 08-13-07, 12:32 AM	As you can see above, I did not include IBR in the list of feats to compare to each other - I only included the feats that compose the end of a feat tree, due to the fact that I am ceding you the point that feats the compose the base of feat trees are less valuable than the end products of feats trees (I don't necessarily agree with that, but for the sake of this argument let's pretend that I do agree and move on to more important points). I guess I wasn't paying attention I just saw one list :( I am almost certain that I can come up with 10 feats to match your criteria of being equally valuable - for any character build. Take your build Marshal2/Fighter2/Crusader5 and what was the last feat you chose (I assume Leap Attack)? Now come up with 9 feats that are as good as Leap Attack for your character at this level. Why did you pick Leap Attack? If they are identical shouldn't you just be able to roll a die and have an equal outcome? How good would your character be if at every feat choice you listed out 10 'equal value' feats and just rolled a die to pick which one you used. If they are equal value then the resulting character should be just as powerful as one you purpose built.
Roog 08-13-07, 02:08 AM	Take your build Marshal2/Fighter2/Crusader5 and first, what feat do you plan on taking next and why. Then try and come up with 10 feats, none of which is any worse for your character than any other. Now look back at the first feat you chose, why do you prefer that one over the others? If they are identical shouldn't you just be able to roll a die and have an equal outcome? For a simpler test compare the value of the last feat chosen under the two different systems.
mtbOgre 08-13-07, 12:08 PM	For a simpler test compare the value of the last feat chosen under the two different systems. Hah... edit post is a nice board feature.
RobbyPants 08-13-07, 02:52 PM	I have an idea. Why don't we give everyone Sneak Attack! Yeah. I really like Sneak Attack, EVERYONE should Sneak attack. What you dislike giving every class the Rogue's signature ability? But feel fine giving every class the FIGHTER'S signature ability? You want Sneak Attack, play a Rogue or similar character. You want lots of feats? Play a Fighter. Extra feats aren't a fighter's ability. Bonus feats from a specific list are the fighter's ability. Yes, if you give out a feat every 2 levels instead of every 3, the fighter will get proportionatly less bonus feats compared to normal feats. So what? The rogue will also get proportionately less sneak attack compared to normal feats. The druid will get proportionately less wild shape used compared to normal feats. These things may all be true, but they mean nothing. You're comaring apples to oranges.
Vaelan 08-13-07, 05:50 PM	This is a terrible houserule. I'm not even going to get into the Fighter schtick. It is a bad rule because it fails to address the issue it was created to address. Four feats does not come anywhere near making up for even a small portion of magic items. +2 enhancement bonus? That's three feats right there. +2 to saving throws? Three feats. +5 to a skill? Two feats. These are all very inexpensive magic items that require a ridiculous number of feats to emulate. My responses in bold. Because it makes it much, much harder to quote you, not to mention actually read. Notice how what I'm saying makes very little sense to the casual observer?
pauln6 08-13-07, 06:30 PM	This is a terrible houserule. I'm not even going to get into the Fighter schtick. It is a bad rule because it fails to address the issue it was created to address. Four feats does not come anywhere near making up for even a small portion of magic items. You may be right but surely that cuts to the heart of the low magic campaign? It's unlikely that they will get those items and they are certainly not relatively cheap in my campaign. If you don't like the idea of a low magic campaign then obviously the increased feat idea is going to be unsatisfactory. Personally, I hate the way the standard game almost forces pcs to tank up with all those god-awful +2 to +6 items. It's so mechanical and devoid of flavour and every visit to Greyhawk city becomes a trip to the magic item supermarket to boost your principle stat some more. Yuck. Heroes of yore had one or two magic items, often either with charges or only temporarily. Even in my campaign the pcs are beginning to hoard a bit, and you can't blame them with so little magic about. They all have tailor-made magic armour (a suit of studded leather was a gift from Sturtevant, a mithril chain shirt from ancient elf ruins or a suit of unber hulk hide from a derro lair), 1-3 magical weapons (mostly gifts but a couple were found in dungeons), 1-2 rings each (well the arcane trickster has more than 2 because he keeps nicking them), 2-4 potions and 2-4 miscellaneous items, plus a few potions each, a few wands, and some spell scrolls. After 17 years, there is no way to prevent it but I don't want to give in completely. Obviously a lot of players want to stick to the standard rules because they want shed loads of magical stuff. It's understandable if you like that kind of 'Harry Potter' magic beng part of everyday life campaign. I just prefer a Conan the Barbarian flavour, where wizards are generally regarded with fear and I think that the extra feats will help to broaden the pcs without making magic more commonplace. I like the idea and they all seem keen. If it's a disaster, I'll be sure to let you know...
MerlintheTuna 08-13-07, 07:27 PM	It was mentioned before that this is a suggestion from one of the articles on the Wizards website. Here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20051216a) it is, just for reference. Personally, I'm a big fan of the variant, and I think the opposition here is approaching the issue from a strange issue -- that there must absolutely be fighters at every turn. All things considered, if no one in your party is going to play a Fighter, who gives half a crap? In that respect, it's obviously not the sort of change that you should fling in partway through a game, when someone already has 8 Fighter levels under his belt. But pre-character generation? Why on earth not? To say that it's bad for the Fighter is a half-truth; in reality, it's bad for a Fighter that does not yet exist. Maybe now a player will go with a Swashbuckler, Knight, Paladin, Cleric, Knight, Warblade, or Ranger instead. If he does, he's not likely to be upset that his class levels are no longer in "Fighter;" more likely he's happy because he's been given what he wants and has room to expand his character concept -- which is rather the point. In reality, no one is getting screwed here. For the record, I actually have done this before, to a generally enthusiastic response -- even by the guy who decided his Bard needed a few Fighter levels. (And for the record, I'd argue that this almost makes the Fighter class more attractive in some cases, as level 5 isn't a complete crapfest anymore.) The bottom line is that players like being able to customize their PCs. As with any house rule, I advise you to keep in mind that you're deliberately stepping away from what WotC defines as "Okay," and as a result you won't be able to take a lot of challenges at face value. As long as you accept that this will affect encounters -- and you do seem to recognize that -- I'd give you the green light here.
mtbOgre 08-14-07, 12:29 AM	Personally, I'm a big fan of the variant, and I think the opposition here is approaching the issue from a strange issue -- that there must absolutely be fighters at every turn. All things considered, if no one in your party is going to play a Fighter, who gives half a crap? It really doesn't matter because as Tarkin pointed out there is much more to it than just "It nukes fighters". The real point is that it ignores the issue at hand. What are the consequences of a low magic campaign? 1) Characters who are most dependent on magic become less powerful 2) Monsters with damage resistance become conceivably much harder to hit 3) Challenge Ratings for monsters are based on magic enhanced characters Adding feats addresses none of these issues. It takes the classes which are already powerful and makes them more powerful. It doesn't help them overcome DR 5/Magic at all, and the CR is still off whack. As for "If no one in your party is going to play a fighter..." First what if someone does want to play a fighter? It is after all one of the most popular classes, especially for new players. It is also one of the classes that makes the most sense thematically in a "Low Magic" campaign. Hey... what do I care if the fighter gets trashed, I always get stuck DMing.
Jaxgaret 08-14-07, 02:18 AM	For a simpler test compare the value of the last feat chosen under the two different systems. Yes, that is simpler - perhaps not fully accurate, but a good compromise to save time. Because it makes it much, much harder to quote you, not to mention actually read. Notice how what I'm saying makes very little sense to the casual observer? I already responded to mtbOgre's answer to my question above. I guess I wasn't paying attention I just saw one list :( Don't sweat it! Take your build Marshal2/Fighter2/Crusader5 and what was the last feat you chose (I assume Leap Attack)? Now come up with 9 feats that are as good as Leap Attack for your character at this level. Why did you pick Leap Attack? If they are identical shouldn't you just be able to roll a die and have an equal outcome? How good would your character be if at every feat choice you listed out 10 'equal value' feats and just rolled a die to pick which one you used. If they are equal value then the resulting character should be just as powerful as one you purpose built. Feats build upon one another and upon the character's class abilities and equipment; selecting random feats out of a list of "good feats" does not a good build make. Accordingly, building a character takes on the appearance of a tree - not only with individual feat trees, but with feats building off of class abilities, class abilities building off of feats, equipment augmenting class abilities and feats - etc. etc. Thus the selection of what feat to take is not always about a singular "best feat". Even in a sterile environment, such as building a level 10 character from scratch instead of playing that character to level 10, this still applies, due to the almost limitless combinations of feats, classes, and equipment that a character can choose. Above and beyond that, even if something appears to be "the best feat" when it is chosen, it may not turn out that way once the **** hits the fan. Random chance and the will of the gods will almost always interfere in an adventurer's life. There may perhaps be a "probably going to be, on average, the most useful feat that this character can take currently, and will continue to be the most beneficial for my character over the entire course of his/her adventuring career", but perhaps not. Perhaps something else would have been better - even if it did not seem so at the time. So, basically, the combination of innumerable variables and a large number of feats to select from combine to form the basis for my contention that the diminishing returns from feats occurs at a much higher number of total character feats, and not at the transition from 7-10, or even 7-10 + 11 Fighter feats.
Steely_Dan 08-14-07, 04:09 AM	And you apparently missed the point entirely. The fighter is very likely the weakest class in the game and you want to give away it's signature feature to everyone. Apparently not… The. Fighter. Still. Get. Their. Fighter. Bonus. Feats. In. Addition. To. The. Feat. Gained. Every. Other. Level. Sorry to speak like Kirk, but I just wanted to make this point clear as it seems several of us have pointed this out and you are not acknowledging.
Relic 08-14-07, 08:46 AM	It should probably be pointed out that the people who posted about already granting feats 1 per 2 levels have stated that "it works out just fine." I give fighters a bonus feat every level, plus some unique class abilities. I also give nearly all classes extra feats because: 1) feats are instrumental in designing and implementing a character concept, 2) My players like feats; I like feats, and 3) feats, overall, do not affect balance that much. Sure, there are a couple feats that give a boost in power but for the majority of feats they usually create options. If you feel that changing the feat progression to 1 per 2 is too much of a benefit, keep it at 1 per 3 but give a bonus feat every 5 levels from a limited list. Make the list full of non-combat orientated feats. Something like: Acrobatic, Agile, Agile Athlete, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Ascetic Hunter, Ascetic Knight, Ascetic Mage, Ascetic Rogue, Ascetic Stalker, Athletic, Augment Healing, Autonomous, brachiation, caravanner, caver, city slicker, closed mind, combat awareness, confident, etc, etc, etc... That way, they still can benefit from feats that help their character concept without sacrificing their normal "precious few" feats received at 1 per 3 levels.
kinjiru 08-14-07, 02:51 PM	Uh... if you are running a campaign, and you think the fighter class stinks, and you're going to house rule feats... why not house rule changes for the fighter class too? I don't see why the fighter issue has to preclude higher numbers of feats. Also, it's worth considering some of the variants for fighters that replace the bonus feats, too. All in all, this is something the DM should be handling with creativity, not slamming other's ideas on a forum about.
Vaelan 08-14-07, 04:54 PM	You may be right but surely that cuts to the heart of the low magic campaign? No. It certainly cuts to the heart of a low-power campaign, but low-magic is not necessarily low-power. Low-magic is where magic isn't just a bunch of boring trinkets you carry around to make you exceptional. I'm actually playing an extremely low-magic campaign right now. I made the effect of the loss of magic largely negligible by giving more ability score increases (3/5 levels at the moment, considering a less static system), increasing base save and attack bonuses, and giving an AC bonus based on class level rather than your amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, and enhancement bonus to AC. It is low-magic, but not low-power. Nothing has really changed other than the aesthetics of magic items. It's unlikely that they will get those items and they are certainly not relatively cheap in my campaign. But they are relatively common and practically assumed by the CR guidelines. If you wish to maintain the guidelines, that which you offer should be roughly equivalent to what magic items would do. If you don't like the idea of a low magic campaign then obviously the increased feat idea is going to be unsatisfactory. I don't dislike the idea, there is just a slight breakdown in communication. Personally, I hate the way the standard game almost forces pcs to tank up with all those god-awful +2 to +6 items. As do I. I want magic items to actually do things rather than letting you do normal things slightly more effectively and for magic items to be more rare. The only difference is that the changes I implemented to eliminate them are roughly equivalent to that which is lost to the players, thus saving a lot of trouble adjusting encounters.
Vaelan 08-14-07, 05:06 PM	Okay, apparently I am going to get into the Fighter nonsense like I said I wouldn't. The. Fighter. Still. Get. Their. Fighter. Bonus. Feats. In. Addition. To. The. Feat. Gained. Every. Other. Level. The problem is, feats become less valuable when you get more of them. To make a good Fighter, you have to specialize in a certain fighting style. You have to use the majority of your feats, both bonus and normal, to make the style better. Everyone does the same thing, but it is more important for Fighters. The fact is, there aren't that many feats that can apply to a given fighting style. In most Fighter builds, feats at levels 16 and higher tend to be throw-aways because they just aren't that relevant to the fighting style. In short, the Fighter, in most cases, already has too many feats and giving him more really isn't beneficial to the Fighter's primary method of contributing to the party. If you give everyone 10 feats, they get 10 feats they can apply to their contribution to the party. The Wizard gets a ton of metamagic, metamagic reducers, or whatever else he wants. The Cleric gets Divine feats. The other melee fighters get to match the Fighter's normal set of feats. They all get to choose feats that make them better at their primary role. The Fighter doesn't get to choose feats that make them better at their primary role because there simply aren't enough feats. They will end up choosing marginal or irrelevant feats early and often. The overall effect of the change is that everyone but the Fighter gets more feats to apply to their primary method of contributing to the group. It isn't exactly as bad as certain people's statements could lead one to believe, but it is still pretty bad.
Lucas Blackstone 08-14-07, 05:27 PM	I would only let classes who are not primary spell casters benefit from this rule in a low magic setting. My reasoning being that spell casters are already far more powerful then melee/secondary casters. To then on top of it give them equal footing with these feats would be silly. The spell casters can make their weapons magical, buff their stats, and haste themselves, turn invisible, blink, teleport, the list goes on and on. The fighter( and to a lesser extent, paladin and ranger) sit around twiddling their thumbs. So in my opinion the casters wouldn't deserve the bonus feats on top of the already ludicrous magic spells they would have, which in a low magic world would become even more powerful then before. Some of the ideas on these boards really make me wonder what kind of crazy munchkin games roll around out there. With just core books you can have amazingly powerful characters, and everyone seems to eat up splatbooks and home rules that seriously alter the power level of characters.
BigGus 08-14-07, 07:48 PM	The problem is, feats become less valuable when you get more of them. The Fighter doesn't get to choose feats that make them better at their primary role because there simply aren't enough feats. They will end up choosing marginal or irrelevant feats early and often. You're absolutely right, but I think the determining factor as to how this affects the Fighter is the number of splatbooks you're using. If you're just using the PHB feats, you could run out of useful feats before level 20. If, on the other hand, the Fighter has 300 feats on his bonus list, many of which are very powerful, the law of diminishing returns doesn't have any significant effect.
Steely_Dan 08-15-07, 06:15 AM	1.) The problem is, feats become less valuable when you get more of them. 2.) The Fighter doesn't get to choose feats that make them better at their primary role because there simply aren't enough feats. They will end up choosing marginal or irrelevant feats early and often. 1.) Feats are always welcome in my group. I've never heard someone say: "Oh, man, I don't want to choose another feat!" 2.) I think you are assuming a core only game (which is fine), but if you are using splat -books etc, the fighter can never have enough feats - there's too many (good ones).
Vaelan 08-15-07, 08:29 PM	I would only let classes who are not primary spell casters benefit from this rule in a low magic setting. Allowing primary spellcasters in a low-magic setting is... kinda counterproductive. You're absolutely right, but I think the determining factor as to how this affects the Fighter is the number of splatbooks you're using. If you're just using the PHB feats, you could run out of useful feats before level 20. If, on the other hand, the Fighter has 300 feats on his bonus list, many of which are very powerful, the law of diminishing returns doesn't have any significant effect. Definitely. I'm speaking from my experience in creating Fighter builds. I use nearly every book that has been released and there are only a few concepts that require so many feats. I usually end up filling it out to level 15 and wondering if I should work in some 5-level Prestige Class just for kicks. I think you are assuming a core only game (which is fine), but if you are using splat -books etc, the fighter can never have enough feats - there's too many (good ones). When I make a Fighter, you can be damn sure that I have feats from at least the PHB, PHB2, Complete Warrior, Tome of Battle, and two Faerun sourcebooks. I'm :censored:ing shameless. ;)
pauln6 08-16-07, 08:59 AM	Even in a low magic campaign characters accumulate a lot of magic items over 17 years. I wonder if requiring them to 'purchase' items with something similar to a feat would help reduce the number of items they can hold onto after adventures. Games like Heroquest and Mutants & Masterminds use similar methods to prevent pcs from hoarding the spoils of battle (i.e villains items). This might warrant a nw thread but what do people think of the idea. I ask because in a game with only one wizard, there are loads of items that only he can use. It means he is becoming a versatile power-monger and he is only a level 9 wizard.
OravennasBrother 08-16-07, 12:20 PM	In a relatively low magic campaign, what are people's thoughts on allowing characters to take a feat every other level? Sure - there's no longer official support for 3.X, so do whatever you like. You might need to bump up the rate of Fighters gaining feats and/or increase the power of Fighter only feats to even out relative to other classes.
pauln6 08-16-07, 01:58 PM	LOL! Well, quite. Mind you I still use loads of 1e and 2e books for background information. I wonder if I'll finally be able to do a proper 4.0 shadow mage build...
Samurai_Zero 08-17-07, 04:36 AM	The concept ive always thought of doing is not so much gaining more feats every so and so levels, but allowing the players to train for certain feats (such as a ranger trains for Manyshot) if its a different kind of feat that cant be trained by ones self (such as maybe a metamagic feat) one could seek a master and be trained. And if a person feels a feat they have is pointless they can choose to forget it and replace it with something "similar" (ex: A fighter who spends a day focusing can change his weapon focus from a sword to a mace). Each feat would take time to learn, and combat feats would take small minuses, and would progress if the person kept practicing. (a fighter practicing cleave would start out with a 5% chance to cleave his enemy, another day of focus would be 10%, the third would be 20%, 4th 40%, 5th 80%, and 6th would gain the feat.) Of course this idea is still under developement as to how many feats to allow, and if i should lengthen the training time or not.
imakuni67 08-17-07, 12:43 PM	What you might want to do if you have feats every other level is remove each ability gain every 4 levels and make feats that give you an inherent ability boost (since you can max out at 5). I think that would be fair.